Atheists are Racist

[Katydid]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
You saw through his elaborate disguise!!!
:-O

Yeah and I fully expect to soon see posts by Katydid from the UK.

[Rene Chang]

The 'Dude' seems to think that I saw through the elaborate disguise of Senapathy.

I am sorry, that I posted the same comment twice. This is maybe because I am very new to all this. But Katydid does not have to be quite so aggressive. Someone seem to think that Eugenics seem to imply unnatural selection. But as far as I am awrae Darwin derived his ideas from the breeding of dogs and also plants. I regard that as a partial answer.

an someone please inform me or point me to the relevant information on 'Cultural impact on hypotheses' and also 'Natural Selection'.

I shall endeavour not to post the same comment in the future.

I do not pretend to brng anything new. I just want some answers if that is possible.

[The Dude]

Rene Chang wrote:

The 'Dude' seems to think that I saw through the elaborate disguise of Senapathy.

Um, no.

Rene Chang wrote:

I am sorry, that I posted the same comment twice. This is maybe because I am very new to all this. But Katydid does not have to be quite so aggressive. Someone seem to think that Eugenics seem to imply unnatural selection. But as far as I am awrae Darwin derived his ideas from the breeding of dogs and also plants. I regard that as a partial answer.
an someone please inform me or point me to the relevant information on 'Cultural impact on hypotheses' and also 'Natural Selection'.
I shall endeavour not to post the same comment in the future.
I do not pretend to brng anything new. I just want some answers if that is possible.

google.com

[Katydid]

Rene Chang wrote:

This is maybe because I am very new to all this. But Katydid does not have to be quite so aggressive.

Huh? Aggressive? Because I asked you for evidence?
You stated:
"I do not oppose Senapathy’s ideas as I would consider myself an evolutionary skeptic."

If you do not "oppose" his ideas, then provide the rationale as to why, and answer the questions that I posed.

[Lil Ticked]

Kong_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, for one thing eugenics takes the "natural" out of "natural selection".

Not true. For our species eugenics is as natural as a bowel movement. Admittedly both are disgusting but, both are still natural.

[Kong_]

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>Not true. For our species eugenics is as natural as a bowel movement. Admittedly both are disgusting but, both are still natural.

Sorry. Have to disagree.

There is nothing "natural" about eugenics.

[The Dude]

Kong_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry. Have to disagree.
There is nothing "natural" about eugenics.

Hmm, depends upon how you look at it. We use eugenics to a very limited extent like attempting to limit genetic diseases. If an intelligent species on Earth a billion years from now was studying evolution it would consider that as natural for our species and put it under the banner of natural selection. Lions are another example. A male lion comes along and defeats the local alpha and becomes the big daddy of that pride. It will also kill any cubs which are not its own so only his genes will be passed on. This is also technically a form of eugenics, but again we would still describe it as natural. We also call bird nests and beaver dams natural, but they are technically just as natural as humans building houses. It's just sometimes our definitions are often quite human-centric.

Anything artificial is also naturally observable by natural phenomena in our natural universe. So in that sense nests, dams, houses, even even eugenics can be considered "natural". However they are not things that 'mother nature' produces. So if we change the definition slightly we call those "artificial" as opposed to "natural". It all depends on what definition and what context we're using, but both definitions are valid.

(It's also this fluid nature of language which creationists like to take advantage of when discussing things which are "natural" and "not natural", but that's another subject).

[The Dude]

Mind you Shadow's obsession with looking daft is not natural.

Well, maybe it is for *him*, but...

[Kong_]

Keep in mind, "Social Darwinism" was promoted in part to legitimize eugenics (and other similarly failed concepts.

(note to Fundies: REAL Evolution is about BIOLOGY. There are NO scientists that accept "Social Darwinism" as a viable science. Dont even THINK of conflating the two!)

[Elohim]

Kong_ wrote:

Keep in mind, "Social Darwinism" was promoted in part to legitimize eugenics (and other similarly failed concepts.
(note to Fundies: REAL Evolution is about BIOLOGY. There are NO scientists that accept "Social Darwinism" as a viable science. Don't even THINK of conflating the two!)

But they will.

[The Dude]

Elohim wrote:

<quoted text>But they will.

And odds are is exactly why Shades just brought it up.(shrug)

[Rene Chang]

Hi Dude

Your comment suggests that I have seen through Senapathy's elaborate disguise. I am not sure what you mean.

Katyid: Why are you so aggressive?\i am very new to this web-site and may have had two posts accidentally. As I had said in my piece, I am not an evolutionary biologist and I just wanted some clarifications. If that is not good nough for you too bad!

[Katydid]

Rene Chang wrote:

Hi Dude
Your comment suggests that I have seen through Senapathy's elaborate disguise. I am not sure what you mean.
Katyid: Why are you so aggressive?\i am very new to this web-site and may have had two posts accidentally. As I had said in my piece, I am not an evolutionary biologist and I just wanted some clarifications. If that is not good nough for you too bad!

You have a funny idea of what aggression is, as I said, you stated that you do not oppose Senapathy's ideas..which to me means that you give them credence, do you not? I just asked for you to explain why.

[The Dude]

Rene Chang wrote:

Hi Dude
Your comment suggests that I have seen through Senapathy's elaborate disguise. I am not sure what you mean.

No, I know you don't. That's because I didn't say that.

[Lil Ticked]

Kong_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry. Have to disagree.
There is nothing "natural" about eugenics.

So, you are all for inbreeding? Figures.

[LowellGuy]

Rene Chang wrote:

Hi Dude
Your comment suggests that I have seen through Senapathy's elaborate disguise. I am not sure what you mean.
Katyid: Why are you so aggressive?\i am very new to this web-site and may have had two posts accidentally. As I had said in my piece, I am not an evolutionary biologist and I just wanted some clarifications. If that is not good nough for you too bad!

Shadow, if I created a hundred usernames and replied to you over and over with the same rebuttal but acting as though each is a separate person or otherwise not making it clear that they were all mine, would that be an honest way of creating the impression that my position is popular?