Philosophy Discussion Forums

also has never been empirically proved in a lab

Has, daily, time and time again, all over the known world.

Belinda wrote:

also has never been empirically proved in a lab

Has, daily, time and time again, all over the known world.

Please tell me what lab has ever shown a significant increase in complex, specified, functional genomic information via random mutation and natural selection.

I'd rather you look up this matter of fact for yourself.

Belinda wrote:I'd rather you look up this matter of fact for yourself.

That means your assertion goes unsupported, and so there is no reason for me to consider it as anything other than groundless rhetoric.

Meleagar wrote:

Belinda wrote:I'd rather you look up this matter of fact for yourself.

That means your assertion goes unsupported, and so there is no reason for me to consider it as anything other than groundless rhetoric.

You may as well make a hint for her where to look - just point to a laboratory which exists for over a couple of hundred thousand years and one can enquire there. It is though a known fact that the arctic seals living in Arctic have minor genetic differences from the same seals living in Caspian Sea, and they separated during great deluge, in late Pleistocene, about 12,000 years ago. Consider this a lab test.

Meleagar anyone who says they appreciate science and in the same breath knocks Darwin doesn`t know science or appreciate it. Probably because Darwin was an Englishman and many theistic [backward]Americans don`t like the Englishman or his scientific reasoning. Its for the same reason Richard Dawkins is hated by the media generated theistic Americans, they can`t take sarcasm and wit at their bible and god. America is not much further away from radical Islamist reactionaries were with Salmon Rushdie`s Satanic Verses book threatening his life.

Marabod wrote: You may as well make a hint for her where to look - just point to a laboratory which exists for over a couple of hundred thousand years and one can enquire there. It is though a known fact that the arctic seals living in Arctic have minor genetic differences from the same seals living in Caspian Sea, and they separated during great deluge, in late Pleistocene, about 12,000 years ago. Consider this a lab test.

That has nothing to do with what I asked for. Also, I'm a him, not a her.

Vulcanised, your emotional, anti-american invective doesn't provide what I asked for either.

If one cannot support their assertions here, they should be prepared to have them challenged and revealed as empty rhetoric.

Meleagar wrote:

Marabod wrote: You may as well make a hint for her where to look - just point to a laboratory which exists for over a couple of hundred thousand years and one can enquire there. It is though a known fact that the arctic seals living in Arctic have minor genetic differences from the same seals living in Caspian Sea, and they separated during great deluge, in late Pleistocene, about 12,000 years ago. Consider this a lab test.

That has nothing to do with what I asked for. Also, I'm a him, not a her.

Vulcanised, your emotional, anti-american invective doesn't provide what I asked for either.

If one cannot support their assertions here, they should be prepared to have them challenged and revealed as empty rhetoric.

You just put me in a good mood, Mel, thats why I responded there. It is really bizarre to read someone's request for laboratory results on Evolution. Basically it is the same as one walks out amid the night, looks upwards and suddenly notices that the Galaxy... rotates. There is no lab results on this either, but we sure know it does! Shows though that you think in cosmic categories Pity we are mortal, is not it?

Meleagar I find the anti British Darwin rhetoric mostly used by Americans. You haven`t supported one claim you make. Darwin progressed biology and his theory led onto bigger and better breakthroughs in science. Science has progressed and regressed. But Darwin is a known great. IDers have one argument for their flawed science and that is the intelligence of humans.
Science is about methodology not theism or trying to find a deity. Scientist`s can be atheist agnostic and theistic, but their methods aren`t. Their methods are physical and practical aka materialism

Vulcanised wrote:Meleagar I find the anti British Darwin rhetoric mostly used by Americans. You haven`t supported one claim you make.

What claims are you talking about?

Marabod wrote: It is really bizarre to read someone's request for laboratory results on Evolution.

I didn't ask for laboratory results (published research papers) on "Evolution". I asked for some very specific lab results pertaining to Darwinism; i.e., that random mutations acted on by natural selection has ever been shown to significantly increase the net functional, complex information of a genome.

If no one presents such support, I will just consider it empty rhetoric.

There is no lab results on this either, but we sure know it does!

Who is "we"?

Pity we are mortal, is not it?

Again, who is "we"? Do you always talk in the inclusive as if others agree with you?

Meleagar wrote:

Vulcanised wrote:Meleagar I find the anti British Darwin rhetoric mostly used by Americans. You haven`t supported one claim you make.

What claims are you talking about?

Marabod wrote: It is really bizarre to read someone's request for laboratory results on Evolution.

I didn't ask for laboratory results (published research papers) on "Evolution". I asked for some very specific lab results pertaining to Darwinism; i.e., that random mutations acted on by natural selection has ever been shown to significantly increase the net functional, complex information of a genome.

If no one presents such support, I will just consider it empty rhetoric.

There is no lab results on this either, but we sure know it does!

Who is "we"?

Pity we are mortal, is not it?

Again, who is "we"? Do you always talk in the inclusive as if others agree with you?

Darwinism is an obsolete teaching of the mid-19th century! Darwin had no idea of any genetic mechanisms as such. Theory of Evolution, as it was presented by Darwin, is not existing anymore - the term Darwinism is mostly used by the religious organizations which still feel the impact of that old theory by Darwin.

If you experience interest to the modern evolutionary views, you are at the wrong place with your question! You need to ask those, who is professionally involved in the evolutionary and genetic studies. I am a Physical Chemist, so I cannot tell you details about something outside of my occupation - be it Evolution, Dentistry or Astronomy. We all here (or at least most of us) are just people, exchanging our opinions, so you should not feel like in Royal Geographic Society.

Marabod wrote:

Meleagar wrote: What claims are you talking about?
I didn't ask for laboratory results (published research papers) on "Evolution". I asked for some very specific lab results pertaining to Darwinism; i.e., that random mutations acted on by natural selection has ever been shown to significantly increase the net functional, complex information of a genome.

If no one presents such support, I will just consider it empty rhetoric.


Who is "we"?
Again, who is "we"? Do you always talk in the inclusive as if others agree with you?

Darwinism is an obsolete teaching of the mid-19th century! Darwin had no idea of any genetic mechanisms as such. Theory of Evolution, as it was presented by Darwin, is not existing anymore - the term Darwinism is mostly used by the religious organizations which still feel the impact of that old theory by Darwin.

If you experience interest to the modern evolutionary views, you are at the wrong place with your question! You need to ask those, who is professionally involved in the evolutionary and genetic studies. I am a Physical Chemist, so I cannot tell you details about something outside of my occupation - be it Evolution, Dentistry or Astronomy. We all here (or at least most of us) are just people, exchanging our opinions, so you should not feel like in Royal Geographic Society.

You are 100 percent on this Ant!

The Copasetic Wall of Evolution,immediately popped into my mind. I guess it's my default evolution pat response.

An inside bit of humor for mara. back on topic.

If I can be of help to Melegar. I'd suggest to Google: Evolution 101. Or anything,by Ernst Mayer.

The term Darwinism as it is currently used in most arguments about evolution refers to Darwin's general thesis that undirected, random changes in the architecture of a living organism, acted on by natural selection, over time produces significant new, functioning architecture.

In modern terms, this is extrapolated to mean that random mutations (or other random, non-teleological events), acted on by natural selection, can generate significant new, functioning, complex "information" (i.e., the information in genome necessary to generate the new morphological feature). By "new, functioning, complex information" I don't mean a minor corruption or loss of current information, or an alternative expression of a feature due to a change in translation triggered by environmental conditions.

Insinuating my ignorance on the subject is not providing support for the claim in question. Now, if anyone can cite a paper or an article that refers to research in a lab where random mutation and natural selection have been shown to generate novel, complex, functioning information, please direct me to it.

If you do not, I'll assume you cannot and that any other response is just a diversionary tactic.

Meleagar wrote:The term Darwinism as it is currently used in most arguments about evolution refers to Darwin's general thesis that undirected, random changes in the architecture of a living organism, acted on by natural selection, over time produces significant new, functioning architecture.

In modern terms, this is extrapolated to mean that random mutations (or other random, non-teleological events), acted on by natural selection, can generate significant new, functioning, complex "information" (i.e., the information in genome necessary to generate the new morphological feature). By "new, functioning, complex information" I don't mean a minor corruption or loss of current information, or an alternative expression of a feature due to a change in translation triggered by environmental conditions.

Insinuating my ignorance on the subject is not providing support for the claim in question. Now, if anyone can cite a paper or an article that refers to research in a lab where random mutation and natural selection have been shown to generate novel, complex, functioning information, please direct me to it.

If you do not, I'll assume you cannot and that any other response is just a diversionary tactic.

This thesis of him was making sense as soon as his Theory of Evolution was replacing the previous Theory of Evolution by Lafater, and Lafater was insisting that the drive for mutation was "desire" - sort of a giraffe got long neck because of the constant desire to reach the tree leaves. Darwin as a polemical argument used "random changes" and explained the success of some of them by natural selection. So it was not addressed to us, it was addressed to the past, to 18th century Biologists. Darwin's theory is a theory, not a law of nature, and as such presents only a contemporary scientific explanation of the facts, known in his time - it never was designed as universal, as any universal and fully proved theory disappeares and become a Law or a separate Science. This happened recently with Quantum Theory, which received full confirmation by experiments and disappeared, leaving instead the science of Quantum Mechanics.

Marabod wrote:
This thesis of him was making sense as soon as his Theory of Evolution was replacing the previous Theory of Evolution by Lafater, and Lafater was insisting that the drive for mutation was "desire" - sort of a giraffe got long neck because of the constant desire to reach the tree leaves. Darwin as a polemical argument used "random changes" and explained the success of some of them by natural selection. So it was not addressed to us, it was addressed to the past, to 18th century Biologists. Darwin's theory is a theory, not a law of nature, and as such presents only a contemporary scientific explanation of the facts, known in his time - it never was designed as universal, as any universal and fully proved theory disappeares and become a Law or a separate Science. This happened recently with Quantum Theory, which received full confirmation by experiments and disappeared, leaving instead the science of Quantum Mechanics.

Hi Marabod,

Darwinism did not go anywhere, it is still here. In Darwinism, evolution symbolizes the survival of the fittest so that those who survive are the fittest, even when the weakest.


Darwin deals with Evolution as his religion and as the only teacher social codes of conduct, while Modern Evolution tries to fine tune Darwinism.

Preferences given to Darwin only mean an evolutionist refuses to deal with Cosmogonical problems and concentrates on human society instead, hence spontaneous evolution from nothing. Darwinism is also a step back from Monotheism, as he still has the same Dopamine-Hate for what monotheism dopamine-loved, while dopamine-loving what Monotheism dopamine-hated.

Darwinism is a form of paganism and idolatry, this was already proposed by Anaximandre (610-546 BC.):animals appeared from the sea due to the sun's warmth: that at the beginning they were covered by a thorn crust they lost; by Empedocles (483-423BC) and etc; but even this does not prevent it from proclaiming that it was in fact not a religion based on faith. Darwin only teaches us "do not worry about life being meaningless, just be happy" and provides that very mentioned dopamine-Hatred for weak, poor and oppressed and the unfittest and the ones who Darwin believed won't survive because they were not and are not the fittest.


Thanks.