MY SECOND ANN COULTER THREAD - EVOLUTION DISCUSSION (or Here We Go Again)

[7thson]

Ann Coulter states in her book on page 201 -

Darwin’s theory of evolution says life on Earth began with single-celled life forms, which evolved into multicelled life forms, which over countless aeons evolved into higher life forms, including man, all as the result of the chance process of random mutation followed by natural selection, without guidance or assistance from any intelligent entity like God of the Department of Agriculture. Which is to say, evolution I the eminently plausible theory that the human eye, the complete works of Shakespeare, and Ronal Reagan (among other things) all came into existence purely be accident.

On page 202, she states The “theory” of evolution is:

1. Random mutation of desirable attributes (highly implausible)

2. Natural selection weeding out the “less fit” animals (pointless tautology)

3. Leading to the creation of new species (no evidence after 150 years of looking)

My question – is she correct in her statements? Is that Darwin’s theory?

On the ligher side, check out the first paragraph on page 212. LOL Funny!

[SampleMan]

Go right ahead, you're perfectly in line with biologists on that one. But you go off the rails when you try to attack imaginary biologists which exist only in your own head -- you know, the ones you hallucinate think that "only" selection is at work in evolution.

First, I'm glad to hear that there are biologists as smart as I am. I thought most of them were just glorified lab techs. Second a lot of those hallucinations post here on FR. It is your assertion that if I am not a biologist, I have no right to discuss this. I'd like to know your certifications, so that I can make a list of subjects that you are unwelcome to discuss.

[muawiyah]

Quite humorless of you.

Here I am rolling on the floor (doing all that other stuff) absolutely entranced by the fact that you even had to explain the "Protocols....." to others here.

BTW, it's a forgery written by the Czarist secret police ~ and they may or may not have been anti-semitic. Still, antisemites keep popping up with it.

Ann has your left and right leg over there in her "pulled legs" box.

[King Prout]

as you gentlemen have *been* gentlemen, ping to #238 - more disassembly of Coulter, said sledgehammer surgery performed by one of the Big Dogs of the science wing (courtesy ping).

'nite.

[Stultis]

Hello Ann... Assuming the freeper handle "Ann Coulter" is the actual Ann Coulter...

Freeper Ichneumon has directly, specifically (and, alas, credibly) accused you, in #238, of knowingly lying to your readers.

Care to respond?

[Standing at ready to cue crickets...]

[VadeRetro]

I'm writing up a list of all of the lies in Coulter's chapters 8-10 (it's going to be HUGE) -- if you or anyone else would like to be pinged to it when I post it, please FreepMail me.

I hope some suicide bomber doesn't get THAT thread pulled too quickly.

[orionblamblam]

> Point I was making was that there are highly successful species whose forebear species were shortlived, and who have all disappeared. At the same time there are other species that don't seem to change over tens, or even hundreds of millions of years.

And this is surprising? Sometimes things just work... and sometimes they don't. The cockroach and the shark ahve been arouind for hundreds of millions of years (in both cases, having evolved substnatially ove rthat time, despitr claims that they are unchanged) becaus ethey are not only well adapted to their niche, their niche is sufficietly broad that environmental changes don;t mess with these critters much. other animals were evolved well to fit some fairly specific and, in the end, doomed niche. Such is life.

[Ichneumon]

When you cannot defend the contradictions in your ideology then you must attack your critics personally.

...says the guy who has failed to address any of the points I made, nor any of the questions I asked him.

BTW, there are many critters on this earth that appear to have been UNCHANGED for hundreds of millions of years.

Yeah, so? Are you under the bizarre misconception that this somehow violates evolutionary theory? It doesn't. Also, "UNCHANGED" is relative -- even the allegedly "UNCHANGED" taxa show change over time, even if it's not a major amount.

Then, there are the most advanced critters, e.g. humans, who have no living ancestral forms since the first split from the critter we share with the chimpanzees.

Yeah, so? None of the proto-dachshund breeds are alive today yet either, but they were still descended from other ancestral breeds. Why don't you try making a point that's actually relevant for a change?

DeKalb corn has no "pre corn species" ancestors still alive either.

Thank you, Mr. Irrelevant.

[VadeRetro]

Must be Ann. Every post she ever made has been pulled.

[muawiyah]

You really missed that point didn't you. Totally off the track. Total trainwreck.

Sure sharks evolve. The "shark form" doesn't to any great degree. Sees to be just right for what sharks do, and what they do is EAT.

I was making a head on attack on the concept of "adapt". If human beings are well adapted to their environment, then their ancestors were certainly well adapted to their environment, and so on and so forth all the way back to the first proto-humans.

However, those ancestors didn't seem to survive. Instead, they went extinct.

Just suggesting that being the best adapted critter around doesn't necessarily do anything for you.

On the other hand, that shark form persists and persists and persists. The same with alligators. They are all certainly well adapated, but about as complex as they ever will be. You can check their skulls and they haven't added so much as half a lobe since the first identifiable croc crawled out of the pond.

Proving, I guess, that better adaptation doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being more or less complex, nor with evolution (change, per se, in this instance).

So, what were you saying?

[Dimensio]

I take it, from your comment, that you are unable to refute Ichneumon's exposure of Ann Coulter as dishonest?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Proving, I guess, that better adaptation doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being more or less complex,"

Who ever said it did?

[muawiyah]

BTW, the proto-dachshunds are alive and well and running around in Alaska and Canada (among other places). They are called wolves ~ same genome.

[Ichneumon]

[Go right ahead, you're perfectly in line with biologists on that one. But you go off the rails when you try to attack imaginary biologists which exist only in your own head -- you know, the ones you hallucinate think that "only" selection is at work in evolution.]

First, I'm glad to hear that there are biologists as smart as I am.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension, that bears no resemblance to what I actually said.

I thought most of them were just glorified lab techs.

You think a lot of baseless things.

Second a lot of those hallucinations post here on FR.

Uh huh. Sure. Given how badly you've misread my own posts, I'm not willing to presume that you have accurately understood the posts of other folks here when they discuss biology with you. Perhaps you'd like to quote a few of these hallucinations of yours stating what you imagine they've said?

It is your assertion that if I am not a biologist, I have no right to discuss this.

No, that isn't my assertion. There goes your "reading comprension" thing again. If you must drink, don't post.

I'd like to know your certifications, so that I can make a list of subjects that you are unwelcome to discuss.

No need, unlike some people, I voluntarily refrain from making arrogantly opinionated comments about topics I'm not qualified to lecture people on.

[Ichneumon]

Quite humorless of you.

I have a find sense of humor, I just don't find lies, slanders, and Michael-Moore style misrepresentations to be particularly funny. I find it disturbing that you do. Conservatives are supposed to value truth, and disdain lies.

Ann has your left and right leg over there in her "pulled legs" box.

She wasn't pulling legs, she was outright lying, and dishonestly slandering people in the process, while showing disdain for her readers by telling falsehoods to them.. Maybe you're twisted enough to find that hilarious, but I don't.

Do you get a big laugh out of Michael Moore's and Bill Clinton's and Cindy Sheehan's lies too? Or do you only approve of telling lies about certain kinds of things?

[From many - one.]

You do not seem to have read the link.

[muawiyah]

Check post #214. That's by Ichneumon who claims that folks (presumably like himself) who have studied the matter have no problem at all seeing how change (evolution, adaptation) leads to more complexity.

I'd suggest evolution (cosidered as simple change) might well be readily associated with greater complexity, but that does not mean there's a direct link between change and complexity. In fact, there's "change" at the molecular level that seems to only rarely, if at all, be associated with macro-evolutionary change, e.g. shapes of sharks and alligators spring to mind, if not of dragonflies.

I don't think there's sufficient evidence to demonstrate genetic change, in and of itself, is a driver for complexity per se.

[muawiyah]

Stultis, in reading through Ichneumon's post where you say she's calling Ann a liar, I got the idea that Ichneumon was accusing Ann of being a lawyer and not a biologist.

Only a leftwingnut leaps to the claim, every single time, that any policy disagreement, or shift in terminology due to one's professional background, is necessarily a lie.

You are not, of course, a leftwingnut ~ so you shouldn't imitate one. Maybe you'd like to rephrase your comment.

[muawiyah]

BTW, when you use a "questioning tone" in an "assertion of fact", your reader sometimes not feel bidden to RESPOND as if you had actually asked a question.

I'm going to accuse you of not having majored in English.

[muawiyah]

Moore, Clinton and Shehan have no sense of humor either.

And to think I just defended you against the charge that you were accusing Ann of being a liar and not a lawyer.

[Ichneumon]

You really missed that point didn't you.

No, I didn't.

Totally off the track. Total trainwreck.

...and the random metaphors start a'flyin'...

Sure sharks evolve. The "shark form" doesn't to any great degree.

We'll add ichthyology to the large list of subjects on which you are grossly misinformed.

Sees to be just right for what sharks do, and what they do is EAT.

So do all animals. Whoop-de-do.

I was making a head on attack on the concept of "adapt".

Then perhaps you shouldn't do it by running your head into a wall.

If human beings are well adapted to their environment, then their ancestors were certainly well adapted to their environment, and so on and so forth all the way back to the first proto-humans.

If you ever get around to making a point, do let us know.

However, those ancestors didn't seem to survive. Instead, they went extinct.

No, they didn't, they changed into us. D'oh!

Just suggesting that being the best adapted critter around doesn't necessarily do anything for you.

Accidents happen -- the ammonites did fine for hundreds of millions of years until that damned asteroid dropped in. And the finest human athelete can still die in a car accident. I'm sorry, did you have a POINT in here somewhere?

On the other hand, that shark form persists and persists and persists. The same with alligators.

...and a whole lot of other animals. So? No one said that major evolutionary novelty was so common that it happens in every lineage. Ever try reading a science journal for a change, instead of wasting your time sharing your random thoughts with us?

They are all certainly well adapated, but about as complex as they ever will be.

Ooooh! Can I borrow your magic crystal ball? I too would like to see into the future and be able to make cocksure predictions about what will happen eons hence.

You can check their skulls and they haven't added so much as half a lobe since the first identifiable croc crawled out of the pond.

Wrong again. I guess you didn't hear about the vegetarian crocodile, among a lot of other cool variations in the crocodile lineage. Again, you might want to work on that "education" thing instead of just basing your wild guesses on your copy of The Wild Animals Coloring Book.

Proving, I guess, that better adaptation doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being more or less complex,

OMG!!! You got one right for once! Yes, that's exactly what evolutionary theory says. Was that an accident?

nor with evolution (change, per se, in this instance).

Say what? You're saying that "better adaptation" (which is change) doesn't have anything to do with "change per se"? Oookay.... And white isn't white, either!

So, what were you saying?

I was saying that it would be nice if you knew about this subject to be able to hold up your end of the conversation.