Comments for Nondiscovery Blog

Comment on Conservapedia’s “unbiased” view of evolution by bort901

bort901 — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:52:10 +0000

John,
I think you are missing the point of my post. The theory of evolution should be addressed based on its scientific merits. Conservapedia did the exact opposite and focused on everything but the evidence. But since you want to go down that road, I have a few comments.
I am not impressed with you quote from Heydrich. He was saying that natural selection will be an end product of murdering of the Jews and not a reason for starting it. Real evidence of the connection would be writings that include Darwin by name or extended references to the theory. “Look it up” and get back to me.

What the Nazi’s engaged in was not an extension of Darwin’s theory, but an extension of breeding practices combined with anti-Semitism. Darwin’s theory dealt with the natural, not forced executions. Darwin’s theory dealt with individuals and not human races. Saying that the Nazis used an “undiluted Darwinian argument” couldn’t be further from the truth.

Comment on Conservapedia’s “unbiased” view of evolution by John

John — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 20:44:36 +0000

As to whether Darwin influenced Hitler and Nazi racism: Reinhard Heydrich used the term “natural selection” in the written orders for the Holocaust at Wannsee, January 20, 1942. Heydrich argued that Jews who survived the Nazi forced-labor program would live to breed a tougher race of Jews who might challenge the “Aryans” for control of Europe. This argument is pure Darwinism — and pure evil. One can argue evolution, creation, or creation science endlessly. The link between Darwin and Hitler is down in writing in the death warrant of millions of innocent people. PS Heydrich was not a “Christian” — he had dropped out of Catholicism a dozen years before, was of mixed Jewish ancestry himself, and may have been extremely vicious — as was Hitler, also reputedly of mixed Jewish antecendents — as a pathological form of denial. Both of these men were psychopaths who used an undiluted Darwinian argument to commit mass murder — but without Darwin as justification, the Holocaust might have remained a brutal forced-labor program. Look it up.

Comment on Signature in the Cell pre-review by bort901

bort901 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:47:29 +0000

John,
I appreciate you coming by my blog, but you did not offer me anything except that I should read the book and “stop being ignorant.” I really do not have the time or the desire to read the book. However, since Meyer so conclusively deals with my objections, perhaps you could paraphrase?

Comment on Signature in the Cell pre-review by John Hansen

John Hansen — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:00:45 +0000

Obviously you did not read the book either. Meyer deals with everyone of your objections conclusively. READ THE BOOK. Stop being ignorant.

Comment on Signature in the Cell pre-review by John Hansen

John Hansen — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:59:29 +0000

“Although I have not read the book, I am going to offer a “pre-review” of the book”

No problem with “argument from ignorance” here. No-no. Not me.

Comment on Intelligent Design proponents are not stupid by jesús zamora

jesús zamora — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:56:22 +0000

A criticism of ID from philosophy of science:
http://ottoneurathsboat.blogspot.com/2009/11/evolution-empiricism-and-purposeness.html

Basically: ID confound what amounts to be a scientific explanation

Comment on Lenski’s new results; Behe’s red herring by bort901

bort901 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:18:34 +0000

Landau,
Thanks for reading and I am sorry you feel my post offered nothing more than a rant. I felt, as I usually do, that the ID proponent was not really making valid points for ID and against evolution. Instead, Behe was offering a distraction to weaken Lenski’s real results. I think if you look again you will see that I was actually addressing point Behe made, not just ranting.

I completely agree that Behe has a right to discuss the paper. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. Not sure where you were getting that from.

Pertaining to your” beneficialness” point, I do not agree with you. It doesn’t matter the path to what is advantageous; it just matters that you have the advantage. In such a closed system as the Lenski experiments, it is not unexpected to lose some functionality. Functional complexity without use is going to be a disadvantage. It takes energy to make RNA and proteins that aren’t being used, therefore a disadvantage.
Functional complexity is necessary in the wild because there are many different environments, sources of nutrients, and competing organisms.

Comment on Intelligent Design/ Creation Resources by bort901

bort901 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:24:47 +0000

Mike,
Intelligent is pseudoscience for a couple reasons. In order for something to be science, it has to be tested. Intelligent design is untestable. No matter the result, an ID proponent could say the designer designed it that way. Intelligent design also has no constraints. The designer could have been as powerful as one imagines. The designer also need not leave any trace of its presence or work. Casey Luskin even wrote once that ID proponents do not care anything about the designer. Without this most underlying aspect of the theory, it is meaningless and can never be proven wrong. Finally, one of the most striking reasons that ID is a pseudoscience is in the way that it is presented. There is very little if any real research done on the subject. Nearly everything I read is just attacking evolution. If it was a real science, it should be able to stand on its own by now.

It is really hard for me to point to a single or a couple sources for you to study up on evolution. You should check out my “Evolution resources” page. It is not much, but it is a start. My advice is to first decide what aspect of evolution would be more interesting to you. If you are more interested in DNA and cell biology, you should study how evolution has been shown in these circumstances. If paleontology is more to your liking, then you should focus more in that area.

For me, learning how different organism’s DNA was more similar between evolutionarily close organisms really made me understand. I am still amazed at how so many different disciplines can come to the same conclusions. Molecular biology, paleontology, developmental biology, geology, etc all point to evolution being true.

As far as specific places to learn

Do you listen to podcasts? Evolution 101 is a great beginning.

The 29 evidences for evolution is also a great document.

Comment on Lenski’s new results; Behe’s red herring by Landau

Landau — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:01:29 +0000

This post is just a rant.

Of course Behe has a right to discuss the current paper as it relates to his work. That he does. You can rant about that, but rant is not an argument.

Behe makes a valid point about beneficialness: if you want to build up functional complexity, you dont want to destroy systems to get an advantage. What is so hard to admit this?

Comment on Intelligent Design/ Creation Resources by Mike

Mike — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:18:15 +0000

Jason,

I have recently become interested in the Evolution/ID debate. Taking from your response to Nathan I have an education and the desire to sort through the noise to find reality, truth, for myself. The problem is that unless we are there when an event happens or are doing the research ourselves we all end up believing someone else.

I am curious as to why you believe the DI and/or ID is pseudoscince and even if it is why it can’t be true or valid?

Also, any resources you recommend that would help me reach the same “obvious” conclusion that you have about evolution?

P.S. I like your example regarding the odds of meeting your wife.