Comments on: Rational Evolutionary Hypothesis? http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/02/25/rational-evolutionary-hypothesis/ Men's Rights Activism, MRA Politics, Analysis, Commentary and Global News Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:06:21 -1000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: ArgusEyes http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/02/25/rational-evolutionary-hypothesis/comment-page-1/#comment-32441 ArgusEyes Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:17:36 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/02/25/rational-evolutionary-hypothesis/#comment-32441 So many logical fallacies, so little time. 1) Many evolutionists believe in God (see Kenneth Miller). So we certainly have minds that conceive of God. Likewise, evolution has no absolute link with atheism. 2) Stop calling us Darwinians or Darwinists. It is a disingenuous trick to associate us with an ideology and/or leader. No-one in the field of evolution theory calls themselves a “Darwinist”. 3) The creation of life is a different field of science. It is called “abiogenesis”. 4) Glossing over the origins of live is certainly not something we all do. I have no idea how life came into being, but scientists are trying to find out. I hold that above the pat and quaint myths of religious belief. And.. that’s all you talk about, actual evolution is not touched upon in this article and I would love to see what you have to say about that. So many logical fallacies, so little time.

1) Many evolutionists believe in God (see Kenneth Miller). So we certainly have minds that conceive of God. Likewise, evolution has no absolute link with atheism.

2) Stop calling us Darwinians or Darwinists. It is a disingenuous trick to associate us with an ideology and/or leader. No-one in the field of evolution theory calls themselves a “Darwinist”.

3) The creation of life is a different field of science. It is called “abiogenesis”.

4) Glossing over the origins of live is certainly not something we all do. I have no idea how life came into being, but scientists are trying to find out. I hold that above the pat and quaint myths of religious belief.

And.. that’s all you talk about, actual evolution is not touched upon in this article and I would love to see what you have to say about that.

]]> By: amfortas http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/02/25/rational-evolutionary-hypothesis/comment-page-1/#comment-32370 amfortas Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:50:39 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/02/25/rational-evolutionary-hypothesis/#comment-32370 Darwinian evolution is a stage. That's all. Not an exclusive universal. It was proceeded by a period when free-floating genetic components were swapped across 'species' rather than being, as generally at present, linked only vertically up through species. It still happens with amoeba. It is how the mitochondria came to reside in the human cell. Moving out of a thick medium such as water favoured the vertical genetic passage and the development of the 'survival of the fittest'/generally sexual transmission-integration. It may well be that the Darwinain phase is about to be usurped by a third phase, similar to the first, but directed by us. This is what GM is about:taking genes from one species and linking them to genes in another species. Dawkins is a 'believer', a zealot, every bit as closed minded as the religious people he denounces. Darwinian evolution is a stage. That’s all. Not an exclusive universal. It was proceeded by a period when free-floating genetic components were swapped across ’species’ rather than being, as generally at present, linked only vertically up through species. It still happens with amoeba. It is how the mitochondria came to reside in the human cell. Moving out of a thick medium such as water favoured the vertical genetic passage and the development of the ’survival of the fittest’/generally sexual transmission-integration.

It may well be that the Darwinain phase is about to be usurped by a third phase, similar to the first, but directed by us. This is what GM is about:taking genes from one species and linking them to genes in another species.

Dawkins is a ‘believer’, a zealot, every bit as closed minded as the religious people he denounces.

]]> By: Squiggy http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/02/25/rational-evolutionary-hypothesis/comment-page-1/#comment-32352 Squiggy Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:17:26 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/02/25/rational-evolutionary-hypothesis/#comment-32352 Dawkins is proof that the only difference between an idiot and an educated idiot is an education. Not to mention, he's a total jerk. Dawkins is proof that the only difference between an idiot and an educated idiot is an education. Not to mention, he’s a total jerk.

]]>