Thanks preacher Darwin, but in the minds of a moral relativist, “science” trumps [traditional] morality.

Specifically who is disgreeing with Darwin and over what?

I am assuming that you can comprehend clearly that what Tara has said is the opposite of what Darwin (and Doug) has said. However, you do not have the honesty nor the integrity to admit that explicitly.

ksagnostic is obviously so clouded in his own delusion, that he can not stand to read the words of Darwin. He feels Darwin does not mean what Darwin says. He has a preconceived idea of what Darwinism is and determined to remain ignorant.

ksagnostic is therefore highly offended by anyone who quotes Darwin because it forces him to be reconciled with his own willful ignorance. He then labels the quoteminer as dishonest.

“Darwin was expressly NOT promoting “banning the weak from marrying”. That is a simple lie, and even the snippet RFL quote mines makes this clear.”

ksagnostic lies about what Darwin has written. The quotation from Darwin’s book endorsing the “refraining” of people who are “weak and feeble” from marrying has been quoted too many times to count. Yet ksagnostic denies.

Woa what do we have here! Another Gem!

RFL writes:

Darwin says that the “ever present evil” provides a “contigent benefit” does he not? He implies that we must not do evil to obtain a benefit. However, he maintains that it does provide a BENEFIT! If one believes Darwinism is a fact, and he wants to obtain a benefit for his own race, what reason is there to stop him from doing evil?”

ksagnostic responds:

“If we kill all the people in Pakistan, we will kill Osama Bin Ladin and that would be a benefit for all the people who are victimized by Al Quaeda (at least those people who are out of Pakistan), so what reason is there to stop us from doing that evil?”

Lets establish one thing here. The weak and feeble are NOT at threat to the human race if you reject Darwinism. I pointed out that Darwin clearly stated (and ksagnostic freudianly declined to object) is that Darwinism does provide the basis for doing evil to obtain a “contingent benefit”.

ksagnostic has wandered off into dark and is lost without a moral compass. But such depraved thinking is consistent with the moral relativity incumbent with a belief in Darwinism. ksagnostic compares the killing OBL, a known murderer, with the culling of human beings as being an apples to apples comparison. As a Darwinist (scientifically speaking), Both is believed to bring a benefit to the human race

ksagnostic, open your brain dude! If we kill the weak and feeble, we kill innocent people who are NOT causing the human race degenerate (ref Tara’s quote: Posted April 28, 2008).

Get this into your head quickly: Killing a known mass murder who is a proven threat to humankind is not the same thing as killing innocent human life for the sake of trying to purify the human race.

If Darwinism is true (which it is NOT), a moral relativist is deluded into believing that he posesses the scientific basis to killing innocent people because of the “contingent benefit” of improving the human race. Darwin explicitly endorsed eugenics while preaching to us that while culling human beings would bring a “contingent benefit” it is an evil. Thanks preacher Darwin, but in the minds of a moral relativist, “science” trumps morality.

Lastly and more importantly:
RFL writes:
“The evidence has yet to validate Darwin”
ksagnostic denies claiming there is evidence of common descent. Using ksagnostic’s logic, one could deduct that Model T Fords coming before Porsches chronologically predicts that the simplicity evolved into the more complex thus automobiles evolved.

Or becaue Porsches and Model T Fords share similar characteristics that they must be related in phylogenetic lineage.

We know that Porsches do not come from Model T Fords through random evolution, so how is it that we know the Humans came from terepsids and tetrapods using the same parameters?

However, I digress. What ksagnostic has not discussed is the origin of species.

ksagnostic,
In the book titled “Origin of Species”, where does Darwin address the question of the origin of the species?

Re: Regular
DNFTT

He thinks science and Darwin are a threat to God.

Not much of a God you have there RFL if it cannot survive the efforts of men. But then maybe the efforts of men have already outstripped “God”?

Maybe God didn’t make man. Maybe man made God.

I suspect that RFL is so welded into his viewpoint that he is impervious to actual evidence, but I also am now certain that he is blatantly dishonest, because quote mining is an excercise in blantant dishonesty, i.e. LYING (but he is probably lying to himself as well as to us).

The latest head shaking crap from RFL:

The full sentence RFL quoted from Descent of Man(RFL quote mined part of it in responding to Tara-it’s incredible that he is willfully stupid enough to think that he can get away with this):

“We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.”

The italicized portion is the part that RFL quote mined (again, incredibly stupid when the whole sentence is available on this thread).

RFL’s then inteprets this as: “The question is, does Tara agree with Darwin that banning the weak from marrying will result in fewer deformities resulting in a stronger human race?”

Two things:

One, and this shouldn’t have to be said, agreeing with and working in the field of evolutionary and biological science does not entail agreeing with the social or political world views expressed by Charles Darwin any more than working in relativistic physics entails agreeing sith the political world views expressed by Albert Einstein.

Keeping that in mind, two, RFL gets it completely wrong about Darwin. Darwin was expressly NOT promoting “banning the weak from marrying”. That is a simple lie, and even the snippet RFL quote mines makes this clear. Darwin was hypothesizing that the “weak” had a harder time finding mates in the society he lived in. He expressly, in the very sentence that was quote mined said “this is more to be hoped than expected”. Plus, of course, Darwin indicated his firm opinion that such treatment would be an “overwhelming present evil”.

RFL has had plenty of opportunities to approach this issue honestly and even to try to elevate his argument by incorporating and learning from information provided. Quote mining from material that is freely available and in fact is available on the very thread he is typing in is simply an act of willful stupidity. So:

“Nope. Not if you compare what she is saying with what Darwin has written. Defending Darwin by disassociating him from the words that he wrote is dishonesty.”

As I’ve pointed out, belief in evolution is not contingent upon agreeing with the social views of the founder and besides, Darwin did not even come close to saying what you said he did. I invite anyone patient enough to be monitoring this thread to read Darwin’s words. Yes, there is the uncomfortable paternalism that was typical of a nineteenth century Englishman (whether be believed in evolution or not), but look closely anyway. Darwin in no way said that the weak should be banned from marrying. The dishonesty, RFL, is yours. And only an intentional idiot would engage in the dishonesty of completely distorting what someone said when the context of what the person actually said is right there for anyone reading the thread to see. Cerebral inertia, remarkable.

“Does Darwin profess to know that we CAN DETERMINE who is weak and who is inferior and thereby keep them from marriage (i.e. procreating) to better the human race?”

Not only did he not profess to know it, that is essentially the exact question that Darwin asked of his cousin, Francis Galton, who DID propose keeping the “weak and inferior” from having children. Keep in mind that under Galton style eugenics, DARWIN (a man of chronic poor health) COULD NOT HAVE MARRIED HIS COUSIN EMMA WEDGEWOOD.

“Darwin says that the “ever present evil” provides a “contigent benefit” does he not? He implies that we must not do evil to obtain a benefit. However, he maintains that it does provide a BENEFIT! If one believes Darwinism is a fact, and he wants to obtain a benefit for his own race, what reason is there to stop him from doing evil?”

If we kill all the people in Pakistan, we will kill Osama Bin Ladin and that would be a benefit for all the people who are victimized by Al Quaeda (at least those people who are out of Pakistan), so what reason is there to stop us from doing that evil?

Let me guess, this is a rhetorical question that you assume that a person who believes in evolution does not have moral beliefs, or no reference point for his/her moral beliefs.

That assumption itself is a complete moral outrage. The height of religious bigotry. Darwin was clear that he considered the evil far outweighing the benefits. Who the hell are you to question that?

Obviously, you are a holder of the idea that it is OK to lie if it is a beneficient lie. Except that your lying isn’t beneficient. You libel Darwin, and by extension you are tying to libel everyone who disagrees with you on evolution.

One last thing:

“To make matters worse, Darwin wasn’t even right.
The evidence has yet to validate Darwin.”

Repeating bullsh*t that you want to be true doesn’t make it true. You have willfully remained ignorant as to what the evidence is supporting evolution (common descent). Cover your ears and shut your eyes and repeat what you want to believe as if it is true. Reality will remain unchanged.

Weak people” don’t NEGATIVELY affect us as a species on the whole–there is no point, it’s an unnecessary evil. That’s why we don’t selectively sterilize people and have absolutely no plans to do so.

Darwin says:

“We must therefore bear the undoubtedly BAD effects of the weak
surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least
one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior
members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check
might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining
from marriage”

emphasis added in CAPS

Why is Tara attacking Darwin?

Tara answers:
“No. Mutations and gene copying errors will still happen, stuff goes wrong. The number of recessive components responsible for a deformity are impossible to determine, since carriers are phenotypically exactly like other people.”

Darwin answers:
“but there appears to be at least
one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior
members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check
might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining
from marriage,”

I agree with Tara on this point. The question is, does Tara agree with Darwin that banning the weak from marrying will result in fewer deformities resulting in a stronger human race?

Nope. Not if you compare what she is saying with what Darwin has written. Defending Darwin by disassociating him from the words that he wrote is dishonesty.

Does Darwin profess to know that we CAN DETERMINE who is weak and who is inferior and thereby keep them from marriage (i.e. procreating) to better the human race?

Obviously yes. Hence the foundation for eugenics is justified if you assign scientific credibility to Darwin’s non-evidentiary based philosophy.

ksagnostic,
Darwin says that the “ever present evil” provides a “contigent benefit” does he not? He implies that we must not do evil to obtain a benefit. However, he maintains that it does provide a BENEFIT! If one believes Darwinism is a fact, and he wants to obtain a benefit for his own race, what reason is there to stop him from doing evil?

Therefore, Darwin acknowledges that Darwinistic evolution can be expedited by doing evil. Darwin assumes that civilized society will not choose commit that evil to obtain that “contigent benefit”. We know that was a false assumption.

It’s evident that wrong ideas from Darwin provide the “scientifc” basis for evil whether Darwin opposes the evil or not.

To make matters worse, Darwin wasn’t even right.
The evidence has yet to validate Darwin.

Try and conserve the http okay?

“Why don’t you answer some questions if you really want to explain something to me.

“1. Do “deformities” still exist today?”

Yes

“If so, how could unfit men and women be passing down these deformities. If they were unfit, they would not be reproducing now would they?”

Deformities are not necessarily genetic. They can be caused by unlucky errors and plain bad luck. If they do have a genetic component, it’s possible (probable) that the trait is recessive, passed down for generations before being expressed. Or its possible that a gene complex responsible for a deformity is activated in one person while it remains inactive in another for whatever reason.

“2. If the people with “deformities” stopped pro creating (BY FORCE), would the “deformities” disapear from the population?”

No. Mutations and gene copying errors will still happen, stuff goes wrong. The number of recessive components responsible for a deformity are impossible to determine, since carriers are phenotypically exactly like other people.

“3. Are you able to determine which men have “deformities” and which do not based your analysis of their genetics or based on YOUR OWN BIAS of what constitutes a deformity?”

You can determine which men have “deformities” by analysis of genes in some cases, sure. Generally, what constitutes a deformity is something that will prevent reproduction, whether its mortality before childbearing years, infertility, or lack of ability to secure a mate. Factors negatively affecting the quality of life (but not reproductive ability) are subject to bias. What’s your point? Sterilizing people based on biases is useless. “Weak people” don’t negatively affect us as a species on the whole–there is no point, it’s an unnecessary evil. That’s why we don’t selectively sterilize people and have absolutely no plans to do so.

RFL, I am the sweetest and most mild tempered biologist you’ll ever know, but goddamn you are either a great stupid idiot or blatantly dishonest. Have you read Origin of Species, or just out of context snippets?

All of this is irrelevant anyway, I just am a bit peeved that I am being lumped in with Nazis. Is it a sin to bear false witness if you believe that it’s the only way to preserve your interpretation of God’s words? Is it arrogant to believe that God needs you to come to His rescue in the face of overwhelming evidence against creationism?

Even if tomorrow we find out that Darwin murdered little old ladies, ate babies, molested children and stomped on kittens, evolution would still be supported. Darwin is not the reason we “believe” in evolution. The EVIDENCE is the reason. Darwin was one of the first to propose the idea which we’ve been testing and gathering evidence for for the past 150 years.
******************
“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” -Galileo

Well RFL.

You went to the precipice, and you jumped over it. Since you went to the Internet Infidels library, which posts Darwin’s entire book, you obviously engaged in quote mining. You looked for a passage which supported your argument, and lifted it without bothering to read the rest, or making certain not to post it.

Quote mining is an intentional act that is the very essence of willful deception. This is lying. And incredibly, you seem to be self deluded enough to think that you can get away with it.

This is the paragraph following the one you lifted.

“The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.”

Now, if I were to do what you did, I probably would have ended my quote with the portion I italicized. But, unlike you, I am an honest man who does not have to engage in deception to make my point (additional note: I noticed that you then tried to use that quote in your response to Doug).

What does this following paragraph indicate about the one that preceded it?

1) Darwin thought that human beings had largely checked the effect of elimination of the reproductively less fit on human evolution by protecting and saving the lives of “the weak members of society”.

2) “The aid” that people “feel impelled to give to the helpless” is “mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy”. In other words, it arose from ancestors who had greater “social instincts”. Thus, the very aid that people give to others, in Darwin’s view, is a result of natural selection.

3) Darwin on no uncertain terms indicated how he felt about the importance of human sympathy, and described the consequences of neglecting such inclinations as “an overwhelming present evil”.

Here is the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey might put it.

Darwin was himself a man of poor health for most of his life. He, in spite of the fact that at the time it was not considered a good idea, married his first cousin, Emma Wedgewood (and Darwin expressed the realization that, reproductively speaking, this was not a good idea). The child he was closest to died at a very young age. Darwin was not an advocate of eugenics, and in fact clearly disagreed with the man who coined the term eugenics, his own cousin, Francis Galton.

This is reality. Was evolution used by people in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to bolster racism? Yes, but as I stated before it was a retrofit to the already existing culture of racism that was widespread in Western Europe and that underlied the British Empire in the 19th and early 20th centuries. That racism had already and was still being justified through creationist models (polygenism and the Great Chain of Being). Those who claim that Darwin is responsible for eugenics and that evolution is more compatible with racism is not only dishonest, not only historically inaccurate, it is an expression of exactly the sort of presumptious smug superiority that underlies racism, particularly the sort of racism that was widespread in Europe and the United States during 19th century colonialism. Morever, making the claim that belief in evolution fosters racism while creationism does not muddies the waters in the following ways:

1) It is simply untrue, so making a claim is a distraction from actual causes of racism.

2) It is irrelevant as to whether evolution actually occurred. If evolution (common ancestry) happened, and that it happened is supported overwhelmingly by evidence, then “belief” in it somehow fosters racism or eugenics more than belief in creationism doesn’t make evolution false or creationism true. This would be the benificient lie, that a false belief is somehow better because it makes people behave better (and creationism doesn’t, and it never did).

3) Being honest in scientific inquiry with regards to the natural world provides more knowledge, and knowledge is essential for making informed decisions of an ethical nature. For example, a doctor should not overprescribe anti-biotics because, as predicted by natural selection, the bacteria that survive the application of the antibiotic pass on their immunity to their descendents (and thanks to “bacterial sex”, benificial or neutral bacteria can pass on their immunity to infectious bacteria). Having the best possible knowledge of how the natural world works leads to more informed decisions, and better informed decisions are better decisions, including those of an ethical nature.

“Are you aware that deformities are often causes by mistakes in the DNA sequencing caused by mutation?”
-Doug

Doug realizes that mutations do not change a species as a means to increase its survival. Yet, while he is making this point, I wonder if he knows that this is exactly the opposite of Darwinism.

In the above two quotes, it is obvious to infer that deformities caused by mutations are sexually De-selected for survival.

How do mutations (or deformities) result in survival if women reject those men who have them?
The point Doug has made is that mutations are DE-selected for survival.

So we see that deformities caused by mutations are of course, Not selected for survival, lets look further as to what Darwin thought about the possibility of sterilizing the weak to improve the human race.

“We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak
surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least
one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior
members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check
might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining
from marriage,

Clearly, Doug believes that if all people who had a “deformity” (by his own definition) could be sterilized, then all the world will experience less “deformities”. Of course only a omnipotent Darwinist is able to determine what a deformity is and who should sterilized because of it.

Eugenics is the political inactment of a belief in Darwinism. It was tried in Germany as well as in America with sad results. Where does this idea come from?

“We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak
surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least
one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior
members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check
might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining
from marriage,”
-Darwin, Descent of Man

Why don’t you answer some questions if you really want to explain something to me.

1. Do “deformities” still exist today?

If so, how could unfit men and women be passing down these deformities. If they were unfit, they would not be reproducing now would they?

2. If the people with “deformities” stopped pro creating (BY FORCE), would the “deformities” disapear from the population?

3. Are you able to determine which men have “deformities” and which do not based your analysis of their genetics or based on YOUR OWN BIAS of what constitutes a deformity?

You are beyond clueless. Are you aware that in order to pass on your genes that you must engage in sexual activity?

Are you aware that deformities are often causes by mistakes in the DNA sequencing caused by mutation? Perhaps you aren’t aware that’s why inbreeding is a problem. My gosh, I can’t believe I have to explain something so simple that even a child could understand. I swear, you are arguing Lamarkian evolution. You have no idea what you are talking about.

“Have you noticed that unattractive guys, or guys with deformities tend not to get as many girlfriends as attractive men?”
-Doug

Question 1: Do “deformities” still exist today?

If “deformities” are all genetic (as you are trying to say), then the fact that “deformities” still exist today (as you also say) should indicate to you that those who had those “deformities” had NO PROBLEM whatsoever procreating and passing those deformities on to their offspring!

The fact that “deformities” still exist today means that people have been procreating in defiance of natural selection which would otherwise tend to remove “deformities” from the population.

If the people with “deformities” stopped pro creating (BY FORCE), the “deformities” would disapear from the population (if what Doug believes is correct).

After a simple understanding of Darwinism
eugenics is the logical conclusion for how to best remove deformities from the population. Doug obviously suscribes to the view.

Pretty cool what a good ole belief in Darwin will get you huh?

Doug,
Are you able to determine which men have deformities and which do not based on their genetics or based on YOUR own biases? How can you look at someone and know what their genetics are?

Isn’t it time you go back to reading your Bible?

So thanks for proving that you don’t have a clue about the entire subject.

It’s trying to put a size 40 belly into size 38 pants.

I don’t know, you tell me. You are the Darwin genius, right? Many darwinists claim to know what fit means. Are you saying that you do not and therefore you do not and can not know which traits are favored for survival?

ksagnostic brilliantly said above:
“the creatures that have the most success leaving offspring are the ones that will leave the most descendents”. I think we can all agree that the creatures having the most offspring, are the ones who have the most offspring.

“Eugenics removed people from the gene pool based upon biases, not based upon genetics”
-Doug

“war is detrimental to natural selection as it artificially takes the fittest individuals out of the gene pool”
-Doug

Wait, do the young men who die during a war and therefore inhibit natural selection (as Darwin claimed and you agreed) die based on their genetics? Wow, that’s pretty incredible of an opposing army that can somehow point to natural selection as a reason for killing off the enemy. Does one’s mortal susceptibility to rifle and cannon fire indicative of a trait non-conducive to propagation? What about a nuclear bomb blast? Those who die were not genetically selected to survive, right? Is that what you are saying? Because that is NOT what Darwin is saying.

If war is “detrimental to natural selection” (as you say), and weak species can be removed from the population based only upon genetics (as you say), than nuclear bomb blasts that kill individuals would indicate that those individuals weren’t fit at all. Since they were not genetically predisposed to survive a bomb blast, they were not fit. Is that it Doug?

If war works against natural selection, than there is no logic in claiming that eugenics does or can not work in favor of it.

I don’t know, you tell me. You are the Darwin genius, right? Many darwinistis claim to know what fit means. Are you saying that you do not and therefore you do not know which traits are favored for survival?

ksagnostic brilliantly said above:
“the creatures that have the most success leaving offspring are the ones that will leave the most descendents”. I think we can all agree that the creatures having the most offspring, are the ones who have the most offspring.

“Eugenics removed people from the gene pool based upon biases, not based upon genetics”
-Doug

“war is detrimental to natural selection as it artificially takes the fittest individuals out of the gene pool”
-Doug

Wait, do the young men who die during a war and therefore inhibit natural selection (as Darwin claimed and you agreed) die based on their genetics? Wow, that’s pretty incredible of an opposing army that can somehow point to natural selection as a reason for killing off the enemy. Does one’s mortal susceptibility to rifle and cannon fire indicative of a trait non-conducive to propagation? What about a nuclear bomb blast? Those who die were not genetically selected to survive, right? Is that what you are saying? Because that is NOT what Darwin is saying.

If war is “detrimental to natural selection” (as you say), and weak species can be removed based only upon genetics (as you say), than nuclear bomb blasts that kill fit individuals proves that those individuals weren’t fit at all. Since they were not genetically engineered to survive a bomb blast, they were not fit.

If war works against natural selection, than there is no logic in claiming that eugenics does not work in favor of it.

It’s quite evident from your pointless rants that you don’t know what you are talking about. You have already been outed for your dishonesty, I see you intend on following through with ignorance.

May I have permission to “steal” some quotes from your own writings?

If War is “detrimental to natural selection since it artificially takes the fittest individiuals out of the gene pool” How is Eugenics NOT constructive to the gene pool by artificially removing the unfit?

Doug attempts to distance Darwin from his own beliefs and as a result completely contradicts himself in the same post.

Doug claims that artificial selection does not influence change in species. Only natural selection influences change. Then he says that eliminating fit specimens through war works against natural selection since it artificially eliminates those who would otherwise advance the gene pool.

If artificial selection can not influence the selection of species (which is clearly NOT what Darwin has said), how can war (which you have stated is artificial) be harmful to natural selection?

Thanks for the sanctimonious preaching on quotemining. I felt that you of all people should not take offense since you do so with the Bible on a routine basis.

Feel free to quotemine the Bible all you want. No need to feel guilty. I certaintly don’t for quoting Darwin to demonstrate exactly what Darwin actually said.