Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Darwinism, eugenics, and abortion

joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 5:39:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Wretched Segment of the Day - August 09, 2012
http://www.wretchedradio.com...

The audio is about 15 mins long, and begins it primary discussion around 2 mins. It attempts to demonstrate eugenics tied with abortion as a result of darwinistic ideologies. It covers a broad ammount of topics and rebuttals so I suggest the listener to hear the whole thing before commenting. I was just hoping to get other views diverse and in agreeance to what is said.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 5:43:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just summarize your pseudo-darwinisim here and then we can devour it. Nobody is going to watch a 15 minute video.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 5:49:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 5:43:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Just summarize your pseudo-darwinisim here and then we can devour it. Nobody is going to watch a 15 minute video.

Its an audio clip. And, no.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 5:49:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm gonna watch it...
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 5:49:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 5:49:05 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 5:43:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Just summarize your pseudo-darwinisim here and then we can devour it. Nobody is going to watch a 15 minute video.

Its an audio clip. And, no.

The objective is to get other peoples views not to subject my own to useless scrutiny.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 5:53:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Paradox, summarize it after you watch it plox.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 5:55:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 5:53:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Paradox, summarize it after you watch it plox.

Knucle would you say there is a large difference between the Darwinism taught in universities today from the system which was penned by Darwin? I would expect some divergance with new evidence revealed over time. If there is could you articulate maybe the largest differences?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:15:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 5:55:37 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 5:53:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Paradox, summarize it after you watch it plox.

Knucle would you say there is a large difference between the Darwinism taught in universities today from the system which was penned by Darwin? I would expect some divergance with new evidence revealed over time. If there is could you articulate maybe the largest differences?

Okay, here's where all you creationists are going wrong.

Darwinism is not a moral philosophy. Darwinism is an 'is,' not an ought. Darwinism has no moral implications. Darwinism does not advocate for eugenics. Darwinism does not advocated for playing the role of the environment. Darwinism does not advocate for abortion. Darwinism does not condone Nazi practices. Darwinism does not condone kiling nor rape. Darwinism advocates for nothing. You might as well replace Darwinism with "Genes mutating to produce negative/positive phenotypes, in which the environment negatively/positively selects for based on reproductive success." That's it.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:16:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would expect that credible institutions don't even use the term 'Darwinism' because of its pseudo negative implication with the religious folk. Instead, the term 'Natural Selection' replaces it quite nicely.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:17:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:15:14 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 5:55:37 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 5:53:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Paradox, summarize it after you watch it plox.

Knucle would you say there is a large difference between the Darwinism taught in universities today from the system which was penned by Darwin? I would expect some divergance with new evidence revealed over time. If there is could you articulate maybe the largest differences?

Okay, here's where all you creationists are going wrong.

Darwinism is not a moral philosophy. Darwinism is an 'is,' not an ought. Darwinism has no moral implications. Darwinism does not advocate for eugenics. Darwinism does not advocated for playing the role of the environment. Darwinism does not advocate for abortion. Darwinism does not condone Nazi practices. Darwinism does not condone kiling nor rape. Darwinism advocates for nothing. You might as well replace Darwinism with "Genes mutating to produce negative/positive phenotypes, in which the environment negatively/positively selects for based on reproductive success." That's it.

That didn't answer my question if you were attempting to answer it ><
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:19:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:16:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I would expect that credible institutions don't even use the term 'Darwinism' because of its pseudo negative implication with the religious folk. Instead, the term 'Natural Selection' replaces it quite nicely.

Hmmmm, I have always seen Natural Selection as a procedure in Darwinism more than it being synonomous to the system.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:19:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:17:11 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:15:14 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 5:55:37 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 5:53:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Paradox, summarize it after you watch it plox.

Knucle would you say there is a large difference between the Darwinism taught in universities today from the system which was penned by Darwin? I would expect some divergance with new evidence revealed over time. If there is could you articulate maybe the largest differences?

Okay, here's where all you creationists are going wrong.

Darwinism is not a moral philosophy. Darwinism is an 'is,' not an ought. Darwinism has no moral implications. Darwinism does not advocate for eugenics. Darwinism does not advocated for playing the role of the environment. Darwinism does not advocate for abortion. Darwinism does not condone Nazi practices. Darwinism does not condone kiling nor rape. Darwinism advocates for nothing. You might as well replace Darwinism with "Genes mutating to produce negative/positive phenotypes, in which the environment negatively/positively selects for based on reproductive success." That's it.

That didn't answer my question if you were attempting to answer it ><

Darwinism is genes mutating to produce negative/positive phenotypes, in which the environment negatively/positively selects for based on reproductive success. No more.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:20:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:19:24 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:16:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I would expect that credible institutions don't even use the term 'Darwinism' because of its pseudo negative implication with the religious folk. Instead, the term 'Natural Selection' replaces it quite nicely.

Hmmmm, I have always seen Natural Selection as a procedure in Darwinism more than it being synonomous to the system.

Your "seeing" is wrong.

What's your quasi-definitional view of Darwinism?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:22:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
OMGOMG!

One Indian said that black babies are ugly. Hence, the entire abortion industry and the advocates for eugenics (of whom I am one but not in the way that you think) are racist. Excellent logic.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:24:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 5:55:37 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 5:53:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Paradox, summarize it after you watch it plox.

Knucle would you say there is a large difference between the Darwinism taught in universities today from the system which was penned by Darwin? I would expect some divergance with new evidence revealed over time. If there is could you articulate maybe the largest differences?

Differences over time? Are you ignorant or intentionally putting forward a strawman?

Even the most basic college student should know the Evolutionary Synthesis of the early 20th century lead to reformulating Evolutionary Theory in terms of mendelian genetics (which before that had been considered a mutually exclusive theory of inheritance).

There's been a major shift from individual selection to genic selection to a systems approach emphasizing multiple heritary system (i.e. genetic, epigenetic, symbolic, etc). Evolutionary Development has revolutionized our understanding of regulatory genes vis a vis core genes, so has the incorporation of epigenetics and phenotypic plasticity into explanations for adaptation to consistently changing environments.

Gould and Mayr's punctuated equilibrium changed how we view population dynamics (i.e. genetic variation increases as population decreases, not vice versa).

Lynn Margulis' endosymbiosis revolutionized how we view inter-species natural selection.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:25:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:20:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:19:24 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:16:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I would expect that credible institutions don't even use the term 'Darwinism' because of its pseudo negative implication with the religious folk. Instead, the term 'Natural Selection' replaces it quite nicely.

Hmmmm, I have always seen Natural Selection as a procedure in Darwinism more than it being synonomous to the system.

Your "seeing" is wrong.

What's your quasi-definitional view of Darwinism?

"I consider it necessary to dissect Darwin's conceptual framework of evolution into a number of major theories that formed the basis of his evolutionary thinking. For the sake of convenience, I have partitioned Darwin's evolutionary paradigm into five theories, but of course others might prefer a different division. The selected theories are by no means all of Darwin's evolutionary theories; others were, for instance, sexual selection, pangenesis, effect of use and disuse, and character divergence. However when later authors referred to Darwin's theory thay invariably had a combination of some of the following five theories in mind:

1 Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.
2 Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth.
3 Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species.
4 Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type.
5 Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about throught the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation. "

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Would I still be wrong for "seeing" Natural Selection as being a distinctive process of Darwinism?... .... ..... ......
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:27:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:25:56 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:20:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:19:24 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:16:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I would expect that credible institutions don't even use the term 'Darwinism' because of its pseudo negative implication with the religious folk. Instead, the term 'Natural Selection' replaces it quite nicely.

Hmmmm, I have always seen Natural Selection as a procedure in Darwinism more than it being synonomous to the system.

Your "seeing" is wrong.

What's your quasi-definitional view of Darwinism?

"I consider it necessary to dissect Darwin's conceptual framework of evolution into a number of major theories that formed the basis of his evolutionary thinking. For the sake of convenience, I have partitioned Darwin's evolutionary paradigm into five theories, but of course others might prefer a different division. The selected theories are by no means all of Darwin's evolutionary theories; others were, for instance, sexual selection, pangenesis, effect of use and disuse, and character divergence. However when later authors referred to Darwin's theory thay invariably had a combination of some of the following five theories in mind:


1 Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.
2 Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth.
3 Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species.
4 Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type.
5 Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about throught the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation. "

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Would I still be wrong for "seeing" Natural Selection as being a distinctive process of Darwinism?... .... ..... ......

The first four are as a result of Natural Selection.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:29:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:24:48 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/23/2012 5:55:37 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 5:53:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Paradox, summarize it after you watch it plox.

Knucle would you say there is a large difference between the Darwinism taught in universities today from the system which was penned by Darwin? I would expect some divergance with new evidence revealed over time. If there is could you articulate maybe the largest differences?

Differences over time? Are you ignorant or intentionally putting forward a strawman?

Its a reasonable question. I am just curious as I would expect it to and was curious where.

Even the most basic college student should know the Evolutionary Synthesis of the early 20th century lead to reformulating Evolutionary Theory in terms of mendelian genetics (which before that had been considered a mutually exclusive theory of inheritance).

Yes, but has there been any new theories that effectually distinctively seperate themselves from Darwinism? Theories that put into question the main ideas of Darwinism?

There's been a major shift from individual selection to genic selection to a systems approach emphasizing multiple heritary system (i.e. genetic, epigenetic, symbolic, etc). Evolutionary Development has revolutionized our understanding of regulatory genes vis a vis core genes, so has the incorporation of epigenetics and phenotypic plasticity into explanations for adaptation to consistently changing environments.

Gould and Mayr's punctuated equilibrium changed how we view population dynamics (i.e. genetic variation increases as population decreases, not vice versa).

Lynn Margulis' endosymbiosis revolutionized how we view inter-species natural selection.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:31:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:29:58 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:24:48 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/23/2012 5:55:37 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 5:53:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Paradox, summarize it after you watch it plox.

Knucle would you say there is a large difference between the Darwinism taught in universities today from the system which was penned by Darwin? I would expect some divergance with new evidence revealed over time. If there is could you articulate maybe the largest differences?

Differences over time? Are you ignorant or intentionally putting forward a strawman?

Its a reasonable question. I am just curious as I would expect it to and was curious where.

Even the most basic college student should know the Evolutionary Synthesis of the early 20th century lead to reformulating Evolutionary Theory in terms of mendelian genetics (which before that had been considered a mutually exclusive theory of inheritance).

Yes, but has there been any new theories that effectually distinctively seperate themselves from Darwinism? Theories that put into question the main ideas of Darwinism?

Natural Selection and 'Darwinism' is as cemented in biology as gravity and the Law of Physics are in Physics.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:32:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:27:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:25:56 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:20:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:19:24 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:16:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I would expect that credible institutions don't even use the term 'Darwinism' because of its pseudo negative implication with the religious folk. Instead, the term 'Natural Selection' replaces it quite nicely.

Hmmmm, I have always seen Natural Selection as a procedure in Darwinism more than it being synonomous to the system.

Your "seeing" is wrong.

What's your quasi-definitional view of Darwinism?

"I consider it necessary to dissect Darwin's conceptual framework of evolution into a number of major theories that formed the basis of his evolutionary thinking. For the sake of convenience, I have partitioned Darwin's evolutionary paradigm into five theories, but of course others might prefer a different division. The selected theories are by no means all of Darwin's evolutionary theories; others were, for instance, sexual selection, pangenesis, effect of use and disuse, and character divergence. However when later authors referred to Darwin's theory thay invariably had a combination of some of the following five theories in mind:


1 Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.
2 Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth.
3 Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species.
4 Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type.
5 Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about throught the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation. "

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Would I still be wrong for "seeing" Natural Selection as being a distinctive process of Darwinism?... .... ..... ......

The first four are as a result of Natural Selection.

Actually, I think saltation would be an example of what I was thinking about.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:34:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:32:11 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:27:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:25:56 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:20:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:19:24 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:16:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I would expect that credible institutions don't even use the term 'Darwinism' because of its pseudo negative implication with the religious folk. Instead, the term 'Natural Selection' replaces it quite nicely.

Hmmmm, I have always seen Natural Selection as a procedure in Darwinism more than it being synonomous to the system.

Your "seeing" is wrong.

What's your quasi-definitional view of Darwinism?

"I consider it necessary to dissect Darwin's conceptual framework of evolution into a number of major theories that formed the basis of his evolutionary thinking. For the sake of convenience, I have partitioned Darwin's evolutionary paradigm into five theories, but of course others might prefer a different division. The selected theories are by no means all of Darwin's evolutionary theories; others were, for instance, sexual selection, pangenesis, effect of use and disuse, and character divergence. However when later authors referred to Darwin's theory thay invariably had a combination of some of the following five theories in mind:


1 Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.
2 Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth.
3 Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species.
4 Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type.
5 Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about throught the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation. "

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Would I still be wrong for "seeing" Natural Selection as being a distinctive process of Darwinism?... .... ..... ......

The first four are as a result of Natural Selection.

Actually, I think saltation would be an example of what I was thinking about.

That has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:35:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:22:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
OMGOMG!

One Indian said that black babies are ugly. Hence, the entire abortion industry and the advocates for eugenics (of whom I am one but not in the way that you think) are racist. Excellent logic.

Wowza. That was simply a segway and it did not determin that based on one mans quote lolz.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:37:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:34:09 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:32:11 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:27:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:25:56 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:20:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:19:24 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:16:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I would expect that credible institutions don't even use the term 'Darwinism' because of its pseudo negative implication with the religious folk. Instead, the term 'Natural Selection' replaces it quite nicely.

Hmmmm, I have always seen Natural Selection as a procedure in Darwinism more than it being synonomous to the system.

Your "seeing" is wrong.

What's your quasi-definitional view of Darwinism?

"I consider it necessary to dissect Darwin's conceptual framework of evolution into a number of major theories that formed the basis of his evolutionary thinking. For the sake of convenience, I have partitioned Darwin's evolutionary paradigm into five theories, but of course others might prefer a different division. The selected theories are by no means all of Darwin's evolutionary theories; others were, for instance, sexual selection, pangenesis, effect of use and disuse, and character divergence. However when later authors referred to Darwin's theory thay invariably had a combination of some of the following five theories in mind:


1 Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.
2 Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth.
3 Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species.
4 Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type.
5 Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about throught the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation. "

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Would I still be wrong for "seeing" Natural Selection as being a distinctive process of Darwinism?... .... ..... ......

The first four are as a result of Natural Selection.

Actually, I think saltation would be an example of what I was thinking about.

That has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

I can't see why not.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:40:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:37:39 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:34:09 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:32:11 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:27:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:25:56 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:20:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:19:24 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:16:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I would expect that credible institutions don't even use the term 'Darwinism' because of its pseudo negative implication with the religious folk. Instead, the term 'Natural Selection' replaces it quite nicely.

Hmmmm, I have always seen Natural Selection as a procedure in Darwinism more than it being synonomous to the system.

Your "seeing" is wrong.

What's your quasi-definitional view of Darwinism?

"I consider it necessary to dissect Darwin's conceptual framework of evolution into a number of major theories that formed the basis of his evolutionary thinking. For the sake of convenience, I have partitioned Darwin's evolutionary paradigm into five theories, but of course others might prefer a different division. The selected theories are by no means all of Darwin's evolutionary theories; others were, for instance, sexual selection, pangenesis, effect of use and disuse, and character divergence. However when later authors referred to Darwin's theory thay invariably had a combination of some of the following five theories in mind:


1 Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.
2 Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth.
3 Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species.
4 Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type.
5 Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about throught the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation. "

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Would I still be wrong for "seeing" Natural Selection as being a distinctive process of Darwinism?... .... ..... ......

The first four are as a result of Natural Selection.

Actually, I think saltation would be an example of what I was thinking about.

That has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

I can't see why not.

If one was attempting to look at Darwinism & evolution in a taxocology saltation would be there I would suspect. Its no less taxological then Mormonism being a Christian denomination.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:43:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:37:39 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:34:09 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:32:11 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:27:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:25:56 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:20:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:19:24 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:16:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I would expect that credible institutions don't even use the term 'Darwinism' because of its pseudo negative implication with the religious folk. Instead, the term 'Natural Selection' replaces it quite nicely.

Hmmmm, I have always seen Natural Selection as a procedure in Darwinism more than it being synonomous to the system.

Your "seeing" is wrong.

What's your quasi-definitional view of Darwinism?

"I consider it necessary to dissect Darwin's conceptual framework of evolution into a number of major theories that formed the basis of his evolutionary thinking. For the sake of convenience, I have partitioned Darwin's evolutionary paradigm into five theories, but of course others might prefer a different division. The selected theories are by no means all of Darwin's evolutionary theories; others were, for instance, sexual selection, pangenesis, effect of use and disuse, and character divergence. However when later authors referred to Darwin's theory thay invariably had a combination of some of the following five theories in mind:


1 Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.
2 Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth.
3 Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species.
4 Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type.
5 Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about throught the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation. "

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Would I still be wrong for "seeing" Natural Selection as being a distinctive process of Darwinism?... .... ..... ......

The first four are as a result of Natural Selection.

Actually, I think saltation would be an example of what I was thinking about.

That has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

I can't see why not.

The first thing that popped up was a geological process, so I falsely assumed that it was so.

Regardless, it is simply a hypothesis with little evidence to back it up.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:50:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:43:23 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:37:39 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:34:09 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:32:11 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:27:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:25:56 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:20:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:19:24 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:16:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I would expect that credible institutions don't even use the term 'Darwinism' because of its pseudo negative implication with the religious folk. Instead, the term 'Natural Selection' replaces it quite nicely.

Hmmmm, I have always seen Natural Selection as a procedure in Darwinism more than it being synonomous to the system.

Your "seeing" is wrong.

What's your quasi-definitional view of Darwinism?

"I consider it necessary to dissect Darwin's conceptual framework of evolution into a number of major theories that formed the basis of his evolutionary thinking. For the sake of convenience, I have partitioned Darwin's evolutionary paradigm into five theories, but of course others might prefer a different division. The selected theories are by no means all of Darwin's evolutionary theories; others were, for instance, sexual selection, pangenesis, effect of use and disuse, and character divergence. However when later authors referred to Darwin's theory thay invariably had a combination of some of the following five theories in mind:


1 Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.
2 Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth.
3 Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species.
4 Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type.
5 Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about throught the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation. "

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Would I still be wrong for "seeing" Natural Selection as being a distinctive process of Darwinism?... .... ..... ......

The first four are as a result of Natural Selection.

Actually, I think saltation would be an example of what I was thinking about.

That has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

I can't see why not.

The first thing that popped up was a geological process, so I falsely assumed that it was so.

Regardless, it is simply a hypothesis with little evidence to back it up.

I am open to evidence but I have not seen much if at all that support the fact of the vast diversity of life as is today. 3.6 billion years to get dinosaurs. 3 billion years to get simple animles. All major life is theorized to have been oblitorated 60 million years ago, yet in a mere 60 million years we have radical extremes in the diversity of life again. I suppose I could see many of the primary 'form's' of life surviving to support the diversity that now is but I simply am unversed on it. Gosh, never expected such heat from a simple observation.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:56:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:50:44 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:43:23 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:37:39 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:34:09 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:32:11 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:27:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:25:56 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:20:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:19:24 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:16:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I would expect that credible institutions don't even use the term 'Darwinism' because of its pseudo negative implication with the religious folk. Instead, the term 'Natural Selection' replaces it quite nicely.

Hmmmm, I have always seen Natural Selection as a procedure in Darwinism more than it being synonomous to the system.

Your "seeing" is wrong.

What's your quasi-definitional view of Darwinism?

"I consider it necessary to dissect Darwin's conceptual framework of evolution into a number of major theories that formed the basis of his evolutionary thinking. For the sake of convenience, I have partitioned Darwin's evolutionary paradigm into five theories, but of course others might prefer a different division. The selected theories are by no means all of Darwin's evolutionary theories; others were, for instance, sexual selection, pangenesis, effect of use and disuse, and character divergence. However when later authors referred to Darwin's theory thay invariably had a combination of some of the following five theories in mind:


1 Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.
2 Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth.
3 Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species.
4 Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type.
5 Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about throught the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation. "

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Would I still be wrong for "seeing" Natural Selection as being a distinctive process of Darwinism?... .... ..... ......

The first four are as a result of Natural Selection.

Actually, I think saltation would be an example of what I was thinking about.

That has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

I can't see why not.

The first thing that popped up was a geological process, so I falsely assumed that it was so.

Regardless, it is simply a hypothesis with little evidence to back it up.

I am open to evidence but I have not seen much if at all that support the fact of the vast diversity of life as is today. 3.6 billion years to get dinosaurs. 3 billion years to get simple animles. All major life is theorized to have been oblitorated 60 million years ago, yet in a mere 60 million years we have radical extremes in the diversity of life again. I suppose I could see many of the primary 'form's' of life surviving to support the diversity that now is but I simply am unversed on it. Gosh, never expected such heat from a simple observation.

Perhaps diversity is exponential? Looking at the tree of life perhaps that should be an obvious conclusion?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 7:13:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:29:58 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:24:48 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/23/2012 5:55:37 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 5:53:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Paradox, summarize it after you watch it plox.

Knucle would you say there is a large difference between the Darwinism taught in universities today from the system which was penned by Darwin? I would expect some divergance with new evidence revealed over time. If there is could you articulate maybe the largest differences?

Differences over time? Are you ignorant or intentionally putting forward a strawman?

Its a reasonable question. I am just curious as I would expect it to and was curious where.

Even the most basic college student should know the Evolutionary Synthesis of the early 20th century lead to reformulating Evolutionary Theory in terms of mendelian genetics (which before that had been considered a mutually exclusive theory of inheritance).

Yes, but has there been any new theories that effectually distinctively seperate themselves from Darwinism? Theories that put into question the main ideas of Darwinism?

There's been a major shift from individual selection to genic selection to a systems approach emphasizing multiple heritary system (i.e. genetic, epigenetic, symbolic, etc). Evolutionary Development has revolutionized our understanding of regulatory genes vis a vis core genes, so has the incorporation of epigenetics and phenotypic plasticity into explanations for adaptation to consistently changing environments.

Gould and Mayr's punctuated equilibrium changed how we view population dynamics (i.e. genetic variation increases as population decreases, not vice versa).

Lynn Margulis' endosymbiosis revolutionized how we view inter-species natural selection.

How are those not major changes? The only ideas of Darwin that have survived fully intact are:

1. Variation, replication, and limited resources lead to differential reproduction of phenotypes (natural selection).
2. Speciation can occur.
3. If you go backwards in time, reversing the variation/replication/selection, then for any two given species in the same environment (namely, eartH), there should be a common ancestor from which variation/replication/selection derived the two.

You might as well say we haven't changed our views on Newtonian physics because we still say F=MA.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 7:17:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:50:44 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:43:23 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:37:39 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:34:09 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:32:11 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:27:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:25:56 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:20:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:19:24 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:16:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I would expect that credible institutions don't even use the term 'Darwinism' because of its pseudo negative implication with the religious folk. Instead, the term 'Natural Selection' replaces it quite nicely.

Hmmmm, I have always seen Natural Selection as a procedure in Darwinism more than it being synonomous to the system.

Your "seeing" is wrong.

What's your quasi-definitional view of Darwinism?

"I consider it necessary to dissect Darwin's conceptual framework of evolution into a number of major theories that formed the basis of his evolutionary thinking. For the sake of convenience, I have partitioned Darwin's evolutionary paradigm into five theories, but of course others might prefer a different division. The selected theories are by no means all of Darwin's evolutionary theories; others were, for instance, sexual selection, pangenesis, effect of use and disuse, and character divergence. However when later authors referred to Darwin's theory thay invariably had a combination of some of the following five theories in mind:


1 Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.
2 Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth.
3 Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species.
4 Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type.
5 Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about throught the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation. "

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Would I still be wrong for "seeing" Natural Selection as being a distinctive process of Darwinism?... .... ..... ......

The first four are as a result of Natural Selection.

Actually, I think saltation would be an example of what I was thinking about.

That has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

I can't see why not.

The first thing that popped up was a geological process, so I falsely assumed that it was so.

Regardless, it is simply a hypothesis with little evidence to back it up.

I am open to evidence but I have not seen much if at all that support the fact of the vast diversity of life as is today. 3.6 billion years to get dinosaurs. 3 billion years to get simple animles. All major life is theorized to have been oblitorated 60 million years ago, yet in a mere 60 million years we have radical extremes in the diversity of life again. I suppose I could see many of the primary 'form's' of life surviving to support the diversity that now is but I simply am unversed on it. Gosh, never expected such heat from a simple observation.

If you have not seen the evidence, then you clearly have not being looking for the evidence. There is a reason why there are less biologists who don't believe in evolution than historians who believe the Holocaust never happened.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 7:30:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 7:17:27 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:50:44 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:43:23 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:37:39 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:34:09 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:32:11 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:27:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:25:56 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:20:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:19:24 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:16:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I would expect that credible institutions don't even use the term 'Darwinism' because of its pseudo negative implication with the religious folk. Instead, the term 'Natural Selection' replaces it quite nicely.

Hmmmm, I have always seen Natural Selection as a procedure in Darwinism more than it being synonomous to the system.

Your "seeing" is wrong.

What's your quasi-definitional view of Darwinism?

"I consider it necessary to dissect Darwin's conceptual framework of evolution into a number of major theories that formed the basis of his evolutionary thinking. For the sake of convenience, I have partitioned Darwin's evolutionary paradigm into five theories, but of course others might prefer a different division. The selected theories are by no means all of Darwin's evolutionary theories; others were, for instance, sexual selection, pangenesis, effect of use and disuse, and character divergence. However when later authors referred to Darwin's theory thay invariably had a combination of some of the following five theories in mind:


1 Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.
2 Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth.
3 Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species.
4 Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type.
5 Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about throught the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation. "

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Would I still be wrong for "seeing" Natural Selection as being a distinctive process of Darwinism?... .... ..... ......

The first four are as a result of Natural Selection.

Actually, I think saltation would be an example of what I was thinking about.

That has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

I can't see why not.

The first thing that popped up was a geological process, so I falsely assumed that it was so.

Regardless, it is simply a hypothesis with little evidence to back it up.

I am open to evidence but I have not seen much if at all that support the fact of the vast diversity of life as is today. 3.6 billion years to get dinosaurs. 3 billion years to get simple animles. All major life is theorized to have been oblitorated 60 million years ago, yet in a mere 60 million years we have radical extremes in the diversity of life again. I suppose I could see many of the primary 'form's' of life surviving to support the diversity that now is but I simply am unversed on it. Gosh, never expected such heat from a simple observation.

If you have not seen the evidence, then you clearly have not being looking for the evidence. There is a reason why there are less biologists who don't believe in evolution than historians who believe the Holocaust never happened.


Or, because there is no evidence.

If things such as evolution are so undeniably fact, it shouldn't be so f*ckin hard for you to prove it.. especially since the evidence is all emperical.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.