RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Making a monkey out of Darwin, Pat Buchanan on evolution< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Jason Spaceman



Posts: 163
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2009,01:48   

Quote
"You have no notion of the intrigue that goes on in this blessed world of science," wrote Thomas Huxley. "Science is, I fear, no purer than any other region of human activity; though it should be."

As "Darwin's bulldog," Huxley would himself engage in intrigue, deceit and intellectual property theft to make his master's theory gospel truth in Great Britain.

He is quoted above for two reasons.

First is House passage of a "cap and trade" climate-change bill. Depending on which scientists you believe, the dire consequences of global warming are inconvenient truths – or a fear-mongering scheme to siphon off the wealth of individuals and empower bureaucrats.

The second is publication of "The End of Darwinism: And How a Flawed and Disastrous Theory Was Stolen and Sold," by Eugene G. Windchy, a splendid little book that begins with Huxley's lament.

That Darwinism has proven "disastrous theory" is indisputable.

"Karl Marx loved Darwinism," writes Windchy. "To him, survival of the fittest as the source of progress justified violence in bringing about social and political change, in other words, the revolution."

"Darwin suits my purpose," Marx wrote.

Darwin suited Adolf Hitler's purposes, too.

"Although born to a Catholic family, Hitler become a hard-eyed Darwinist who saw life as a constant struggle between the strong and the weak. His Darwinism was so extreme that he thought it would have been better for the world if the Muslims had won the eighth century battle of Tours, which stopped the Arabs' advance into France. Had the Christians lost, (Hitler) reasoned, Germanic people would have acquired a more warlike creed and, because of their natural superiority, would have become the leaders of an Islamic empire."

Charles Darwin also suited the purpose of the eugenicists and Herbert Spencer, who preached a survival-of-the-fittest social Darwinism to robber baron industrialists exploiting 19th-century immigrants.

Historian Jacques Barzun believes Darwinism brought on World War I: "Since in every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party demanding armaments, an individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party demanding the conquest of power and a racialist party demanding internal purges against aliens – all of them, when appeals to greed and glory failed, invoked Spencer and Darwin, which was to say science incarnate."


Read it here.

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2009,02:00   

These rightwing shits disgust me. Even anti-creationist rightwing shits disgust me.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2009,05:43   

WingNutDaily:
 
Quote

"Darwin suits my purpose," Marx wrote.

No he didn't. It's YAFQ (Yet Another Fucking Quotemine).  Here's the actual quote from a letter Marx wrote in 1861:
   
Quote

Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle. One does, of course, have to put up with the clumsy English style of argument. Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, ‘teleology’ in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained.


Just a bit different.  Kind of an odd comment considering how teleological his view of history was.

(edited to fix link)

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2009,07:27   

Eh, Buchanon's a verifiable nutjob anyway. Sickening little creature that he is. I'm glad he's on "their side," because I'd do my best to run his fat ass out on a rail otherwise.

He's another right-wing jackass looking for something else to exploit, just like Coulter and Stein and so many others. They know they can always count on the really dim sheep.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2009,14:52   

Gack.  The article is a veritable quote-minefield, and also chock-full of other forms of creationist fail:

Quote

"All my originality ... will be smashed," wailed Darwin when he got Wallace's manuscript.


Ellipsis Alert!  Ellipsis Alert!

Letter to Lyell (bolding mine):

Quote

My dear Lyell

Some year or so ago, you recommended me to read a paper by Wallace in the Annals, which had interested you & as I was writing to him, I knew this would please him much, so I told him. He has to day sent me the enclosed & asked me to forward it to you. It seems to me well worth reading. Your words have come true with a vengeance that I shd. be forestalled. You said this when I explained to you here very briefly my views of “Natural Selection” depending on the Struggle for existence.—I never saw a more striking coincidence. If Wallace had my M.S. sketch written out in 1842 he could not have made a better short abstract! Even his terms now stand as Heads of my Chapters.

Please return me the M.S. which he does not say he wishes me to publish; but I shall of course at once write & offer to send to any Journal. So all my originality, whatever it may amount to, will be smashed. Though my Book, if it will ever have any value, will not be deteriorated; as all the labour consists in the application of the theory.

I hope you will approve of Wallace's sketch, that I may tell him what you say.

My dear Lyell | Yours most truly | C. Darwin


So upset was Darwin that he sent the paper to Lyell on Wallace's behalf (after telling Alfred that the renowned geologist had liked his earlier work, simply to brighten Wallace's day apparently), and even hastened to add that he'd like the paper back as soon as possible as he'd unhesitatingly see it published should Wallace so desire (something which Darwin intended to find out ASAP in the meantime).  What a right bastard, that Chuck! Love how Pattycakes drops that self-deprecating "whatever it may amount to" and then characterizes this as "wailing", and conveniently fails to mention Darwin figured Origin would still do just fine. If I were describing this behavior,  I'd think I'd have to go with "being a pretty nice fucking guy."  

Quote
Darwin's examples of natural selection – such as the giraffe acquiring its long neck to reach ever higher into the trees for the leaves upon which it fed to survive – have been debunked.


OK, for one, this was something that only showed up in the Sixth Edition of Origin (1872).  For two: not entirely debunked.  Disputed, sure. Disputed a lot, even. Hey: wanna know what one of the main rival hypotheses is all about, Pattycakes?  Sexual selection....another phenomenon outlined by Darwin (in some book or other, I forget which). Oh noes! Evolution debunked by....evolution.  Now try and guess what theory is employed in all the other scenarios there, P-Dog (and no, special creation is not a theory. No, neither is design).

See, Pattycakes, it poses no particular problem for evolutionary theory at fucking all if Darwin's ideas on this really were utterly debunked and, to take it up a notch, even roundly ridiculed by one and all, because Darwin's hypothesis on giraffes is just that: one single hypothesis proposed within the larger framework of evolutionary theory (which has learned a whole bunch of new tricks since Charles' day, to boot).   In case you didn't know, which looks to be a safe enough bet, countless evolutionary hypotheses about all sorts of things have been proposed and then discarded because another evolutionary hypothesis turned out to be a much better fit with the evidence.  Same goes for any other science you'd care to name. And no, that does not include "creation science".

Quote

Giraffes eat grass and bushes.


But also lots and lots and lots of tree foliage.  Fuckwad.

Quote
And if, as Darwin claimed, inches meant life or death, how did female giraffes, two or three feet shorter, survive?


By eating the stuff that isn't as high-up as all that, but is still quite comfortably out of reach to nearly every other potential competitor.  It's certainly something there's actual evidence for anyway(bolding mine):
Quote

With their vertically elongated body form, giraffes generally feed above the level of other browsers within the savanna browsing guild, despite having access to foliage at lower levels. They ingest more leaf mass per bite when foraging high in the tree, perhaps because smaller, more selective browsers deplete shoots at lower levels or because trees differentially allocate resources to promote shoot growth in the upper canopy. We erected exclosures around individual Acacia nigrescens trees in the greater Kruger ecosystem, South Africa. After a complete growing season, we found no differences in leaf biomass per shoot across height zones in excluded trees but significant differences in control trees. We conclude that giraffes preferentially browse at high levels in the canopy to avoid competition with smaller browsers. Our findings are analogous with those from studies of grazing guilds and demonstrate that resource partitioning can be driven by competition when smaller foragers displace larger foragers from shared resources. This provides the first experimental support for the classic evolutionary hypothesis that vertical elongation of the giraffe body is an outcome of competition within the browsing ungulate guild.


I'd also imagine they eat some grass and bushes. But anyway...what've you got on offer, Patsy? Have you checked into Darwin's other examples?  How 'bout current thinking on those that've been "debunked"? No? Darn it all to heck.  And here I was thinkin' you wuz onto somethin'.

Oh, yeah: Darwin also never said inches meant life or death at all times either, El Bucho (bolding mine):
Quote

So under nature with the nascent giraffe, the individuals which were the highest browsers and were able during dearths to reach even an inch or two above the others, will often have been preserved; for they will have roamed over the whole country in search of food.


This says nothing about the neck-length of nascent female giraffes which were, I'd think, very obviously not the same thing as modern female giraffes.  

I'd keep going but, seriously, almost everything in that article is either just dead fucking wrong or nastily distorted.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2009,15:03   

Quote
I'd keep going but, seriously, almost everything in that article is either just dead fucking wrong or nastily distorted.


don't let that stop you from buckdancing on top of it!  very nice!

although it is a bit like ummmm you know, candy-baby-etc

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
k.e..



Posts: 3746
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2009,15:10   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ June 30 2009,23:03)
Quote
I'd keep going but, seriously, almost everything in that article is either just dead fucking wrong or nastily distorted.


don't let that stop you from buckdancing on top of it!  very nice!

although it is a bit like ummmm you know, candy-baby-etc

Seconded.

Creeps

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2009,15:59   

Well done Didymos. Please do go on further.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2009,08:35   

Someone needs to invite Rachel Maddow to come here and/or blast her "Uncle Pat" about this on her show.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2009,16:22   

Quote (Dr.GH @ June 30 2009,13:59)
Well done Didymos. Please do go on further.

I might.  For now, though, LOL at Eugene Windchy's twitter page:

http://twitter.com/Histryluvr

Excerpts:
 
Quote

Darwin was a reclusive semi-invalid. He vomited a lot when writing The Origin. Going to a dinner party would make him shiver violently
3:25 PM Jun 29th from web


Umm...so therefore evolution is wrong? You do realize no one asked you about Darwin's emetic history right?  


 
Quote

@saadullahkhan Nobel prize winning biologist Francis Crick was an atheist but favored intelligent design provided by a more advanced planet
6:30 PM Jun 28th from web


Terminology quibbles aside: Yeah, until he didn't  "Histryluvr".  Where the fuck do you do your research, 'cause I found that no problem "from web"?  You know, on the Google?  Leads to the Wikipedia?  'Cause I'm assuming the primary literature is just out of the fucking question for a "Histryluvr" like your bad self.

Ooooh, jealous:
 
Quote

@heraclitus Lucky you. I wanted to use Heraclitus.
2:58 PM Jun 28th from web


Repeat it often enough....:
 
Quote

@naturalvites Alfred R. Wallace sent mss to Darwin for forwarding. Darwin then finagled earlier publication of his inferior work.
12:36 PM Jun 28th from web


and we still won't believe your lying ass.  Srsly: there's a massive fucking paper trail.  It can even be found "from web".  Google, motherfucker: do you use it?

Snark fail:
 
Quote

@kpflude Thanks. But Down House is correct spelling although the village is Downe. One of the Darwin eccentricities.
11:55 AM Jun 28th from web
 


Dude: it was his fucking house.  He could call it whatever the fuck he wanted.  Interesting fact:  As far as I can tell, that only appeared on one census form.  I'm betting he mostly just said "my house".  Surely though, in your exhaustive research, you found other examples...right?  

Read my website...:
 
Quote

@zacanger Science establishment is covering up its disbelief in Darwinism because it has no better theory. See my website.
10:33 AM Jun 28th from web


which mostly says "Buy My Book!"

Dude...what?:
 
Quote

@TheLifeofPower. Amazon is a good source. You can write a review there too.
2:36 PM Jun 27th from web


Review my book (hint, hint).

On definitions:
 
Quote

If we define evolution as biological change over time, it is true. If we define it as change as described by Darwin, it is not true.
11:13 AM Jun 27th from web


Ow! Fuck!  Am I bleeding from my ear?

Eugene Windchy, Master of Twittology:
 
Quote

darwin
7:48 AM Jun 15th from web


Oh, c'mon!  You could have at least CAPITALIZED it properly.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2009,19:46   

Wrong thread.  Sorry

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2009,00:18   

I bought a used copy of "The End of Darwinism."  I paid more than a new copy would have cost, but at least the assholes won't get a royalty payment. This was apparently the source used by Maddow's "Uncle Pat."

Edited by Dr.GH on July 01 2009,22:20

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2009,19:38   

“The End of Darwinism” would have disappeared as another self published creationist screed had not Pat Buchanan puffed it on WingNutDaily.  There have been a half dozen science bloggers who have taken Buchanan’s piece apart, but I waited until I could read Mr. Windchy’s book myself.

If anything it is worse- much worse.

The rest is over at Stones and Bones

I figure I'll add more 'bye and bye."

Edited by Dr.GH on July 04 2009,17:39

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2009,23:00   

Quote (Dr.GH @ July 04 2009,17:38)
“The End of Darwinism” would have disappeared as another self published creationist screed had not Pat Buchanan puffed it on WingNutDaily.  

Buchanan ought to be thanked, then, for providing such vivid evidence that he has no idea what the fuck he's talking about.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2009,00:24   

Quote (didymos @ July 04 2009,21:00)
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 04 2009,17:38)
“The End of Darwinism” would have disappeared as another self published creationist screed had not Pat Buchanan puffed it on WingNutDaily.  

Buchanan ought to be thanked, then, for providing such vivid evidence that he has no idea what the fuck he's talking about.

Howdy didymos, I want to thank you again for searching out the letter by Darwin to Lyell, and The American Naturalist. I will use them. The Darwin links I use are

The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online

The Darwin Correspondence Project

Edited by Dr.GH on July 04 2009,22:31

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
  14 replies since June 30 2009,01:48 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]