Evolution: a 150 fifty year old observation of variation WITHIN species
Evolution: an all-encompassing Rosetta stone that half-educated journalists use to blog about everything from bio-bots to baseball
Evolution: a hideous death-cult philosophy responsible for communism, Nazism and eugenics.
Sincerely,
Fishtank, PhD
The Communists decried Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection as too capitalistic with its uneven distribution of resources and focus on individual success or failure.
Nazis banned Darwin's books in Germany, and wanted to kill Jews to “avenge my saviors blood upon the cross” to hear Hitler tell it.
Eugenics were practiced in ancient Sparta, and is not supported by anybody who understands biology and evolution to know what the term “antagonistic pleiotropy” means.
I think you must have meant "kinds". If you read Darwin, he was considering the differences between species to create natural selection.
Evolution: an all-encompassing Rosetta stone that half-educated journalists use to blog about everything from bio-bots to baseball
And creationists enjoy a multibillion dollar-per-year business as a result.
Evolution: a hideous death-cult philosophy responsible for communism, Nazism and eugenics.
Actually communism predates Darwin's birth having been derived from Christians who lost their way due to the influence of Saint Sir Thomas More's, "Utopia." The beliefs of the NAZI's were not that different from the American Bible communists of the 18th and 19th centuries. And of course, the American Bible communists did the first human eugenics experiments outside of slave breeding, both of which predate Darwin's publication.
[[Evolution: a 150 fifty year old observation of variation WITHIN species
Evolution: an all-encompassing Rosetta stone that half-educated journalists use to blog about everything from bio-bots to baseball
Evolution: a hideous death-cult philosophy responsible for communism, Nazism and eugenics.
Sincerely,
Fishtank, PhD]]
Precisely!
The Natural Limits to Biological Change
Neo-Darwinism Under Attack
Raymond G. Bohlin, Ph.D.
“One of the most significant questions in the origins debate concerns the nature of biological change. Can organisms change into an infinite array of creatures? Or are there genetically imposed limits to the amount of change which can take place? There are two major theories of evolutionary change: neo-Darwinism and punctuated equilibrium. As creationists, Lane Lester and I proposed in 1984 that indeed there are limits to change in our book, The Natural Limits to Biological Change. Theoretically, it may seem difficult to propose that immense variety may occur within a group of organisms yet this variety is constrained within certain genetically induced limits. It may seem contradictory even. But in the intervening ten years, my confidence in the proposal has only strengthened, and my confidence in any evolutionary mechanism to accomplish any significant adaptational change has waned considerably.
The arguments against neo-Darwinism center around four topics: mutation, natural selection, population genetics, and paleontology. Our major objection to the role of mutations in evolutionary change is the clear lack of data to indicate that mutations really accomplish anything new. While some weird-looking fruit flies have been created in the laboratory, they are still fruit flies. Bacteria are still bacteria. We quoted from Pierre-Paul Grasse’, the great French evolutionist. When commenting on the mutations of bacteria he said:
What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.
A mechanism for the creation of new genetic material is also sadly inadequate. Sometimes, an extra copy of a gene arises due to a DNA duplication error. Evolutionists suggest that this extra gene can accumulate mutations and eventually code for a new gene with a different function. In reality, however, this fails to explain how an old gene takes on a new function and new regulation pathways by the introduction of genetic mistakes into the gene and the regulatory apparatus.
Natural selection is a conservative process, not a creative one. The famous example of peppered moths teaches us how a species survives in a changing environment by possessing two varieties adapted to different conditions. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria only instructed us in the ingenious mechanisms of different bacteria to share the already existing genes for antibiotic resistance among themselves.
Decades of research in the science of population genetics has not helped the neo-Darwinist position. The data from protein and gene variation shed only a dim light on the major problem of evolution— the appearance of novel adaptations. The major significance of population genetics has been helping to understand how an organism responds to minor environmental fluctuations. And even this can be clouded in fundamental differences in theory.
First, virtually all taxonomic levels, even species appear abruptly in the fossil record. This, it will be remembered, is one of the sharper criticisms of neo-Darwinism, and one of the two cornerstones of punctuated equilibrium. It is relevant not only that the various levels of taxa appear abruptly but also that alongside the higher taxonomic levels there are unique adaptations. This is the key. Unique and highly specialized adaptations usually, if not always, appear fully formed in the fossil record. The origin of the different types of invertebrate animals such as the sponges, mollusks, echinoderms like the starfish, arthropods like crustaceans, and others all appear suddenly, without ancestors, in the Cambrian period.”
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/natlim.html