Evolution didn't happen

I've posted proof repeatedly. But your only response is to go: "Llalalalalalalalalalalalal! I'm not listening! Science doesn't count unless I say so! lalalalalalal not listening!!!!"

There's nothing I can do to stop you from sticking your head in the sand, besides pity you.

No, what you have proven is that genetic mutations occur.  Excellent.  Show me one instance of a mutation creating a new species, where the species before the mutation can now not reproduce with the species with the mutation.  IE A NEW SPECIES.   And then explain how that species would survive being the only one of its kind not able to reproduce with anything.

Quote from: Pete on November 11, 2009, 01:33:46 AM

I've posted proof repeatedly. But your only response is to go: "Llalalalalalalalalalalalal! I'm not listening! Science doesn't count unless I say so! lalalalalalal not listening!!!!"

There's nothing I can do to stop you from sticking your head in the sand, besides pity you.

No, what you have proven is that genetic mutations occur.  Excellent.  Show me one instance of a mutation creating a new species, where the species before the mutation can now not reproduce with the species with the mutation.  IE A NEW SPECIES.   And then explain how that species would survive being the only one of its kind not able to reproduce with anything.

You are taking a very simplistic view of how evolution works. First of all, a single mutation likely would not result in a new species incapable of mating with the existing species. Secondly, evolution does not necessarily occur in a single organism, but in population groups.
Take for example a population group of big cats living on the Savannah.  Through random mutation or genetic recombination, one of the cats receives a gene that codes for a protein allowing it to run 5% longer or 5% faster than other cats in the group.  This cat will be a marginally more successful hunter, and will be more likely to mate and confer this advantage with its offspring than other cats in the group.  A fair number of these offspring will also receive this  advantage, and they too will be more successful.  Competing with other groups of the same species, this group will have a decided advantage, and because of this will add to their genetic pool because they will have more access to mates than other cats will.  This will lead to even more genetic recombination, conferring even more traits to the population group. The bad traits will quickly be weeded out through natural selection, while the beneficial traits will continue to bolster the success of the group. Eventually, there will be enough new traits added to this population that they will no longer be pro-creatively compatible with the original population. This is what we refer to as speciation.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on November 11, 2009, 06:37:50 AM

Quote from: Pete on November 11, 2009, 01:33:46 AM

I've posted proof repeatedly. But your only response is to go: "Llalalalalalalalalalalalal! I'm not listening! Science doesn't count unless I say so! lalalalalalal not listening!!!!"

There's nothing I can do to stop you from sticking your head in the sand, besides pity you.

No, what you have proven is that genetic mutations occur.  Excellent.  Show me one instance of a mutation creating a new species, where the species before the mutation can now not reproduce with the species with the mutation.  IE A NEW SPECIES.   And then explain how that species would survive being the only one of its kind not able to reproduce with anything.

You are taking a very simplistic view of how evolution works. First of all, a single mutation likely would not result in a new species incapable of mating with the existing species. Secondly, evolution does not necessarily occur in a single organism, but in population groups.
Take for example a population group of big cats living on the Savannah.  Through random mutation or genetic recombination, one of the cats receives a gene that codes for a protein allowing it to run 5% longer or 5% faster than other cats in the group.  This cat will be a marginally more successful hunter, and will be more likely to mate and confer this advantage with its offspring than other cats in the group.  A fair number of these offspring will also receive this  advantage, and they too will be more successful.  Competing with other groups of the same species, this group will have a decided advantage, and because of this will add to their genetic pool because they will have more access to mates than other cats will.  This will lead to even more genetic recombination, conferring even more traits to the population group. The bad traits will quickly be weeded out through natural selection, while the beneficial traits will continue to bolster the success of the group. Eventually, there will be enough new traits added to this population that they will no longer be pro-creatively compatible with the original population. This is what we refer to as speciation.

Interesting.  And exactly where does the cat that is getting bigger and stonger actually start to look differnent than its current form.  Because you know we have to have that to explain the

Invertebrates: 97% of all known species
|   `--+--Sponges: 10,000 species
|        |--Cnidarians: 8,000-9,000 species
|        |--Molluscs: 100,000 species
|        |--Platyhelminths: 13,000 species
|        |--Nematodes: 20,000+ species
|        |--Annelida: 12,000 species
|        `--Arthropods
|            `--+--Crustaceans: 40,000 species
|                 |--Insects: 1-30 million+ species
|                 `--Arachnids: 75,500 species
|
`--Vertebrates: 3% of all known species
     `--+--Reptiles: 7,984 species
          |--Amphibians: 5,400 species
          |--Birds: 9,000-10,000 species
          |--Mammals: 4,475-5,000 species
          `--Ray-Finned Fishes: 23,500 species

And while you guys are chewing on that one, I have been doing some research and can't find what I'm looking for.  Can someone find me a simplified tree of our evolution to show tracing back to me, a praying mantis, and an oak tree's similar ancestor?  Thanks.  I just want to know where we all divided off from and went such separate ways. 

Can someone find me a simplified tree of our evolution

Try this:



Ho ho ho.

Or this is good too.

http://www.wellcometreeoflife.org/

Google is your friend.

Interesting, according to that tree of life we started as Eukaryotes(which is just a large group of organisms....so no specifics there) that splits to an unnamed node, that splits to a Opisthokonts(another general term of a group of organisms), then there is a big split, one side is "animal" the otherside is fly agaric(a  mushroom)  man those mutations must have been pretty severe.  Oh yeah and a little magic thrown in on the unnamed node...whatever the hell that was.

Interesting, according to that tree of life we started as Eukaryotes(which is just a large group of organisms....so no specifics there) that splits to an unnamed node, that splits to a Opisthokonts(another general term of a group of organisms), then there is a big split, one side is "animal" the otherside is fly agaric(a  mushroom)  man those mutations must have been pretty severe.

Nearly correct.

On one side is animal and on the other is fungi.

Your homework for this week is to find out what primitive animals looked like.

Interesting, according to that tree of life we started as Eukaryotes(which is just a large group of organisms....so no specifics there) that splits to an unnamed node, that splits to a Opisthokonts(another general term of a group of organisms), then there is a big split, one side is "animal" the otherside is fly agaric(a  mushroom)  man those mutations must have been pretty severe.  Oh yeah and a little magic thrown in on the unnamed node...whatever the hell that was.

Im going to be a little lazy with this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Common_misrepresentations_by_creationists

Who said anything about a transitional fossil?

I enjoyed this part of your link....

To explain these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution.

 

Interesting, so all of a sudden there would be a mutation and some natural selection only to go back to genetic stablility.

Hrmmmm  again how does the new mutated species reproduce with no one else to reproduce with?  How how does something mutate and natural select itself into two different forms...one being fungus the other being animal?

Hrmmmm  again how does the new mutated species reproduce with no one else to reproduce with?

Genetics.

Sorry WD you're just not getting the message.

Wardogg, you seem to have missed the most important part of his post:

Google is your friend.

Obviously the Unnamed Node was a problem with the application. And of course they were giving you groups instead of individual species. Your computer would not have enough memory to handle a tree with every single species we've ever discovered in it. There are millions of different species in the tree of life.

http://tolweb.org/tree/ - That one is much more in-depth than the other one. Search for Homo Sapiens and you can follow it back to get a general idea of how it happened.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomeprj - This one has a lot of stuff, but it is less user-friendly than the first one.

Hrmmmm  again how does the new mutated species reproduce with no one else to reproduce with?

Seriously, this is High School level stuff. If a mutation makes a creature unable to breed with its kind in a single generation, then obviously it is going to die without breeding. That is not how speciation works. Remember, evolution happens to populations, not individuals.

Speciation happens when two groups of the same species are separated for a long time. The genes involved in reproduction will change slowly over time. The individual mutations will be small enough to allow offspring to mate with their population, but over time those mutations will add up. Eventually the two populations will reach the point where they can no longer mate with each other, while still allowing them to mate within their own population.

How how does something mutate and natural select itself into two different forms...one being fungus the other being animal?

Almost 60 pages into this thread and you are still asking stupid questions like this? You are a complete waste of time.

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 11, 2009, 07:32:35 AM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on November 11, 2009, 06:37:50 AM

Quote from: Pete on November 11, 2009, 01:33:46 AM

I've posted proof repeatedly. But your only response is to go: "Llalalalalalalalalalalalal! I'm not listening! Science doesn't count unless I say so! lalalalalalal not listening!!!!"

There's nothing I can do to stop you from sticking your head in the sand, besides pity you.

No, what you have proven is that genetic mutations occur.  Excellent.  Show me one instance of a mutation creating a new species, where the species before the mutation can now not reproduce with the species with the mutation.  IE A NEW SPECIES.   And then explain how that species would survive being the only one of its kind not able to reproduce with anything.

You are taking a very simplistic view of how evolution works. First of all, a single mutation likely would not result in a new species incapable of mating with the existing species. Secondly, evolution does not necessarily occur in a single organism, but in population groups.
Take for example a population group of big cats living on the Savannah.  Through random mutation or genetic recombination, one of the cats receives a gene that codes for a protein allowing it to run 5% longer or 5% faster than other cats in the group.  This cat will be a marginally more successful hunter, and will be more likely to mate and confer this advantage with its offspring than other cats in the group.  A fair number of these offspring will also receive this  advantage, and they too will be more successful.  Competing with other groups of the same species, this group will have a decided advantage, and because of this will add to their genetic pool because they will have more access to mates than other cats will.  This will lead to even more genetic recombination, conferring even more traits to the population group. The bad traits will quickly be weeded out through natural selection, while the beneficial traits will continue to bolster the success of the group. Eventually, there will be enough new traits added to this population that they will no longer be pro-creatively compatible with the original population. This is what we refer to as speciation.

Interesting.  And exactly where does the cat that is getting bigger and stonger actually start to look differnent than its current form.  Because you know we have to have that to explain the

Invertebrates: 97% of all known species
|   `--+--Sponges: 10,000 species
|        |--Cnidarians: 8,000-9,000 species
|        |--Molluscs: 100,000 species
|        |--Platyhelminths: 13,000 species
|        |--Nematodes: 20,000+ species
|        |--Annelida: 12,000 species
|        `--Arthropods
|            `--+--Crustaceans: 40,000 species
|                 |--Insects: 1-30 million+ species
|                 `--Arachnids: 75,500 species
|
`--Vertebrates: 3% of all known species
     `--+--Reptiles: 7,984 species
          |--Amphibians: 5,400 species
          |--Birds: 9,000-10,000 species
          |--Mammals: 4,475-5,000 species
          `--Ray-Finned Fishes: 23,500 species

First of all you are creating a straw man through your dogged determination to hold on to an oversimplification of the evolutionary process.  Variance and selection do not occur in a vacuum, nor does it occur singly to individuals only.  Rather, population groups are constantly exchanging elements between individuals in the group, and between groups themselves.  Also, selection is extremely dependent on environmental conditions. Take for example a population that occasionally expresses a gene for bright plumage, which attracts the attention of females of the species, but also predators as well. If a high percentage of these birds get eaten before passing on this gene, it wont be any advantage at all.  However, if the group migrates to a local where those predators are not prevalent, then suddenly you will see more birds with bright plumage.
As for your question about vertebrate-invertebrate  ratios, I am not quite sure what you are trying to prove, since this makes perfect sense in an evolutionary model.

Actually your fungus idea isn't that far fetched. A fungus is very closely related to animals. Ever wondered why we don't have antibiotics for a fungus, mainly because their cell structures are nearly identical, antibiotics work by damaging the mechanism for creating cell membranes, meaning when the organism grows it splits open and dies. This means the few anti fungal drugs usually cause a lot of harm to the human as well.

Odd that two groups that have been shown to be closely related look and behave so differently, almost like they are the results of genes and not just made to be similar.

MC2219


Lets look at your first sites tree.....not very informative is it?




Here is something else I enjoyed greatly,

The rooting of the Tree of Life, and the relationships of the major lineages, are controversial. The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages of Life. We hope to provide a comprehensive discussion of these issues on this page soon.

Seems like alot of holes and uncertainty clouds evolution.  Too bad really for a scientific proof.

MC2219


Lets look at your first sites tree.....not very informative is it?




Here is something else I enjoyed greatly,

Quote

The rooting of the Tree of Life, and the relationships of the major lineages, are controversial. The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages of Life. We hope to provide a comprehensive discussion of these issues on this page soon.

Seems like alot of holes and uncertainty clouds evolution.  Too bad really for a scientific proof.

Not holes, gene sharing is a common thing among simple organisms, meaning it is hard to pin each to a group when they share their genetic material.

As for your tree of life, it is utterly too simplified, and fucking retarded. If I had a scanner I'd give you a much better version of the tree of life.

As for parts of an over simplified tree of life being controversial, of course it is controversial, life didn't happen in straight lines, branching occurred constantly throughout history and in ways we do not claim to know, That tree of life is imply displaying how the currently living groups of animals are related to each other. It is impossible for us to know exactly how it happened and evolution makes not claims about how it happened other than through mutations and competition.

Actually your fungus idea isn't that far fetched. A fungus is very closely related to animals. Ever wondered why we don't have antibiotics for a fungus, mainly because their cell structures are nearly identical, antibiotics work by damaging the mechanism for creating cell membranes, meaning when the organism grows it splits open and dies. This means the few anti fungal drugs usually cause a lot of harm to the human as well.

Odd that two groups that have been shown to be closely related look and behave so differently, almost like they are the results of genes and not just made to be similar.

Actually, most anti-biotics work by inhibiting growth and reproduction, but the penicillin class antibiotics do in fact kill the organism.

It is impossible for us to know exactly how it happened and evolution makes not claims about how it happened other than through mutations and competition.

Funny stuff man.  Seriously...your beliefs or mine...all have holes filled with faith and belief.  That you choose not to see that and hide behind weak evidence squeezed and molded into your theory is something I can't change.  Im bored, I will be going back to copypasta now.

Quote from: Raist on November 11, 2009, 11:33:36 AM

It is impossible for us to know exactly how it happened and evolution makes not claims about how it happened other than through mutations and competition.

Funny stuff man.  Seriously...your beliefs or mine...all have holes filled with faith and belief.  That you choose not to see that and hide behind weak evidence squeezed and molded into your theory is something I can't change.  Im bored, I will be going back to copypasta now.

Wardogg, please read these sentence carefully.

A theory does not explain what happens. It explains a mechanism for how it happened. Evolution makes 0 claims whatsoever about what has happened in the past.

Quote from: Raist on November 11, 2009, 11:33:36 AM

It is impossible for us to know exactly how it happened and evolution makes not claims about how it happened other than through mutations and competition.

Funny stuff man.  Seriously...your beliefs or mine...all have holes filled with faith and belief.  That you choose not to see that and hide behind weak evidence squeezed and molded into your theory is something I can't change.  Im bored, I will be going back to copypasta now.

Its not faith or belief to say "I dont know...exactly....yet", which is something that Creationists cant possibly do.

Wardogg, please read these sentence carefully.

A theory does not explain what happens. It explains a mechanism for how it happened. Evolution makes 0 claims whatsoever about what has happened in the past.

This theory doesn't explain anything.  It makes large guesses, and molds some actual occurrences in to fit its assumption.  

Question: Where did man come from if he didn't come from God?  

Assumption: He must have mutated his way up the food chain from single celled organism which we can't prove either.


This is what I hear and see with all this evidence and proof you provide and the really funny thing over the last couple of posts I used the evolutionist  links.  Not even the .org and creationist sites I usually pull from.

Quote from: Raist on November 11, 2009, 11:43:31 AM

Wardogg, please read these sentence carefully.

A theory does not explain what happens. It explains a mechanism for how it happened. Evolution makes 0 claims whatsoever about what has happened in the past.

This theory doesn't explain anything.  It makes large guesses, and molds some actual occurrences in to fit its assumption.  

Question: Where did man come from if he didn't come from God?  

Assumption: He must have mutated his way up the food chain from single celled organism which we can't prove either.


This is what I hear and see with all this evidence and proof you provide and the really funny thing over the last couple of posts I used the evolutionist  links.  Not even the .org and creationist sites I usually pull from.

That isn't evolution that you are talking about, that is abiogenesis. Evolution simply says, mutations in the genome of an organism cause diversity, and competition for resources causes the better suited organisms to survive.

That is all that evolution claims. Everything else you say are ideas that creationists lump in with the theory of evolution, but are not in any way part of it.

Quote from: Raist on November 11, 2009, 11:43:31 AM

Wardogg, please read these sentence carefully.

A theory does not explain what happens. It explains a mechanism for how it happened. Evolution makes 0 claims whatsoever about what has happened in the past.

This theory doesn't explain anything.  It makes large guesses, and molds some actual occurrences in to fit its assumption.  

Question: Where did man come from if he didn't come from God?  

Assumption: He must have mutated his way up the food chain from single celled organism which we can't prove either.


This is what I hear and see with all this evidence and proof you provide and the really funny thing over the last couple of posts I used the evolutionist  links.  Not even the .org and creationist sites I usually pull from.

Sorry, but that has shit diddly to do with evolution. That is a what you are asking. You are asking "what happened in the past", theories do not give explanations for whats. Now they do give hows, "If there were certain organisms in the past, and now there are more, how did it happen"

Evolution would answer this question. It happened by mutations and competition. What you are doing is the equivalent of trying to use the quadratic equation to solve a fifth power polynomial. It just isn't applicable.

Quote from: Raist on November 11, 2009, 11:43:31 AM

Wardogg, please read these sentence carefully.

A theory does not explain what happens. It explains a mechanism for how it happened. Evolution makes 0 claims whatsoever about what has happened in the past.

This theory doesn't explain anything.  It makes large guesses, and molds some actual occurrences in to fit its assumption.   

Question: Where did man come from if he didn't come from God? 

Assumption: He must have mutated his way up the food chain from single celled organism which we can't prove either.


This is what I hear and see with all this evidence and proof you provide and the really funny thing over the last couple of posts I used the evolutionist  links.  Not even the .org and creationist sites I usually pull from.

You grossly oversimplify things in an attempt to set a straw man.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on November 11, 2009, 11:54:25 AM

Quote from: Raist on November 11, 2009, 11:43:31 AM

Wardogg, please read these sentence carefully.

A theory does not explain what happens. It explains a mechanism for how it happened. Evolution makes 0 claims whatsoever about what has happened in the past.

This theory doesn't explain anything.  It makes large guesses, and molds some actual occurrences in to fit its assumption.   

Question: Where did man come from if he didn't come from God? 

Assumption: He must have mutated his way up the food chain from single celled organism which we can't prove either.


This is what I hear and see with all this evidence and proof you provide and the really funny thing over the last couple of posts I used the evolutionist  links.  Not even the .org and creationist sites I usually pull from.

You grossly oversimplify things in an attempt to set a straw man.

More importantly those things are caused by evolution not part of evolution.

Who said anything about a transitional fossil?

I enjoyed this part of your link....

Quote

To explain these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution.

 

Interesting, so all of a sudden there would be a mutation and some natural selection only to go back to genetic stablility.

Hrmmmm  again how does the new mutated species reproduce with no one else to reproduce with?  How how does something mutate and natural select itself into two different forms...one being fungus the other being animal?

It breeds with it's population that evolved with it.

You two need to abandon your whale+something = cow perception of evolution.  This isn't some instantanious "holy shit look at Steve, he grew a tail" over-night presto-change-o process.  It's not our fault you don't understand the meaning of the term you are arguing against.

He does seem to be very confused by the actual theory. Plus, he likes to exaggerate the concepts in a transparent attempt to bolster his own position.  The funny thing is, the concept of God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

EVOLUTION AND WESTERN CULTURE

Over a century and a half ago, *Goethe made a profound statement.

"Science has been seriously retarded by the study of what is not worth knowing."?*Johann von Goethe (1749-1832), quoted in Asimov?s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 257.

It would have been well if *Charles Darwin and his disciples had heeded such counsel. All humanity in the 20th century has been seriously injured by the theoretical devisings of *Darwin and his followers.

ETHICS AND MORALITY

It becomes extremely dangerous when materialistic men are set in positions of power to dictate that which the masses will believe in regard to human morality. Hardened evolutionists are determined not to merely let men choose for themselves the type of morality they will follow. Evolution is foisted upon people, from kindergarten to the grave. Evolutionist zealots are dedicated to wiping out every religion but their own. Atheism and only atheism is their creed and their objective. Darwinism inherently teaches the most vicious set of moral principles

Darwinism declares that man is no better than an animal.

It is Darwinism that is brutalizing mankind today.

"Darwinism helped to further brutalize mankind through providing scientific sanction for bloodthirsty and selfish desires."?*Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales, Why Scientists Accept Evolution (1966), p. 64.

According to evolutionary theory, whatever you are is good and whatever you do is right; there are no norms, no absolutes, no standards you must live up to.

The impact of modern evolutionary thought on our modern culture has been terrific. Consider these examples: *Marx and *Keynes in economics and social studies; *Dewey in modern education; *Fosdick and ?higher? Biblical critics in modern theology; *Nietzsche, *James, and *Positivists in modern philosophy; *Beard in American history; *Frankfurter in modern law; *London and *Shaw in novels; *Camus, *Sartre, and *Heidegger in existential thought; *White in sociology; *Simpson and *Dobzhansky in paleontology and modern genetics; *Huxley and *P. Teilhard de Chardin in humanism.

KARL MARX?*Charles Darwin, *Karl Marx, *Ernst Haeckel, *Friedrich Nietzche, and *Sigmund Freud laid the foundations for 20th-century culture. Millions of lives have been lost?morally and physically?because of the insidious views of *Charles Darwin.

"Darwin, Marx, and Freud helped shape the modern mind into conformity with the world view of Mechanistic Materialism."?*E.A. Opitz, "The Use of Reason in Religion," in Imprimis 7(2):4 (1978).

That which *Darwin did to biology, *Marx, with the help of others, did to society.

"Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history."?*Otto Ruhle, Karl Marx (1948), 366.

Marxism is closely linked to Darwinism.

"The idea that evolution is a history of competitive strife fits well with his [Marx?s] ideology of ?class struggle.? "?*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 412.

Engels, *Marx?s disciple, was the first to discover *Darwin?s book.

"Friedrich Engels, one of the founders of Communism, wrote to Karl Marx, December 12, 1859, ?Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid.? "?*C. Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene (1959), p. 85.

*Marx then read it and wrote back:

"Karl Marx wrote to Friedrich Engels, December 19, 1860, ?Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our views.? "?*C. Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene (1959), p. 88.

Within a month, *Marx knew he had found what he was searching for: a "scientific" basis for his theory of "social progress."

"Again, Marx wrote to Engels, January 16, 1861, ?Darwin?s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural selection for the class struggle in history . . not only is a death blow dealt here for the first time to ?teleology? in the natural sciences but their rational meaning is emphatically explained.? "?*C. Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene (1959), p. 88.

Adolf Hitler?s famous Mein Kampf was based on evolutionary theory. The very title of his book was copied from a Darwinian expression; it means "My Struggle" [to survive and overcome].

"One need not read far in Hitler?s Mein Kampf to find that evolution likewise influenced him and his views on the master race, genocide, human breeding experiments, etc."?Robert Clark, Darwin: Before and After (1948), p. 115.

Benito Mussolini gained strength and courage from Darwin?s books to carry out his blood-thirsty deeds.

"Mussolini?s attitude was completely dominated by evolution. In public utterances, he repeatedly used the Darwinian catchwords while he mocked at perpetual peace, lest it hinder the evolutionary process."?*R.E.D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After (1948), p. 115.

As with *Hitler, *Mussolini was captivated both by *Darwin and *Neitzsche, who, in turn, founded his beliefs on *Darwin.

"Benito Mussolini, who brought fascism to Italy, was strengthened in his belief that violence is basic to social transformation by the philosophy of Neitzsche."?*Encyclopedia Britannica (1982), Vol. 16, p. 27.

COMMUNIST DARWINISM?*Marx and *Engel?s acceptance of evolutionary theory made it the basis of all later Communist ideology.

"Darwinism was welcomed in Communist countries since Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had considered The Origin of the Species (1859) a scientific justification for their revolutionary ideology. As far as Socialist theorists were concerned, Darwinism had proved that change and progress result only from bitter struggle. They also emphasized its materialist basis of knowledge, which challenged the divine right of the czars."?*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 119.

It is freely admitted by several leading evolutionist scientists of our time that Marxism and Darwinism are closely related.

"Aspects of evolutionism are perfectly consistent with Marxism. The explanation of the origins of humankind and of mind by purely natural forces was, and remains, as welcome to Marxists as to any other secularists. The sources of value and responsibility are not to be found in a separate mental realm or in an immortal soul, much less in the inspired words of the Bible."?*Robert M. Young, "The Darwin Debate," in Marxism Today, Vol. 26, April 1982, p. 21.

Evolutionary theory became a foundation principle undergirding all modern communism

COMMUNIST CHINA?When Chinese Communists came to power in the 1950s, they eagerly grasped evolutionary theory as a basic foundation of their ideology. Yet the theory had been accepted by Chinese intellectuals nearly a century earlier.

"During the 19th century, the West regarded China as a ?sleeping giant,? isolated and mired in ancient traditions. Few Europeans realized how avidly Chinese intellectuals seized on Darwinian evolutionary ideas and saw in them a hopeful impetus for progress and change.

"According to the Chinese writer Hu Shih (Living Philosophies, 1931), when Thomas Huxley?s Evolution and Ethics was published in 1898, it was immediately acclaimed and accepted by Chinese intellectuals. Rich men sponsored cheap Chinese editions so they could be widely distributed to the masses . .

"China now boasts a fine Paleontological Institute in Beijing and a cadre of paleontologists."?*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 81.

EVOLUTION AND CRIME
CRIME AND ABORTION?We have seen the cause-effect relationship of evolutionary theory and immorality, warfare, racism, and mass destruction. Let us briefly look at its relationship to crime, hard drugs, abortion, and similar evils:

According to evolutionary theory, there is no right, no wrong, no divinity, no devil;?only evolution, which makes all things right!

"Unbridled self-indulgence on the part of one generation without regard to future ones is the modus operandi [operating mechanism] of biological evolution and may be regarded as rational behavior."?*W.H. Murdy, "Anthropocentrism: A Modern Version," in Science, March 28, 1975, p. 1169.

No wonder there is so much crime in our world today! Murder, lawlessness, robbery, and every other crime is acceptable under the *Darwin and *Marx theories of evolution.

"Natural selection can favor egotism, hedonism, cowardice instead of bravery, cheating and exploitation."?*Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Ethics and Values in Biological and Cultural Evolution," in Los Angeles Times, June 16, 1974, p. 6.

An idea causing bad things to happen does not make it wrong.

If you would like to discuss the morality of a belief take it to religion and philosophy, it has not place here. Feel free to repost that in religion and philosophy, any further derailment with your long off topic posts will lead to me moving it for you.

EVOLUTION AND WESTERN CULTURE
......
.....
....
et cetera et cetera

Wonder twin powers combine.

Form of; Giant wall of text.

Are you testing some beta program for Bill Gates where the email said you'd get $.01 for every 10 word you post in a forum?