Lets Get Rid of Darwinism

July 15, 2008, 6:48 pm Let's Get Rid of Darwinism Charles Darwin was a giant. He did not merely write "On the Origin of Species" - ' one of the most important books ever written by anyone . . . Why is this a problem? Because it’s all grossly misleading. It suggests that Darwin was the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega, of evolutionary biology, and that the subject hasn’t changed much in the 149 years since the publication of the “Origin.” He wasn’t, and it has.

[TedHOhio]

Here here! The phrases "Darwinism", "Neo-Darwinism", and "Darwinian" out of the vernacular!

[Feklahr]

Well, Ted, since only morons use those terms I say we keep them one so morons are easier to spot. ;)

[TedHOhio]

Feklahr wrote:

Well, Ted, since only morons use those terms I say we keep them one so morons are easier to spot. ;)

Maybe, but I think they will still be pretty easy to spot! After talking to Charlie I think the number of typos per line of post is an indicator as well.

[Feklahr]

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe, but I think they will still be pretty easy to spot! After talking to Charlie I think the number of typos per line of post is an indicator as well.

Couple that with asking, "If we evloved from monkeys, why are their (deliberate, I swear to Kahless!) monkeys, lol?", we have it made in the shade.

[TedHOhio]

Feklahr wrote:

<quoted text>
Couple that with asking, "If we evloved from monkeys, why are their (deliberate, I swear to Kahless!) monkeys, lol?", we have it made in the shade.

And the ever popular "You expect me to believe a tornado going through a junkyard can build a 747?" line.

I do love how many of their more common arguments are on the list the Answers in Genesis website says not to use. Now if AIG says it's an invalid argument, it's got to be pretty bad. But people still use it.

Darwin's deathbed confession to Lady Hope is another.

[Feklahr]

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
And the ever popular "You expect me to believe a tornado going through a junkyard can build a 747?" line.
I do love how many of their more common arguments are on the list the Answers in Genesis website says not to use. Now if AIG says it's an invalid argument, it's got to be pretty bad. But people still use it.
Darwin's deathbed confession to Lady Hope is another.

Or when the fundies get REALLY desperate...

*channels Elephant Man*

I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!!!

[kobalt]

lmao Darwinism was disproved a long long time ago in 1902 i think when 3 scientists uncovered the work of Gregor Mendel Mendelism is the accepted thing now and will be i think for a long long time to come if he is disproved then genetic sciences go down the drain he never really said anything on evolution but his work itself explains evolution

[Nuggin]

kobalt wrote:

lmao Darwinism was disproved a long long time ago in 1902 i think when 3 scientists uncovered the work of Gregor Mendel Mendelism is the accepted thing now and will be i think for a long long time to come if he is disproved then genetic sciences go down the drain he never really said anything on evolution but his work itself explains evolution

Get someone who actually understands English to translate this back for you. This block of text doesn't make sense.

[TedHOhio]

kobalt wrote:

lmao Darwinism was disproved a long long time ago in 1902 i think when 3 scientists uncovered the work of Gregor Mendel Mendelism is the accepted thing now and will be i think for a long long time to come if he is disproved then genetic sciences go down the drain he never really said anything on evolution but his work itself explains evolution

At one time Mendel's work was touted as the death of evolution -- usually by Creationists. However as the work was explored it would found to not only not disagree with evolution, but provided the strongest level of support for evolution.

For example Natural Selection explains the mechanism for change within an existing population, but genetics is the detailed explanation of what happens to a population at a much lower level. Random mutation is another mechanism for introducing change, Genetics is the detail of exactly what the changes are and how they came about.

Darwin wasn't familiar with Mendel's work, in fact it had been lost for quite some time. I think he would have been interested in learning about it and seeing how it worked with his ideas.

This article has a section on how a biologist thinks Darwin might react to the state of biological science today.

http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/le...

[Darwins Stepchild]

kobalt wrote:

lmao Darwinism was disproved a long long time ago in 1902 i think when 3 scientists uncovered the work of Gregor Mendel Mendelism is the accepted thing now and will be i think for a long long time to come if he is disproved then genetic sciences go down the drain he never really said anything on evolution but his work itself explains evolution

First, I think you need to be aware that Darwin is not the end-all and be-all of evolutionary science. ToE includes the work of thousands and thousands of other scientists (including Mendel) over the last 150 years.

Secondly, Darwin's theories and Mendel's have been joined in what is known as the Modern Synthesis, a theory of evolution that includes both Darwin's ideas on natural selection and Mendel's ideas on genetics. ToE, today, is perhaps the strongest scientific theory in existence.

[Darwins Stepchild]

OH, and BTW Kobalt...

While Darwin was not aware of Mendel's work, Darwin did posit the existence of something very akin to DNA. He was quite sure that there existed a means by which traits were passed from one generation to the next. Further discoveries proved him to be correct.

[Jammercolo]

After that thats get rid of this foolish round earth bull.

Schools need creation science
schools need Flat earth science. See the science ever bit as good as creation science.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/F...

P.S. I love real science and Darwin.

[charlieb1950]

TedHOhio wrote:

Here here! The phrases "Darwinism", "Neo-Darwinism", and "Darwinian" out of the vernacular!

Well ted are you a darwinist or darwinian,semantics you know?

[charlieb1950]

Feklahr wrote:

<quoted text>
Couple that with asking, "If we evloved from monkeys, why are their (deliberate, I swear to Kahless!) monkeys, lol?", we have it made in the shade.

Scared to sow your real face?Or is that about right?

[charlieb1950]

TedHOhio wrote:

Here here! The phrases "Darwinism", "Neo-Darwinism", and "Darwinian" out of the vernacular!

The book of darwin is your god,teddy.lmao

[charlieb1950]

How do i know for certain,that the book darwins origen of species,has not been revised to fit all you evolutionists theory?

[Chaz]

charlieb1950 wrote:

How do i know for certain,that the book darwins origen of species,has not been revised to fit all you evolutionists theory?

What would it even matter if it did? It's widely accepted nowadays that Darwinism (that is, evolution as defined by Darwin himself) is debunked in the face of the continuing theory of evolution.

Darwin did not, nor could not, of known as much about evolution as we do now. So what his claims are or were make no difference in light of modern understanding of the topic.

[charlieb1950]

Chaz wrote:

<quoted text>
What would it even matter if it did? It's widely accepted nowadays that Darwinism (that is, evolution as defined by Darwin himself) is debunked in the face of the continuing theory of evolution.
Darwin did not, nor could not, of known as much about evolution as we do now. So what his claims are or were make no difference in light of modern understanding of the topic.

In other words,he layed down the path that you evolutionists follow.He showed you the light,did he?lmao!So it makes no difference to you that some may have revised his book?lmao!

[The Dude]

charlieb1950 wrote:

How do i know for certain,that the book darwins origen of species,has not been revised to fit all you evolutionists theory?

Kinda like the Bible?

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

charlieb1950 wrote:

<quoted text>The book of darwin is your god,teddy.lmao

I have no god.

Still blind?

Why?

Insufficient faith?

Why?