Search This Blog

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Tying Darwinism to the atrocities of the past and present...

What do Social Darwinists really think?

pig

“the life of a newborn baby is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”
—Peter Singer, Practical Ethics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979), pp. 122-123.


It is too late to say No to Barack Obama officially until 2012...Does it seem absurd to find a link between Barack Hussein Obama and Charles Darwin?   Well, no, it is all too easy.   Darwinism is like a set of chains that shackle scientific research and it is a philosophical guillotine used to murder of hundreds of millions of innocent people!



It is not too late to say no to Social Darwinism/Eugenics/Darwinist Scientism!   By the way, I thought of a former commenter who identified himself as scohen while I was making this post.   If Darwinists had their way, scohen would have been identified as a member of an "inferior branch of humanity" as a Jew and would have been hauled of to meet his fate in a cold shower stall.   Yet he is a staunch supporter of Darwinism?  Ironically there are vast numbers of non-Aryan scientists who are part of the ruling paradigm who do not realize that, in the end, part of the goal of many a Social Darwinist is to reduce and eliminate those of his or her "race!" 

Why do environmentalists fight hard to keep third world countries locked into their ways of life?   Do you really think it is about science?  Because the largest producers of greenhouse gases by far are the oceans!  What if Social Darwinists want third world nations to continue to be plagued by disease and warfare and poverty so that they decrease in numbers proportionally?  To keep people locked into ignorance and old traditional ways long abandoned by the Western World as if they were being displayed in some kind of borderless zoo as examples of primitive humanity of the past.

Would it surprise you to learn that the elitists who rule the USA pass laws concerning health care and retirement that do not apply to them?   Would you be shocked to learn that our President and the average Congressman are millionaires?   For about 150 years now, we have been governed by a lot of folks like Julian Huxley or Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank and far too few Ronald Reagans and Jan Brewers and Bobby Jindalls.

It should be no surprise to anyone that, when the IPCC faked charts and fudged data that the New York Times didn't want to publish the leaked CRU emails.  But state secrets?  No problem!   Leaked emails of the CRU conspiracy in concert with actual research showed us that Anthropic Global Warming is not a problem and that, once again, naturalistic materialistic scientists do not adhere to Biblical morality so to lie and fake data is not a problem for them.  It needs to be said that the banning of DDT led to the death of millions of black people...while research proved that DDT was NOT going to kill off the little birdies.   It should also be no surprise that Darwinism has led to atrocities of all sorts.  No wonder Darwin struggled with nightmares and stress-related illnesses in his later years, for he understood to some extent the hell that he had unleashed on the world.   Frankly it is hard to find any one human being within the last three hundred years who has caused more misery to the world in general than Charles Darwin.

What Hath Darwin Wrought?  is an 80-minute documentary exploring the controversial cultural implications of Darwin’s theory of evolution from the nineteenth century to today by three scientists with doctorates in at least one scientific field and degrees/experience in multiple disciplines.  The authors of this documentary?  One of the stars of the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed movie, in my opinion, David Berlinksi and two other highly qualified scientists.   Here are their credentials as listed for the DVD.  

DAVID BERLINSKI is a Senior Fellow of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. Residing in Paris, he is the author of numerous books, including The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions and The Deniable Darwin. He received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris.

RICHARD WEIKART is a Professor of History at California State University, Stanislaus, and a Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. He is an expert on the historical impact of Darwinian thought in Germany. He completed his Ph.D. in modern European history at the University of Iowa, receiving the biennial prize of the Forum for History of Human Sciences for the best dissertation in that field. His books include Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein; From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany; and Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress. In 2008, he was featured in the documentary film Expelled with Ben Stein.

JOHN G. WEST is Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. Formerly the Chair of the Department of Political Science and Geography at Seattle Pacific University, Dr. West is an expert on the impact of Darwinian thought on American culture and society. His books include Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture have been Dehumanized in the Name of Science, Darwin’s Conservatives: The Misguided Quest, and (as a co-author) Traipsing into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision. Dr.West holds a Ph.D. in Government from Claremont Graduate University. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, and C-SPAN, and he has been interviewed by Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and many other publications.


“All we are doing is catching up with Darwin. He showed in the nineteenth century that we are simply animals. Humans had imagined we were a separate part of creation, that there was some magical line between us and them. Darwin’s theory undermined the foundations of that entire western way of thinking about the place of our species in the universe.”
—Peter Singer, quoted in Johann Hari, “Peter Singer—An Interview,” The Independent, Jan. 7, 2004, available online at http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=410.



So often when the obvious connections between Darwinism and the atrocities perpetrated on humanity in the years since Darwinism has been popularized, the defenders of that faith rise up to supposedly "debunk" the connection with all sorts of ridiculous claims, like "Hitler was a Catholic" and "Lysenko banned a Darwin book" and so on and so forth.   Recently I have presented strong evidence that Darwin understood that his hypothesis would not only be used to try to eliminate Christianity but also to promote racism and Eugenics and genocide.  Darwinism is absolutely bad for the world!

No Christian should give so much as a thought to Darwinism.   It is bad science and  worse religion.

To tempt you to buy the DVD and especially to bolster the points I have already made, here are a few quotes for your perusal from the DVD and a few youtubes as well:

"Following are the major quotations cited in the documentary along with the sources of the quotes. Each quotation is preceded by a time code indicating at what point it appears in the documentary."

DVD CHAPTER 2: NAZIS AND DARWIN

(0:14:52) “A stronger race will supplant the weaker, since the drive for life in its final form will decimate every ridiculous fetter of the so-called ‘humaneness’ of individuals, in order to make place for the true ‘humaneness of nature,’ which destroys the weak to make place for the strong.”
—Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter IV.

(0:15:38) “If reproduction as such is limited and the number of births decreased, then the natural struggle for existence, which only allows the strongest and healthiest to survive, will be replaced by the obvious desire to save at any cost even the weakest and sickest; thereby a progeny is produced, which must become ever more miserable.”
—Adolf Hiter, Mein Kampf, Chapter IV.

(0:16:03) “In this world, the laws of natural selection apply. Nature has given the stronger and healthier the right to live. Woe betides anyone who is weak and cannot stand his ground! He cannot expect pity from anyone.”
—Hitler Speech, clip from German documentary “Hitler’s Children,” part 4 (War), starting at 12:32, available at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5298238941550391341#.

(You might wait and click that link after you finish the blogpost, it is a long one!)

(0:16:20) “We are all beings of nature, which—inasmuch as we can see it—only know one harsh law, the law that gives the right of life to the stronger and takes the life of the weaker. We humans cannot exempt ourselves from this law. … On this earth we observe the unswerving struggle of living organisms with each other. One animal lives, in that it kills the other.”
—Adolf Hitler, speech to army officers, 1942, quoted in Richard Weikart, Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), p. 4.

(0:17:08) “Our racial idea is only the ‘expression of a worldview’ that recognizes in the higher evolution of humans a divine command.”
—from “Why Are We Fighting?” (1944), Nazi propaganda pamphlet Hitler personally approved, quoted in in Richard Weikart, Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), p. 138.

(0:17:41) “The preservation and propagation, the evolution and elevating of life occurs through the struggle for existence, which every plant, every animal, every species and every genus is subjected. Even humans and the human races are subject to this struggle; it decides their value and their right to exist.”
—Rassenpolitik (Berlin, n.d.), SS pamphlet approved by both Hitler and Himmler.

(0:18:34) “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.”
—Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871 edition, J. Murray, London), Part I, Chapter VI, p. 201.

(0:20:27) “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely the production of the higher animals, directly follows.”
—Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (1859 edition, J. Murray, London), p. 490.

(0:22:54) Adam Sedgwick was Charles Darwin’s mentor at Cambridge. On November 24, 1859, he informed Darwin that passages in Darwin’s book “greatly shocked” his “moral taste.” Sedgwick warned Darwin that his theory of evolution attempted to break the link between the moral and physical parts of nature. He wrote, “Were it possible (which thank God it is not) to break it, humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it—& sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.”
—Adam Sedgwick to Charles Darwin, Nov. 24, 1859, available at http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2548.

DVD CHAPTER 3: AMERICAN EUGENICS

(0:30:39) “Nature eliminates the unfit and preserves the fit… It is man, not Nature, who has caused all the trouble. He has put his whole soul to saving the unfit....”
—Harvard biologist Edward M. East, Heredity and Human Affairs (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1927), p. 311.

(0:39:32) “a good many defectives survive in modern society and are capable of reproduction who would have perished in more primitive society before reaching maturity... thus natural selection, the great law of evolution and progress, is set at naught.”
—Princeton biologist Edwin Conklin, Edwin Conklin, “Value of Negative Eugenics,” Journal of Heredity, vol VI, no. 12 (December 1915), pp. 539-540.

(0:45:44) “Birth control... is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will bcome defectives.”
—Margaret Sanger, Woman and the New Race (1920), Chapter XVIII, “The Goal,” available at http://www.bartleby.com/1013/18.html.



(0:47:02) “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
—Margaret Sanger, Woman and the New Race (1920), Chapter V, “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families,” available at http://www.bartleby.com/1013/5.html.

(0:49:25) “our eyes should be opened to the terrific cost to the community of this dead weight of human waste.”
—Margaret Sanger, in Michael W. Perry, editor, The Pivot of Civilization in Historical Perspective by Margaret Sanger (Seattle: Inkling Books, 2001), p. 215.

(0:50:50) “the American public is taxed, heavily taxed, to maintain an increasing race of morons, which threatens the very foundations of our civilization.”
—Margaret Sanger, “The Function of Sterilization,” Birth Control Review (October 1926), p. 299.

(0:51:15) “You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say, ‘Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.”
—George Bernard Shaw, clip from documentary “The Soviet Story,” available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WBRjU9P5eo&feature=related.




(0:51:59) “I appeal to the chemists to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly. Deadly by all means, but humane, not cruel.”
—George Bernard Shaw, The Listener, Feb. 7, 1934.




DVD CHAPTER 4: MODERN EUGENICS

(1:00:14) “Natural selection’s death rate of the jungle helped to purify the primitive race by destroying the weak and permitting only the strong to live and reproduce. Eugenicists hope to arrive at the same result by the selective birth rate.”
— Lena K. Sadler, “Is the Abnormal to Become Normal?” in A Decade of Progress in Eugenics, Scientific Papers of the Third International Congress of Eugenics (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Co., 1934), p. 198.

(1:01:53) “the life of a newborn baby is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”
—Peter Singer, Practical Ethics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979), pp. 122-123.

(1:03:04) “All we are doing is catching up with Darwin. He showed in the nineteenth century that we are simply animals. Humans had imagined we were a separate part of creation, that there was some magical line between us and them. Darwin’s theory undermined the foundations of that entire western way of thinking about the place of our species in the universe.”
—Peter Singer, quoted in Johann Hari, “Peter Singer—An Interview,” The Independent, Jan. 7, 2004, available online at http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=410.

(1:04:35) “We cannot repeal the laws of natural selection. Nature does not let every life form survive. Humanity uniquely, and to its benefit, can exercise some dominion over this process….”
—“A Conversation with Alexander Sanger,” http://www.alexandersanger.com/interviews.html.

(1:05:20) “We must become proud that we have taken control of our reproduction. This has been a major factor in advancing human evolution and survival.”
—Alexander Sanger, Beyond Choice: Reproductive Freedom and the 21st Century (New York: Public Affairs, 2004), p. 302.

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

(1:11:17) Darwin argued that the break in evolutionary history between apes and humans came “between the negro or Australian and the gorilla,” thus he thought that blacks are the closest human beings to apes.
—Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871 edition, J. Murray, London), Part I, Chapter VI, p. 201.

(1:14:240 “With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
—Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871 edition, J. Murray, London), Part I, Chapter V, p. 168.

So where have we gone wrong, inviting Malthus and Darwin and Galton into our philosophy?

The Eugenics Connection Part One



The Eugenics Connection Part Two



Forced Sterilization? A movie about what was and what could be again...It is old and a bit corny but it is accurate historically and the idea of Obamacare and the fact that your tax dollars are funding abortions should be enough to both horrify and anger you!   It also should be more than enough to inspire you to revisit everything,  and I do mean EVERYTHING you believe about Darwin and Darwinism.   This world is full of people so focused on the minutiae of each day that they do not think critically about the most serious questions of scientific and metaphysical concerns.   What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?











70 comments:

radar said...

" The Oregon Board of Eugenics, later renamed the Board of Social Protection, existed until 1983, with the last forcible sterilization occurring in 1981" (Wikipedia)

Anonymous said...

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. ...And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited."

Adolf Hitler

Anonymous said...

I suspect that with regard to evolution Hitler had similar views on evolution as you, Radar: he accepted microevolution, as it is understandable and undeniable for example in animal husbandry and that fed into his desire for racial purity, but he rejected macroevolution due to its implications, as that would have made his Aryan race descended from ape-like ancestors.

Fact is that the Nazis banned books on Darwin's theory of evolution and its "false scientific enlightenment", as well as atheistic books and books that defamed Christianity.

It wouldn't be the first time that someone twisted Christian beliefs to misguided ends, seeing themselves as God's chosen people. This is not a strike against Christianity, by the way; it's a strike against twisted minds, which can wreak havoc no matter what their religious faith is.

Anonymous said...

Positive Christianity.

Anonymous said...

If Darwinists had their way, scohen would have been identified as a member of an "inferior branch of humanity" as a Jew and would have been hauled of to meet his fate in a cold shower stall.

So today "Darwinist" is synonymous with Nazi.

You are truly shameless.

scohen said...

"If Darwinists had their way, scohen would have been identified as a member of an "inferior branch of humanity" as a Jew and would have been hauled of to meet his fate in a cold shower stall"

Radar,
One of the main reasons that I don't comment here any more is that the above line of reasoning offends me *as a Jew*.
What you're doing above belittles Hitler's evil, lessens the culpability of the German people and diminishes the effect of centuries of antisemitism normalized and fostered by *christians* (namely the Catholic church).

What you're engaging in is no less than Holocaust revisionism, and it's disgusting. The ADL agrees with this, and I would post a link, but your comment spam filter won't allow that.

In the future, don't ever put words in my mouth again or think for a second that you're acting in my best interest as a Jew, when you're clearly in this to justify your own narrow and pig-ignorant views.

And you're doing this near Christmas, which is just about the classiest thing I've seen from you in a while.

Merry Christmas radar. May the next year be one of personal growth, and may you see the error of your ways.

Captain Stubing said...

Amen, scohen.

Jon Woolf said...

Seconded. Well said, scohen.

Radar, why do you waste time trying to libel evolutionary theory for the sins of some who claim to have supported it (but actually didn't).

Using the same logic, I could condemn you for being a Christian, because others have used Christianity as justification for invasion, plunder, murder, and rape.

But I don't do that. Observe, commenters and lurkers: proof positive that someone who Radar attempts to libel with every post is actually a better human being than he is.

And that irritates him no end.

highboy said...

"In the future, don't ever put words in my mouth again or think for a second that you're acting in my best interest as a Jew, when you're clearly in this to justify your own narrow and pig-ignorant views."

You have a nasty habit of positing an opinion based on how it makes you feel as if your delicate sensibilities are written in some irrefutable tome that all must adhere to. You can be offended all you want but the logic is irrefutable. While Hitler may not have ever referenced Darwin or gave him a thought, the point is that no where in any scientific research is natural selection limited to every other species not human. Its absurd how you mainstream science can look at the extermination of entire species of animals as natural selection but when humans do it its "artificial". Sorry, doesn't make sense and Goodwin's Law is nothing more than a smokescreen. If nature selects animals for extinction that the elimination of a race of humans is no different. The idea that Hitler made a conscious decision so it wasn't natural selection at work is not even supported. No where in Darwin's theory does it stipulate the difference. Bottom line in a scientific world where every creature, including humans, is born out of sheer chance with no moral relevance, the elimination of a species of animals, including humans, has no moral significance whatsoever. For coexistence to be a moral issue existence itself would have to be a moral issue and in an atheistic framework our existence is not a matter of "ought" but just a matter of "is". If Hitler would have succeeded in his quest, in a naturalistic/scientific/atheist sense it would have no more of a moral significance than nature selecting any other species for extinction. Of course me, you, and any other human with a pulse find this idea morally reprehensible, equating what Hitler did with natural selection in the atheistic/naturalistic framework is totally plausible, regardless of your emotions.

highboy said...

"Using the same logic, I could condemn you for being a Christian, because others have used Christianity as justification for invasion, plunder, murder, and rape.

But I don't do that. "

because you'd be wrong, as would anyone who claimed that Hitler looked at evolution and saw fit to kill Jews as a result. But the point being made is that the extermination of any species by another species can be labeled natural selection. No where in Darwin's theory does it state that if the "favored races" have a conscious decision to eliminate a weaker race does that disqualify it from natural selection. I would guess that Darwin himself would have been horrified at the idea of a human trying to exterminate an entire race of people but in an atheistic framework, why? Because humans are special? Because they are above the process of natural selection simply because they have a built in moral compass? That isn't a scientific conclusion by any stretch, its a belief. Its one that I share thank God.

Captain Stubing said...

Wow, I had no idea that the difference between natural selection and artificial selection was that hard to grok.

Captain Stubing said...

"You have a nasty habit of positing an opinion based on how it makes you feel as if your delicate sensibilities are written in some irrefutable tome that all must adhere to."

Perfect description of Radar here.

Anonymous said...

highboy said:

"Its one that I share thank God."

Is God natural or artificial?

highboy said...

"Wow, I had no idea that the difference between natural selection and artificial selection was that hard to grok."

Which begs the question: what the hell is grok? As for the difference, I understand full well the defining line of each. The problem is, its totally inconsistent with the atheist/naturalist worldview. If everything has a natural explanation and we humans are just another part of nature than what we do is not artificial. Its totally natural. I realise you won't have anything to refute this other than some sarcastic glib but I thought I should point it out.

"Is God natural or artificial?"

Neither.

Anonymous said...

highboy said:

"Neither."

Err...sorry, but that's impossible.

If you hold to your own definition, God cannot be neither natural or artificial: if He's not natural that would automatically (according to your definition) make Him artificial.

Seems you're contradicting yourself.

Anonymous said...

"Which begs the question: what the hell is grok?"

Which begs the question: does highboy have access to an online dictionary?

And does highboy know what "begging the question" means?

Anonymous said...

"The problem is, its totally inconsistent with the atheist/naturalist worldview."

Only in made-up strawman-argument land.

Atheists, naturalists, and heck, even Christians can understand the rather simple concept that the words "artificial" and "natural" in the terms "artificial selection" and "natural selection" describe the kind of selection, not the ultimate history of all the agents involved.

There's really no reason to play dumb about this, highboy.

Captain Stubing said...

"As for the difference, I understand full well the defining line of each."

The evidence you've presented so far strongly indicates otherwise slick. Haven't seen such juvenile mental games since junior high.

Anonymous said...

Highboy, would it kill you to read up on other philosophies and belief systems before you start commenting on them?

Jon Woolf said...

"Highboy, would it kill you to read up on other philosophies and belief systems before you start commenting on them?"

He seems so determined to avoid it, maybe he thinks it would.

highboy blathered: "Its absurd how you mainstream science can look at the extermination of entire species of animals as natural selection but when humans do it its "artificial". Sorry, doesn't make sense..."

Not to you, perhaps ... but that's your problem, not ours. You don't understand it because you're missing an essential piece of the puzzle: our acceptance of evolutionary theory notwithstanding, we believe humans are qualitatively different from other animals. That quality springs from several sources and can be called by any of several different names. Whatever you call it, though, it means the same thing. What humans do consciously is not natural selection.

Those humans who believe that humans really aren't any different from any other animals are being just as dogmatic, and just as blind to reality, as anti-evolutionists are.

highboy said...

"Err...sorry, but that's impossible.

If you hold to your own definition, God cannot be neither natural or artificial: if He's not natural that would automatically (according to your definition) make Him artificial.

Seems you're contradicting yourself. "

Err, no its not impossible, He's God, and He neither is artificial nor is He natural. He's supernatural. He's GOD. That's not a contradiction, unless you think the existence of an infinitely powerful omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being is subject to the same laws of logic and science as the beings He created, which would be absurd.

"Which begs the question: does highboy have access to an online dictionary?"

Now go look up "levity".

"Only in made-up strawman-argument land."

Um, it can't be a strawman argument when its EXACTLY what is being discussed in the post and all the comments that followed.

"even Christians can understand the rather simple concept that the words "artificial" and "natural" in the terms "artificial selection" and "natural selection" describe the kind of selection, not the ultimate history of all the agents involved."

than you should probably stop, because I know full well what the words mean, what I'm arguing and you're not capable of refuting is that the differing concepts make no sense in a particular worldview.

" Haven't seen such juvenile mental games since junior high."

you're leaving out nearly every thread you've posted on in this blog.

But that's typical of the dissenters here. When someone actually points out the inconsistencies in your failing logic, you just mouth off. Keep shooting blanks fellas. You have yet to establish how the atrocities Hitler committed can't be natural selection at work, and you have yet to posit a compelling argument (or even a non-compelling one) to establish where in evolutionary theory it states conscious decision making of humanity does not fall under that category.

highboy said...

"Not to you, perhaps ... but that's your problem, not ours. You don't understand it because you're missing an essential piece of the puzzle: our acceptance of evolutionary theory notwithstanding, we believe humans are qualitatively different from other animals. That quality springs from several sources and can be called by any of several different names. Whatever you call it, though, it means the same thing. What humans do consciously is not natural selection. "

LOL. Actually Jon, its your problem, because you just admitted its a BELIEF you have that humans are qualitatively different than any other animal, making your entire conclusion that what humans do consciously can't be natural selection totally UNscientific. Your entire argument over whether or not what Hiter did falls under natural selection has NOTHING to do with science and has EVERYTHING to do with a simple belief. Thanks for playing. Discussion over.

Anonymous said...

"Err, no its not impossible, He's God, and He neither is artificial nor is He natural. He's supernatural. He's GOD. That's not a contradiction, unless you think the existence of an infinitely powerful omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being is subject to the same laws of logic and science as the beings He created, which would be absurd."

Err...in your definition you didn't make any exception for God. It was simply 'artificial = not natural'. So, if God is not natural; by your definition He is artificial.

No amount of verbal gymnastics can get you out of that.

So you see: always be careful when re-defining a word to suit your own purposes. ;-)

Anonymous said...

"If everything has a natural explanation and we humans are just another part of nature than what we do is not artificial. Its totally natural."

So would you agree then with the following statements:

That people fought and defeated Hitler is totally natural.
Charity is totally natural.
Friendship is totally natural.
Helping an old lady across the street is totally natural.

Right?

scohen said...

"You can be offended all you want but the logic is irrefutable"

Not really, but my main point here is that radar (and I guess you if you agree with him) is practicing holocaust revisionism, and that's despicable. This isn't just my opinion either, this is the ADL's position as well, since Radar just parroted the above 'logic' from the movie Expelled.

By your own admission, you know nothing about Darwin or evolution, yet here you are trying to speak intelligently on biology. You really fail:

"But the point being made is that the extermination of any species by another species can be labeled natural selection"

Figure out the blatant error that you made above (and there are several) re: evolution and you'll show you're serious. Or, go to wikipedia and read up on evolution, natural selection and artificial selection and figure out the difference --each has a pretty good page. Note well the 'mechanisms' listed under the sidebar on the evolution page. Notice how 'mass murder' is omitted. Browse around and find this:

"After the atrocities of the Holocaust became linked with eugenics, it greatly fell out of favor with public and scientific opinion, though it was never universally accepted by either, and at no point in Nazi literature is Charles Darwin or the scientific theory of evolution mentioned."

Think on it.

Understand it.

Grok.

highboy said...

The comments here are getting more and more absurd.

"in your definition you didn't make any exception for God. It was simply 'artificial = not natural'. So, if God is not natural; by your definition He is artificial."

Its not verbal gymnastics, its me wrongly assuming that someone would have the common sense to know that a supernatural being by definition would not fall under either category. You have Stubing's gift of childish word salad. Next.

"So would you agree then with the following statements:

That people fought and defeated Hitler is totally natural.
Charity is totally natural.
Friendship is totally natural.
Helping an old lady across the street is totally natural.

Right?"

In the naturalistic worldview yes.

Scohen: you, like the rest, just want to keep harping on the definitive differences according to science between artificial and natural selection, problem is, I simply don't care. What I'm saying is that the differences make no sense. Get it yet? The extinction of the dinosaurs usually is labeled as a product of natural selection. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that a decisive process, or "mass murder", is not natural selection, its nothing more than an opinion or belief, based on, as Jon stated, the idea that humans are qualitatively different than all other animal species. There is no scientific evidence to support the belief that what humans do as a matter of choice is in any way different from any other species. Its not a matter of scientific data, its a matter of human belief. That is it, that is all.

I also didn't say I knew nothing of evolution. I grasp the concepts of evolution, OEC, and YEC, but have not picked one side over the other in terms of cosmology, since it all comes down to credibility of those positing the data.

Jon Woolf said...

"Actually Jon, its your problem, because you just admitted its a BELIEF you have that humans are qualitatively different than any other animal, making your entire conclusion that what humans do consciously can't be natural selection totally UNscientific. "

Unless it's based on evidence.

Which it is.

You know, Highboy, it's almost as much fun to set traps for you as it is to set 'em for Radar. Both of you simply can't shake this belief that you know what I think better than I do, or that you're going to one-up me over subjects that I've thought about for decades. I've tested my ideas against some of the finest minds the human race has ever produced -- and you think you can find flaws that they couldn't? Talk about arrogant!

Anonymous said...

Highboy,

"Its not a matter of scientific data, its a matter of human belief. That is it, that is all."

It's neither, it's a simple matter of definition, which for some reason you're determined to resist. Why? No idea. But it's not important. You're smart enough to know where the information can be found - what you do with it is up to you.

Natural selection: an organism has a number of traits that are more or less beneficial to survival and/or reproduction. The less beneficial ones are "selected out" and thus tend to fade out of the population; the more beneficial ones are "selected in" and amplified in the population. Note that the traits selected are selected on the basis of being beneficial or harmful to survival and/or reproduction, and that "natural" is used to describe the type of selection, NOT the nature of the organisms involved. That is why it is possible, for example, to model natural selection using artificial means, yet another creationist blind spot.

Artificial selection: a conscious decision is made to cull or amplify certain organisms based on criteria unrelated to the survival chances of the organism in the wild or to the organisms sexual attractiveness. Again, note that "artificial" is used to describe the type of selection, NOT the nature of the organisms involved.

Anonymous said...

(cont'd)

Do you understand the distinction? When the Nazis consciously decided to kill Jews (based on historical prejudices against Jews and a temporary fortune in political power), the Nazis did not have any superior biological traits to the Jews that were being naturally selected.

One could propose a hypothesis that over time, a trait of consistently deciding to kill others is beneficial or harmful and test this, but note that the Holocaust doesn't fall under this because (aside from the fact that it was not related to the relative merits of the biological traits of Aryans vs. Jews) it was, for all intents and purposes, a single event, i.e. not something that went on for generations and generations with natural selection having an effect.

I'm not sure that this is where your main argument lies. You seem more focused on your assertion that according to a metaphysical naturalist worldview there would be no such thing as conscience or conscious thought. This is not the case. Both methodological and metaphysical naturalism of course accept the existence of conscious thought.

Captain Stubing said...

"Now go look up "levity". "

Why, don't you know what it means?

"than you should probably stop, because I know full well what the words mean, what I'm arguing and you're not capable of refuting is that the differing concepts make no sense in a particular worldview. "

That would make it apparent that you don't know what the terms mean slick. This must be your lucky day because the distinction is explained for you above, buddy.

"When someone actually points out the inconsistencies in your failing logic, you just mouth off."

I've pointed out quite a few inconsistencies in Radar's failing logic in the last few posts, and in return he did exactly that - he mouthed off and evaded. As predicted.

Heck maybe you have the answers. Or are you just going to mouth off about "word salad" and all that happy jive again? No answers?

Whereas the so-called inconsistency that you keep aiming for here slick is just that you fail to grasp what exactly the "artificial" in "artificial selection" is describing.

scohen said...

"I simply don't care. What I'm saying is that the differences make no sense. Get it yet?"

Well, I beg to differ then --they do make sense, you just need to try harder. Otherwise, there's not much point in talking, is there?
Maybe this not caring thing is hampering your ability to understand.

Unless, of course, you're incapable of understanding the differences, which I don't believe. But I've been wrong in the past. I really think you're just trying to pull the entire debate away from science to more comfortable ground, which is morality. The biggest problem with this logic is that the theory of evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, it describes what occurs, it doesn't tell you to go out and commit an orgy of murder any more so than the theory gravity tells you to drop heavy objects on things.


"The extinction of the dinosaurs usually is labeled as a product of natural selection"

Not really, the fact that the environment changed was a selection event, which selected *for* certain things. You're missing an important but subtle distinction.

"I also didn't say I knew nothing of evolution. I grasp the concepts of evolution"

I'm going by what I see here, and your understanding leaves a lot to be desired (this entire discussion is evidence in my favor). If you do understand and I am mistaken, I'd love for you to point out the error(s) you made in the point above.

highboy said...

"Unless it's based on evidence.

Which it is.

You know, Highboy, it's almost as much fun to set traps for you as it is to set 'em for Radar. Both of you simply can't shake this belief that you know what I think better than I do, or that you're going to one-up me over subjects that I've thought about for decades. I've tested my ideas against some of the finest minds the human race has ever produced -- and you think you can find flaws that they couldn't? Talk about arrogant!"

Right, which is why you haven't produced a shred of scientific evidence that supports your idea. This is the second time in recent history you've done so. As for your childish claim of grandeur: please kid. Give me the names of these fine minds and all of the research you've "tested" your ideas with them.

anonymouswhosits: the definitions describing artificial and natural selection are known to me. I'm telling you they make no sense. The reasoning behind the "distinction" is totally flawed. If creatures in nature make a decision, it was natural.

Captain Stubing said...

"the definitions describing artificial and natural selection are known to me."

See, slick, it starts out so promising, just like your claim above that you grasp the concept of evolution...

"I'm telling you they make no sense."

... aaand we're back to square one.

"The reasoning behind the "distinction" is totally flawed. If creatures in nature make a decision, it was natural."

So the distinction continues to elude you, arg.

Anon a few comments up did you the favor of plucking this apart for you in nice digestible form, but it's like a bullet bouncing off a steel plate in the brain (or a Bible in a breast pocket lol).

Captain Stubing said...

"I really think you're just trying to pull the entire debate away from science to more comfortable ground, which is morality. The biggest problem with this logic is that the theory of evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, it describes what occurs, it doesn't tell you to go out and commit an orgy of murder any more so than the theory gravity tells you to drop heavy objects on things."

Well put. That just about covers the entire inanity of and motivation behind Radaractive as a blog: why he makes a shambles of science with endless fallacies and strawmen but can't withstand the simplest challenges to his own position.

highboy said...

Cap you and the anonymous posters on here can keep repeating the same clap trap over and over again, that doesn't make it true. I'm perfectly capable of understanding what a word means while at the same time disagreeing with the entire concept. Get it slick? Or does simple, basic concept still elude you? Let me try it one more time, kindergarten style that way you have no excuses:

Artificial selection, and the concept of an organism making a conscious decision, still involves a naturally evolved organism, with a naturally evolved consciousness, with a naturally evolved ability to make a decision, and a naturally evolved ability to execute. So the distinctions mainstream science has placed between the two does not detract from the verifiable fact that what took place was natural selection. It was a selection using naturally evolved, biological traits. End of story. Answer the point.

Not to mention, this idea posited by Jon and affirmed by others that humans are qualitatively different isn't based on scientific data. There is no scientific data that can observe inherent human worth. Just felt like pointing out once again another claim made here by the dissenters that is verified false.

Captain Stubing said...

"Not to mention, this idea posited by Jon and affirmed by others that humans are qualitatively different isn't based on scientific data."

That would depend on which qualities you're talking about, right? Are there scientific studies that show that humans are more capable of, say, abstract thought, complex planning etc.? I don't know any off the top of my head, but I suspect there are.

"There is no scientific data that can observe inherent human worth."

Ah, but now you've constructed a strawman. Jon Woolf wasn't talking about "inherent human worth", and you're trying to nail him down to a claim he didn't make.

" Just felt like pointing out once again another claim made here by the dissenters that is verified false."

You didn't "verify anything false" slick. You constructed a (rather lazy) strawman and proclaimed victory buddy. Don't break out the champagne just yet slick.

Captain Stubing said...

"Artificial selection, and the concept of an organism making a conscious decision, still involves a naturally evolved organism, with a naturally evolved consciousness, with a naturally evolved ability to make a decision, and a naturally evolved ability to execute."

And yet it's still artificial selection. You just can't wrap your head around that, can you slick?

It's because the word "artificial" describes the selection process itself (to contrast it against "natural" in "natural selection") not the nature of all the agents involved... I'm pretty sure this has been pointed out to you more than once.

Try it this way: name something artificial that isn't composed of things that are natural when you break them down.

"So the distinctions mainstream science has placed between the two does not detract from the verifiable fact that what took place was natural selection."

Er, no, not "verifiable fact" - more like "logical fallacy". The terms "natural selection" and "artificial selection" have specific meanings. You're trying to re-define them as "selection that only uses things that are ultimately natural" and "selection that only uses things that are ultimately artificial". As long as you saddle yourself with such useless home-made definitions, slick, you'll never be able to understand this topic. You'll just be ranting at others (some of whom made a very polite effort to help you in this thread) because they won't accept your homespun definitions and fallacies.

"It was a selection using naturally evolved, biological traits. End of story."

Shorter Highboy: I love my own definitions of things and I'm sticking to them!

"Answer the point."

Answered multiple times earlier in this thread. Looks like you skipped some of it.

Captain Stubing said...

"Cap you and the anonymous posters on here can keep repeating the same clap trap over and over again, that doesn't make it true."

Seeing as you skipped some cogent arguments and comments above, just because you ignore them and rant a little doesn't make them NOT true slick.

"I'm perfectly capable of understanding what a word means while at the same time disagreeing with the entire concept. Get it slick?"

Dunno about that now. Your entire line of commenting here is solid evidence to the contrary. It shows clearly that you don't understand "natural selection" and "artificial selection" AT ALL. You may have looked up "natural" and "artificial" and "selection", but that's about it. I'm still gobsmacked that you think "artificial selection" means "selection only involving things that are ultimately artificial".

"Or does simple, basic concept still elude you?"

That you disagree that artificial selection exists simply because you say so? No, you're broadcasting that "simple, basic concept" loud and clear slick.

"Let me try it one more time, kindergarten style that way you have no excuses:"

Anger issues are back I see.

Captain Stubing said...

Oh and it's funny how none of the self-professed Christians commenting here have the nerve to admit that Hitler was a Catholic, albeit a stunningly misguided one.

Little mind game: if Hitler had a deathbed conversion, recanted, found his way to Jesus, would he go to heaven?

highboy said...

Sorry Cap, keep trying. You keep pointing out to me what I already know, and can't seem to grasp the idea that I'm saying what science has defined as artificial as opposed to natural makes no sense. How you're not getting this I'm not sure. If the agents involved are natural and use natural traits, than the selection process can't be artificial. Period.

"Oh and it's funny how none of the self-professed Christians commenting here have the nerve to admit that Hitler was a Catholic, albeit a stunningly misguided one."

Because its known to all and nobody cares. You state the obvious as if its some hard-hitting point when it really has nothing to do with anything we're discussing. No one said that to buy evolution makes you a Jew-killing Hitler and I already stated very clearly that Darwin himself would be appalled at such a thing.

"Little mind game: if Hitler had a deathbed conversion, recanted, found his way to Jesus, would he go to heaven?"

Its not a very good mind game. The answer is obvious: yes.

"Ah, but now you've constructed a strawman. Jon Woolf wasn't talking about "inherent human worth", and you're trying to nail him down to a claim he didn't make."

Wrong. To compare our qualitative differences with every other animal species and declare that these qualities excluded us or elevate us in any way above any other natural organism to state very clearly that there is an inherent human worth. Its not a strawman, and the quicker you decide to stop throwing out logical fallacy labels to smokescreen your inability to answer a point the quicker you may gain a shred of credibility.

Little mind game: if Hitler had a deathbed conversion, recanted, found his way to Jesus, would he go to heaven?

Jon Woolf said...

"To compare our qualitative differences with every other animal species and declare that these qualities excluded us or elevate us in any way above any other natural organism to state very clearly that there is an inherent human worth."

Is it?

Some examples of the traits that make us qualitatively different from all other organisms:

* self-awareness
* metaphysical awareness
* the ability for abstract thought
* the ability to predict the future and then plan for it
* the ability to analyze past actions and draw conclusions about future possibilities

Note that these have nothing whatever to do with morals, ethics, or subjective notions of 'worth.' They are concrete, observable, testable actions that humans can do and animals can't.

highboy said...

"Note that these have nothing whatever to do with morals, ethics, or subjective notions of 'worth.' They are concrete, observable, testable actions that humans can do and animals can't."

So you're saying morals and ethics are not biological traits? If they weren't evolved biologically, where did they come from? And I fail to see how the testable actions you listed equates to our elevation from other animal species. The qualities make us more dominant, but in terms of human action dwelling outside the realm of natural selection simply because it uses different biological traits isn't supported by your argument.

Captain Stubing said...

"Sorry Cap, keep trying."

No thanks. You can lead a horse to water etc. You're clearly not addressing the information that people took the time to make available to you and you're being rude on top. All you have left is stubbornness and anger and homespun definitions, so knock yourself out slick.

"You keep pointing out to me what I already know"

And you keep making it clear that you don't already know. Seriously. You can't get a certain fallacy of composition out of your head and you scream your frustration at us when all you need to do is realize that your re-definition of "artificial selection" isn't persuading anyone and that just because something consists of things that are ultimately natural doesn't make that thing natural. If that were so, everything you'd see in the supermarket would be 100% natural, even if we'd call some of it 100% artificial.

"No one said that to buy evolution makes you a Jew-killing Hitler[...] "

Certainly seems to me slick that Radar does make allegations in that direction, "Darwinism is evil", "Hitler was an evil Darwinist atheist" and whatever.

Captain Stubing said...

"human action dwelling outside the realm of natural selection simply because it uses different biological traits"

Human action in general doesn't dwell outside the realm of natural selection, but that doesn't mean that artificial selection and conscious thought and artificial filtering can't also occur. Look upthread for the distinction between natural and artificial selection. Perhaps someday it'll sink in.

Captain Stubing said...

"Its not a strawman,"

You pretended that the argument Jon Woolf was making was a different one from the one he did make. That's a strawman slick.

"and the quicker you decide to stop throwing out logical fallacy labels to smokescreen your inability to answer a point the quicker you may gain a shred of credibility."

Your points were answered at exhaustive length by more than one person slick, so there is no inability to be covered up.

The logical fallacies were demonstrated, and simply throwing out some vague accusations and insults isn't going to get you out of that little hole slick.

When you use a logical fallacy and it's pointed out to you, that's at the expense of your credibility, not mine. Kinda obvious really slick. And when you deny it without basis (as you're doing here, surprise surprise), you just worsen your own position.

Anonymous said...

"Its not verbal gymnastics, its me wrongly assuming that someone would have the common sense to know that a supernatural being by definition would not fall under either category. You have Stubing's gift of childish word salad. Next."

No, you wrongly assumed that you could define a word to suit your purposes without being taken up on it. You say that God would not be in either category but fail to prove why this is the case. Your own definition of 'artificial', i.e. 'not natural' gives no exemption for God.
It's amusing to see though how your irritation and eagerness to get rid of this topic proves more than you would like.

Tell me, highboy: what's so terrifying about the word 'artificial' that you don't want God to fall into this category. After all, by your own definition, being supernatural -thus NOT natural- he fits the description of the word quite nicely. If God is artificial, that means He is not natural. What's wrong with that?

Or is there some difference between 'supernatural' and 'artificial'. If so, what is it? Can you show it while still sticking to your own definition of 'artificial'?

I'm curious...

highboy said...

"You can't get a certain fallacy of composition out of your head and you scream your frustration at us when all you need to do is realize that your re-definition of "artificial selection" isn't persuading anyone and that just because something consists of things that are ultimately natural doesn't make that thing natural"

1. No one is screaming, I'm typing on a keyboard. Flare for the dramatic?
2. I'mn not frustrated, I'm amused.
3. If something consists of things that are ultimately natural it is most certainly natural. It has to be. Labeling it "artificial" doesn't mean its not ultimately natural.

"Human action in general doesn't dwell outside the realm of natural selection, but that doesn't mean that artificial selection and conscious thought and artificial filtering can't also occur"

and that artificial filtering takes place with natural, biological traits which are.......wait for it......natural.

"You pretended that the argument Jon Woolf was making was a different one from the one he did make. That's a strawman slick."

you're pretending he didn't make an argument he obviously made slick.

"No, you wrongly assumed that you could define a word to suit your purposes without being taken up on it"

What you just said here anonymous, along with the point you're trying to make, doesn't make an ounce of sense.

"You say that God would not be in either category but fail to prove why this is the case. Your own definition of 'artificial', i.e. 'not natural' gives no exemption for God."

I didn't give you a definition of artificial, not to mention the point you're trying to make in this weak game of "gotcha" is falling flat on its face. God is supernatural. Period. He doesn't have to fall into either or, but you go ahead and feel special for pointing out that I didn't originally add the supernatural in a discussion that had nothing to do with the supernatural.

"Tell me, highboy: what's so terrifying about the word 'artificial' that you don't want God to fall into this category. After all, by your own definition, being supernatural -thus NOT natural- he fits the description of the word quite nicely. If God is artificial, that means He is not natural. What's wrong with that?"

Do you seriously read your own posts? Really dude, hit the preview button or something, these comments of yours that are suppose to prove some point are enough to make the eyes bleed. Where you get I'm trying to avoid the topic is beyond me, you're simply not making any sense. You're trying to blow holes in my argument about natural selection by pointing out I didn't mention God. Really? As for God being artificial:

artificial: made by human skill; produced by humans ( opposed to natural): artificial flowers.

Obviously if I'm an atheist I have no problem with God being artificial whatsoever. Since I'm not, and I believe God was not invented by humans, calling Him artificial would seem pretty contradictory wouldn't it? If God is real, He's not artificial. Seems like someone else needs to get a dictionary.

highboy said...

"You can't get a certain fallacy of composition out of your head and you scream your frustration at us when all you need to do is realize that your re-definition of "artificial selection" isn't persuading anyone and that just because something consists of things that are ultimately natural doesn't make that thing natural"

1. No one is screaming, I'm typing on a keyboard. Flare for the dramatic?
2. I'mn not frustrated, I'm amused.
3. If something consists of things that are ultimately natural it is most certainly natural. It has to be. Labeling it "artificial" doesn't mean its not ultimately natural.

"Human action in general doesn't dwell outside the realm of natural selection, but that doesn't mean that artificial selection and conscious thought and artificial filtering can't also occur"

and that artificial filtering takes place with natural, biological traits which are.......wait for it......natural.

"You pretended that the argument Jon Woolf was making was a different one from the one he did make. That's a strawman slick."

you're pretending he didn't make an argument he obviously made slick.

"No, you wrongly assumed that you could define a word to suit your purposes without being taken up on it"

What you just said here anonymous, along with the point you're trying to make, doesn't make an ounce of sense.

"You say that God would not be in either category but fail to prove why this is the case. Your own definition of 'artificial', i.e. 'not natural' gives no exemption for God."

I didn't give you a definition of artificial, not to mention the point you're trying to make in this weak game of "gotcha" is falling flat on its face. God is supernatural. Period. He doesn't have to fall into either or, but you go ahead and feel special for pointing out that I didn't originally add the supernatural in a discussion that had nothing to do with the supernatural.

"Tell me, highboy: what's so terrifying about the word 'artificial' that you don't want God to fall into this category. After all, by your own definition, being supernatural -thus NOT natural- he fits the description of the word quite nicely. If God is artificial, that means He is not natural. What's wrong with that?"

Do you seriously read your own posts? Really dude, hit the preview button or something, these comments of yours that are suppose to prove some point are enough to make the eyes bleed. Where you get I'm trying to avoid the topic is beyond me, you're simply not making any sense. You're trying to blow holes in my argument about natural selection by pointing out I didn't mention God. Really? As for God being artificial:

artificial: made by human skill; produced by humans ( opposed to natural): artificial flowers.

Obviously if I'm an atheist I have no problem with God being artificial whatsoever. Since I'm not, and I believe God was not invented by humans, calling Him artificial would seem pretty contradictory wouldn't it? If God is real, He's not artificial. Seems like someone else needs to get a dictionary.

Jon Woolf said...

"you're pretending he didn't make an argument he obviously made slick."

Well, no, actually. You're the one who misunderstood me.

Anonymous said...

highboy said:

"artificial: made by human skill; produced by humans ( opposed to natural): artificial flowers."

That's not the definition of "artificial" you yourself made: according to you 'artificial' means 'not natural'
Why do you all of a sudden refer to another definition of the word?

Interesting....and amusing!

highboy said...

"That's not the definition of "artificial" you yourself made: according to you 'artificial' means 'not natural'
Why do you all of a sudden refer to another definition of the word?

Interesting....and amusing!"

It sure is, seeing as how I never once on this entire blog defined artificial, which makes this whole line of argument you've been pushing look more and more childish. I never once said artifical=unnatural. What I said was natural=natural, not artificial. Like I said fella, hit the preview button. Or at the very least, actually read my comments before responding to them. Because a quick look shows I didn't once define artificial in any way. Thanks for playing.

Anonymous said...

"If something consists of things that are ultimately natural it is most certainly natural. It has to be. Labeling it "artificial" doesn't mean its not ultimately natural."

1. What continues to elude you is that artificial selection doesn't depend one bit on whether the agents involved are ultimately natural or not.

That appears to be the basis for your whole argument (the agents involved are ultimately natural, therefore artificial selection is actually natural selection) and it is wrong.

2. You've been asked this more than once, and it's not a coincidence that you can't come up with an answer:

Can you name anything artificial - anything at all - that isn't natural when you break it down into its components far enough?

Captain Stubing said...

"No one is screaming, I'm typing on a keyboard. Flare for the dramatic?"

Anal-retentive much, slick? Your frustration and anger is abundantly clear to other readers, in case you hadn't noticed.

"these comments of yours that are suppose to prove some point are enough to make the eyes bleed"

Are your eyes really in danger of bleeding or are you just reading words on a screen and find that they irk you? Flare for the dramatic much?

highboy said...

"1. What continues to elude you is that artificial selection doesn't depend one bit on whether the agents involved are ultimately natural or not. "

So you're saying artificial selection can happen without natural agents? Seriously?

"That appears to be the basis for your whole argument (the agents involved are ultimately natural, therefore artificial selection is actually natural selection) and it is wrong."

and yet for all these comments that keep telling me I'm wrong not one person has been able to actually show how, other than to point to two different terms and repeat their definitions over and over again. That doesn't explain why artificial selection, which happens naturally with natural biological agents and traits, is not natural.

"2. You've been asked this more than once, and it's not a coincidence that you can't come up with an answer:

Can you name anything artificial - anything at all - that isn't natural when you break it down into its components far enough?"

Um, genius, the very clear point I've been making is that nothing is artificial without natural components. Duh. Its not the inability to come up with an answer, its the point I've been making all along. The only rebuttal to this entire argument of mine is for you and others to repeatedly point out how science has defined artificial and natural selection differently. No cause, no rhyme or reason, just is. Science, or those in the field, have decided for no apparent scientific reason to declare that if the selection done was done consciously, that the selection isn't natural, but artificial. I get the concept. I'm saying the concept makes no sense, because in both cases of selection, the selection is done with nothing but naturally evolved biology. Period. There is no scientific reason to differentiate between them.

highboy said...

But at least you gave up on the whole "you left out God nanana" garbage.

highboy said...

"Your frustration and anger is abundantly clear to other readers, in case you hadn't noticed."

Of course it is to this squad of dissenters slick. I mean, its obvious you have Jedi mind powers. How else would you be able to gauge my mood reading black and white print over the internet? But its amusing you think you're important enough to frustrate me or anyone else simply by posting clap trap.

Captain Stubing said...

"How else would you be able to gauge my mood reading black and white print over the internet?"

By the words you utter. Really no need to invoke mindreading there slick.

Anonymous said...

"So you're saying artificial selection can happen without natural agents? Seriously?"

It was stated pretty clearly that the nature of the agents is irrelevant, since artificial describes the type of selection, not the nature of the agents. Since according to you all agents are natural and artificial selection requires agents, you're simply serving up a nonsensical statement here.

Your own fallacy of composition is definitely confusing you, but you really don't need to make it that difficult.

"That doesn't explain why artificial selection, which happens naturally with natural biological agents and traits, is not natural."

Because the "artificial" describes the kind of selection, not the composition of the agents involved. That's been explained to you more than once. Maybe you missed it:

Natural selection: an organism has a number of traits that are more or less beneficial to survival and/or reproduction. The less beneficial ones are "selected out" and thus tend to fade out of the population; the more beneficial ones are "selected in" and amplified in the population. Note that the traits selected are selected on the basis of being beneficial or harmful to survival and/or reproduction, and that "natural" is used to describe the type of selection, NOT the nature of the organisms involved. That is why it is possible, for example, to model natural selection using artificial means, yet another creationist blind spot.

Artificial selection: a conscious decision is made to cull or amplify certain organisms based on criteria unrelated to the survival chances of the organism in the wild or to the organisms sexual attractiveness. Again, note that "artificial" is used to describe the type of selection, NOT the nature of the organisms involved.


All you keep coming back with is the same old misconception that "artificial" and "natural" describe the nature of the organisms/agents involved rather than the processes themselves. Have you even looked up "fallacy of composition" to see where you've gone wrong?

"No cause, no rhyme or reason, just is. Science, or those in the field, have decided for no apparent scientific reason..."

Thanks for making it clear that you either don't get or are absolutely determined not to get the distinction. You keep claiming that you "get the concept" and then make it clear that you're miles and miles away from exactly that.

The information has been spoon-fed to you and all you've managed in return is to ignore it and be rude as well.

Anonymous said...

"It sure is, seeing as how I never once on this entire blog defined artificial, which makes this whole line of argument you've been pushing look more and more childish. I never once said artifical=unnatural.

Really? Let's see:

Highboy's answer when asked to define 'artificial'

You clearly defined 'artificial' as being 'not natural'.

You know, highboy, for someone who so often talks about being amused by people who 'embarrass' themselves, you sure do a nice effort yourself.

Indeed: thanks for playing. Awfully kind of you to provide the entertainment for us in Radar's absence.

highboy said...

Anonymous please. Declaring victory without actually winning anything won't get you anywhere. You're playing a childish game of word salad by pretending my argument falls apart simply because I didn't include a supernatural being in a discussion that had absolutely nothing to do with the supernatural. Its hilarious you're so smug about such an irrelevant point that makes no sense whatsoever.

"All you keep coming back with is the same old misconception that "artificial" and "natural" describe the nature of the organisms/agents involved rather than the processes themselves. Have you even looked up "fallacy of composition" to see where you've gone wrong?"

I haven't gone wrong, you simply can't grasp that I'm saying, despite your repeated quoting of the text book definitions, that artificial selection is differentiated in scientific terms for no verifiable scientific reason. There is absolutely no reason to distinguish the idea of conscious decision FROM ANY OTHER BIOLOGICAL TRAIT. Both forms of selection happen naturally with equally natural traits, there is no difference. Period. The definitions being quoted here do not give an ounce of data as to why conscious thought and action are different than any other biological trait, and its the biological traits they are separating for absolutely no reason, which is why you've not given one.

anonymouse said...

Highboy, you defined artificial thusly:

artificial: made by human skill; produced by humans ( opposed to natural): artificial flowers.

So, to take one of the phrases:
produced by humans

and substitute it in the thing you don't get:

Artificial selection

gives you

selection produced by humans

QED

Or, if you like

Artificial flowers are
flowers produced by humans

and..

Artificial selection is
selection produced by humans

Simple, really.

As for the "scientific reason" behind it, you might want to look up the Heikegani crab. Then ask yourself if this type of selection could have happened without humans.
There's your difference.

highboy said...

anonymous: humans are biological, natural creatures, so human involvement is no different than any other species. If one species of animal kills off another species its natural selection. If humans do it, you can call it artificial, but its still natural. Both acts of selection required used biological traits, and just because the traits are different, doesn't mean the selection was different. My point stands: human involvement is labeled differently for no scientific reason whatsoever.

highboy said...

I'm also still waiting for that list of names of the finest minds the human race ever produced that Jon tested his ideas off of supposedly. I'd love to know how those "tests" went.

anonymouse said...

"Both acts of selection required used biological traits"

The selection pressure comes from different things. In artificial selection, it's another biological organism producing the pressure and in natural selection it's a non-biological entity doing it (often the environment).

I disagree that your point stands, since you're basing your whole argument on a misunderstanding.

highboy said...

anonymous you can disagree until you're blue in the face (and it appears you will) but evolution has everything to do with biology. The environment may be what an organism adapts to but its not the environment that does the adapting. Once again: the only observable difference between artificial and natural selection, is the involvement of humans, and you haven't presented on scientific reason as to why there should be a difference in definitive terms.

anonymouse said...

You're clearly confusing selection with adaptation in the above comment. The environment selects, a population adapts. Natural/Artificial selection describes the selective pressure, not the adaptation that results.

The "scientific reason" for the difference is that artificial selection can be completely arbitrary, as in the crabs. The crabs resembling samurai are no more 'fit' for their environment than any other crab.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous please. Declaring victory without actually winning anything won't get you anywhere. You're playing a childish game of word salad by pretending my argument falls apart simply because I didn't include a supernatural being in a discussion that had absolutely nothing to do with the supernatural. Its hilarious you're so smug about such an irrelevant point that makes no sense whatsoever.

Painful isn't it? Saying that you never gave a definition of a word and then being confronted with your very own words.

In fact, I linked to that reply of yours a few comments earlier. Now, who said something about reading comments before replying to them?

Hilarious, indeed!

Is it really that hard highboy to admit you made a mistake without trying to be patronizing or insulting? It's almost Christmas you know. ;-)

Anonymous said...

"The "scientific reason" for the difference is that artificial selection can be completely arbitrary, as in the crabs. The crabs resembling samurai are no more 'fit' for their environment than any other crab."

Amen to that.

Anonymous said...

Highboy,

"Both acts of selection required used biological traits,"

See, this is where you're going wrong. You're engaging in a logical fallacy (in highboy-speak: "clap-trap") called false equivalence. Because you claim both acts of selection "use biological traits", you say there is no distinction between them, and so the scientific differentiation that is made between them must be arbitrary.

Thing is, artificial selection and natural selection both "use biological traits" the same way that a tricycle and a pocket watch both "use wheels", i.e. not the same way at all.

Anonymous said...

(cont'd)

Natural selection deals with the suitability for survival of the biological traits of the organism in question.

Artificial selection doesn't. In artificial selection, the suitability for survival of the biological traits of the organism in question is not relevant.

That right there is the distinction, and if you can put aside your pride for a moment, perhaps you can see why that distinction can be meaningful.

The Holocaust is not an instance of natural selection because it was not related to the suitability for survival of the biological traits of the Jews. If you disagree, please name the biological trait that a Jew had that made him or her less suitable for survival than any other human.

But your consistent counter-argument has been that the brain that is doing the selecting evolved naturally.

How exactly is that relevant?