Explaining the Sources for Darwin's "The Origin of Species" to Inmendham

Explaining the Sources for Darwin's "The Origin of Species" to Inmendham.

Background links:
http://rjohara.net/teaching/uncg/freshman-104w-1-letters
http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Species-Everymans-Library/dp/0460008110
[This is the edition I like because it's a sturdy hardback and is bound with a lot of helpful background notes.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Charles Darwin
• On The Origin Of Species
• science
• inmendham
• efilism

[missmollygrue]

Someone to who responds with an insult is not refuting anything. People who argue badly lose the argument. When I judge debate tournaments and the kids start complaining about his or her opponent's argument, I stop listening, and when it's over I tell them that their time would have been better spent dismantling the bad argument, which is easy to do, than to complain about how bad it is. This is something that potholer54 is very good at.

Can you defend the assertion that DNA is not a poison?

[2bsirius]

@missmollygrue

Tell you what. You go first. You present an argument P'ROVING that DNA is poison and I'll respond to it.

I'm waiting.

[missmollygrue]

@2bsirius Oh this is fun. 1) Why on earth would I do that? It's nonsense. Demonstrating that it is nonsense shouldn't be difficult, and that's my point. Either refute the premise that DNA is poison, or ignore it because it is self-evidently ridiculous and therefore beneath you. 2) Did I just make you mad? I thought you said only sick people get mad.

[2bsirius]

@missmollygrue

No, you didn't make me mad. Yes, I agree with the idea in theory that nonsense should be ignored...The the reason I address it is that so many gullible people are willing to accept it as TRUTH...

But, again, I agree in principle. 

[fourbabies1]

@2bsirius could you turn on ratings for this vid please. it would help to spread your wise words around.

[2bsirius]

@fourbabies1

Unfortunately, there is an army of trolls who thumb down all my videos. It makes for very unreliable results, so reluctantly, I've felt forced to suspend the ratings for now.

[2bsirius]

@GirlonFilm1969

Aren't you afraid that you'll be blocked for posting a comment here?

Your logic is interesting.... Completely bogus as usual but interesting.

Why hasn't science thought of this before? You make claims. You don't need sources to substantiate them.

Darwin's disclaimer is not proof that he did not depend on the work of other naturalists. Obviously he did. He was simply saying in paraphrase "any mistakes are mine." It's a disclaimer many scientists use. READ THE BOOK!

[complexadaptive]

The scary point about this is not the claim but that there are people that believe this crap, and base their perception and ultimate behavior on others (bigotry, stereotyping etc.), because they do not understand the basic concepts about which they speak.

I had a conversation with an ignorant fool at one point that explicitly stated the NA aboriginal people were in the position and circumstances they were in because of the presence of too many recessive genes compared to a Caucasian..

[curlew0609]

DNA? Poison? Is he nuts? Doesn't he own a dictionary? Can't he find one on Google?

I'm not going to slog thru his videos looking for this claim. Anyone who would make such a claim would seem to be a goof.

[ThomasTrue]

In 1831 a Scottish tree hybridiser, Patrick Matthew, published "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture" describing his observations on how stronger strains of tree survived and it was in that work that the term "natural selection" appeared for the first time in history. Matthew later accused Darwin of plagarism over the term but the important point however is that the two men corresponded frequently. Transcripts of their letters can be found in "Patrick Matthew and Natural Selection" by W J Dempster.

[missmollygrue]

@HConstantine Is it possible that my intention was purely pedantic? Yes and no. Am I concerned with method, yes. Our gracious channel host is greatly concerned with method. She gets upset that people hurl invectives at her (they're "off topic"), but apparently it's fine to accuse creationists or flatearthers and the like or being subhuman, as though that proves anything. I don't agree with those folks, but it casts an ugly light on those of us who attack ad hominem rather than make an argument.

[missmollygrue]

@HConstantine Sorry for the delay, you responded to yourself so I didn't receive a notification.

I'm not defending the DNA is poison argument. I don't understand why you think I am. Maybe you can help me with that -- what is it I said that made you think I'm defending the argument?

The thing is, I *can't* point out anyone's logical errors because no one has presented any logic. The argument "you people are so dumb" is not an argument. That's what I'm trying to say.

[mrgodbehere]

PS: and I am sick of the attack on 'elitism'. Without an intellectual elite we wouldn't have experts. But then, these science denialists don't like experts either.

[mrgodbehere]

Not only that, but he cite's David Hume and his own dad! The DNA argument is two steaks short of a BBQ.

[MrElliotpaige]

LOL I adore flat earthers, they are just so cute!

[missmollygrue]

@HConstantine Oh honey. There's a lot of difference between making or defending an argument, and taking issue with the way its opponents are attacking that argument.

Not that it matters, but I don't teach debate. I'm just a judge. 

[HConstantine]

@HConstantine Then why did you defend it to start with?

Could it actually be that you only posted with the pedantic intention of insisting that point out the opponent's logical errors is an invalid method of argumentation?