>Susan:
>
>>This [Darwin's 19th century attitude toward people of color ] isn't much of a
>>surprise (and quite well known). He was a man of his
>>times. He was also quite anti-slavery and fell out with (Captain) over it.
>
>You missed the point. The point is that Craig is engaged in revisionism.
>Of course, since you say this is all well-known, then using the logic
>you and Chris have used over the last few months (in regards to Johnson),
>you'd have to agree Craig is a liar, right?
Johnson has been caught saying something in one venue that he contradicts in
another. He has also been caught saying things about evolution that
factually untrue. Johnson claims to be so well-versed in evolution that he
is qualified to critique it. Either that is not the case or it is the case
and he lies about evolution.
>Susan:
>
>>Darwin's theory led to the rediscovery of genes because it was one of the
>>weaknesses of his theory. There was *no* mechanism. So a lot of research
>>went into hunting for the mechanism.
>
>So you really think scientists immediately accepted Darwin's theories
>and then began a search for the mechanism? And *this* was what led to
>the rediscovery? Care to document these interpretations of yours?
They discovered Mendel's paper unopened in Darwin's study after his death.
Darwin didn't read German very well and didn't know diddly about
mathematics. If he had opened and read the paper, he still probably would
not have known that he had the answer to the problem of how variations get
inherited. They needed a mechanism or the whole thing wasn't going to hang
together. (That, btw, is why talking about intelligent design and refusing
to discuss the designer is a glaring weakness of ID).
From Encarta:
"Bateson, William (1861-1926), British biologist, who founded and named the
field of genetics. He was born in Whitby, England. A staunch believer in
evolution, he observed that some of an organism's distinct features can
suddenly appear or disappear from one generation to the next. Bateson began
to explore how traits are inherited. In 1900 he came across a paper written
by 19th-century Austrian scientist Gregor Johann Mendel, which describes
experiments Mendel did with pea plants. By bringing the scientific
community's attention to Mendel's paper, and through his own experiments,
Bateson set the stage for the rapid progress of genetics in the 20th century."
and from Encyclopedia Britanica:
"Bateson, William (b. Aug. 8, 1861, Whitby, Yorkshire, Eng.--d. Feb. 8,
1926, London), biologist who founded and named the science of genetics and
whose experiments provided evidence basic to the modern understanding of
heredity. A dedicated Darwinist, he cited embryo studies to support his
contention in 1885 that chordates evolved from primitive echinoderms, a view
now widely accepted. In 1894 he published his conclusion (Materials for the
Study of Variation) that evolution could not occur through a continuous
variation of species, since distinct features often appeared or disappeared
suddenly in plants and animals. Realizing that discontinuous variation could
be understood only after something was known about the inheritance of
traits, Bateson began work on the experimental breeding of plants and animals.
In 1900, he discovered an article, "Experiments with Plant Hybrids," written
by Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk, 34 years earlier. The paper, found in
the same year by Hugo de Vries, Carl Correns, and Erich Tschermak von
Seysenegg, dealt with the appearance of certain features in successive
generations of garden peas. Bateson noted that his breeding results were
explained perfectly by Mendel's paper and that the monk had succinctly
described the transmission of elements governing heritable traits in his
plants."
>>Science is an inter-linking chain.
>>Darwin > genetics > DNA > human genome project, etc.
>
>Only a darwinian apologist would replace Mendel with Darwin as the source
>for genetics.
I wasn't doing that! Look again!
>Yes, science is an interlinking chain. But why did you begin
>with Darwin? Please tell us exactly how Darwinism helped to uncover
>DNA as the genetic material? As I see it, your chain is so weakly linked that
>one could use the same form of links to make the following progression:
>
>Darwin > eugenics > Nazism > Holocaust
if the Nazis had *really* been evolutionists they would have realized that
the best way for evolution to occur is to have the greatest amount of
variation upon which selection can act. They were actually limiting their
chances evolutionarily speaking by trying to "purify" their gene pool. They
were a bunch of stinking Platonists. They should have talked to some cattle
breeders as Darwin did.
>I hate to burst your darwinian bubble, Susan, but darwinian evolution is
>quite peripheral to most of biological research.
it's the organizing factor. It underlies *all* biological research.
>Well, if Darwinism has been guiding medicine and agriculture so much,
>please explain why those in medicine and agriculture have worked to
>select antibiotic-resistant bugs? You would think people guided by Darwinism
>would have foreseen this problem decades ago.
no shit!!! This *has* been discussed for decades, but remember? Evilution is
only an atheist philosophy with no grounding in reality--right? A couple of
chapters in the Beak of the Finch treats this subject. People think they can
beat natural selection--or ignore it. They simply can't.
Susan
--------
Peace is not the absence of conflict--it is the presence of justice.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 21 2000 - 21:57:34 EST