Pharyngula

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 25, 2009 3:17 PM

This should be good. I have my bets of a few people already. My answer would be far too full of typos and bacon references so I'll spare you PZ.

Posted by: Michelle R | November 25, 2009 3:20 PM

Sounds slippery and SEXY!

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 25, 2009 3:23 PM

Well, I've been wanting to see some sort of contest between the trolls of this site, but I guess this is more productive and educational...

/pout

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 25, 2009 3:24 PM

I'm in.

Posted by: James F | November 25, 2009 3:26 PM

Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity? Did you start out a single cell? Next.

Posted by: Skeptico | November 25, 2009 3:27 PM

1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

Evolution Not Responsible for Hitler

Yeah, I know - more than 500 words.

Posted by: cervantes | November 25, 2009 3:28 PM

Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity? Sure. Take a pan of distilled water. Add one tablespoon of Miracle Grow, allow it to dissolve uniformly. You now have a system of low complexity. Add one algal cell and set it out in the sun. Soon, you will have millions of extremely complex living cells.

What a stupid question.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 25, 2009 3:29 PM

I like the evolution-Hitler "link," at the same time that the Olson-maggot strongly counsels censorship of this forum.

I say to Ross, fuck off, fascist.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: firemancarl | November 25, 2009 3:29 PM

1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

#1 Yes, evolution is true and Nazis are true therefore, evolution was an influence on Nazis

#2 Yes.

Posted by: Ashley F. Miller | November 25, 2009 3:31 PM

It's just so exhausting though. Even if Evolution and Eugenics had been Hitler's main inspiration, rather than an obsession with German Imperialism, it doesn't change whether evolution is true or not. If someone horrible uses gravity to mass murder people by throwing them into a pit, does that make gravity less real? When Jeffrey Dahmer killed and ate people, most people agreed that the cause was insanity not his Christianity.

Hitler believed in evolution, therefore everyone who believes in evolution is a Nazi. Jeffrey Dahmer believed in Jesus, therefore all Christians want to kill and eat people*. Same bad, stupid logic.

*Christians do eat Jesus, but otherwise they're generally not cannibals

Posted by: Professor Peewee | November 25, 2009 3:33 PM

Regarding the Hitler smear, history tells us that Hitler and his Nazis were influenced in their thinking about science not by Darwin but by another Englishman named Houston Stewart Chamberlain; a Germanophile, admirer of Wagner and anti-semite...who considered Darwinism to be "...the most abominable and misguided doctrine of the day."

So in fact the Nazis (like the Stalinists who embraced Lysenko) actually REJECTED Darwinism, and therefore have more in common with the creationists than with anyone who accepts Darwinian evolution.

Posted by: Revyloution | November 25, 2009 3:34 PM

1. No.

2. Yes.

Posted by: lazlow | November 25, 2009 3:37 PM

"unfortunately I can't just stuff him into a carrier and drag him down to the humane society or the vet."

Of course, you can, you just have to really, really want it! But it would be far more inconspicuous to add some weight to said carrier and hurl it into a river in the dead of night...

Posted by: flea | November 25, 2009 3:38 PM

You deserve this PZ. When you make eye contact with a nutcase you are lost. And you debated one! What do you expect?

Posted by: uppity cracka | November 25, 2009 3:39 PM

1) what the fuck difference would it make either way?
2) what the fuck difference would it make either way?

did i win?

Posted by: gadfly47 | November 25, 2009 3:39 PM

Hitler was inspired by religion, not evolution.

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: 'by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

-- Hitler, Mein Kampf

Posted by: Steve | November 25, 2009 3:42 PM

Is it a midget mud wrestling pit? I only ask because, as we all know, there are still pygmies and dwarves!!!

Posted by: nejishiki | November 25, 2009 3:43 PM

As to the first question, what's the definition of complexity we are to use? This is no trivial matter.
I would say the definition given in algorithmic information theory, where it' defined as the opposite of order (e.g. a binary sequence that can't be generated from a significantly shorter binary sequence) is not what the creationists are talking about. Random processes easily produce objects that are complex in this sense.

Posted by: Bob Felton | November 25, 2009 3:47 PM

Q: Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

A: Sure. Unsupervised, laissez faire capitalism started out with the purchase of Manhattan Island from the native Americans for $24-worth of beads; today, traders swap derivatives back and forth, and get rich, with nobody involved in the transaction every laying eyes on the money *or* the property.

Posted by: uppity cracka | November 25, 2009 3:50 PM

did photosynthesis influence drug addiction?
in a roundabout way, i guess it did.

i don't believe in photosynthesis anymore.

Posted by: Keith Jones | November 25, 2009 3:51 PM

To quote the answers in Genesis work: "Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains."

Were humans not breeding superior cattle strains thousands of years before Darwin's birth?

Hitler was attempting to breed a superior human, not transform humans into another species. Since it is your contention that micro-evolution (as with breeding cows) is possible and macro-evolution (from monkey to man) is impossible...wouldn't that make Hitler more akin to your position than Darwin's?

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 25, 2009 3:53 PM

The most obvious philosophical influence on Hitler and Nazism was Houston Stewart Chamberlain (1855-1927), who was British by birth but became a fanatical German nationalist and antisemite. Chamberlain's most influential work was Die Grundlagen des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts ("Foundations of the Nineteenth Century") (1899). Chamberlain grouped the Germans, Celts, Slavs, Greeks, Latins and Berbers into the "Aryan race," a race built on the ancient Proto-Indo-European culture. At the helm of the Aryan race, and, indeed, all races, were the Nordic or Teutonic peoples. In propaganda tracts published during WWI, he claimed that the world would be better off doing away with English and French-styled parliamentary governments in favor of German rule "thought out by a few and carried out with iron consequence." Begin to sound familiar, Ross old chum?

Of the natural sciences, Chamberlain wrote in the "Foundations": "one of the most fatal errors of our time is that which impels us to give too great weight to the so-called 'results' of science." His thesis was a vitalist work, claiming that fluid transport in plants could not be accounted for by materialistic forces. He rejected Darwinism, evolution and social Darwinism and instead emphasized "gestalt" which he said derived from Goethe. Chamberlain said that Darwinism was the most abominable and misguided doctrine of the day.

Hitler visited Chamberlain twice before the latter's death, in 1923 and 1926. Chamberlain joined the Nazi Party and contributed to its publications. Its primary journal, the Völkischer Beobachter. ("Racist Observer") dedicated five columns to praising him on his 70th birthday, describing The Foundations as the "gospel of the Nazi movement."

Posted by: Sili | November 25, 2009 3:56 PM

2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

w⁵

Posted by: Phodopus | November 25, 2009 3:56 PM

2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

Ahw, this is so tiring because I'm sure the guy asking the question has no clue what he even means by complexity or what a sensible definition of it would be. Considering this, asking the question already is pretty dishonest on his part.

Posted by: MikeF | November 25, 2009 3:58 PM

1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

Yes, but only in as much as the germ theory of disease was a significant and essential factor whenever Hitler caught a cold.

A correct understanding of evolution leads one to conlcude that all life is intertwined, by virtue of its single common ancestor; no single species (or race) is more or less evolved than any other. This, it would seem, is the very antithesis of nazism.

More importantly, this is irrelevant. Whether or not Hitler (mis)understood evolution to justify the Holocaust says nothing about the reality of evolution. Every time a person falls to their death from a high place, do we blame the theory of gravitation? Is atomic theory to blame for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

The evidence strongly suggests that all life has descended from a common ancestor via a mechanism involving random mutation and non-random natural selection; what Hitler made of this is neither here nor there.

2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

If multicellular life is more complex than single celled-life; if heterozygosity is more complex than homozygosity; if signaling cascades and large gene families is a complex way to run a cell; if immune systems that can develop antibodies to virtually any antigen thanks to the marvel of V(D)J recombination are complex; if these things and any of the other millions of functions found in modern organisms can be called complex, then yes: natural processes can produce an increase in complexity.

Posted by: Bjørn Østman | November 25, 2009 4:02 PM

2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

Podarcis sicula, a Croatian lizard, evolved differences in head morphology, bite strength, and digestive tract structure in a very, very short period of time: 36 years! In about 30 generations the lizards evolved larger heads, stronger bites, and cecal valves - a structure in the gut that can constrict, slowing down the passage of food, giving more time for digestion. Behaviorally the lizards changed their diet to include much more plant material, and the morphological changes were adaptations to this new lifestyle. Clearly the lizards became a new species, as they moved into a new niche, and increased the information in their genome about the new environment. Thus evolution increased the complexity of these lizards. [Herrel et al. (2008), PNAS, 105 (12).]

A note on complexity: That this term is undefined when used by creationists makes it possible for them to reject any example given to them of complexity increasing. Requiring them to define it will make it possible to give an example that is more likely to persuade some of them (or just the fence-sitters). Here I have used one definition that is actually quantitative, namely that the more information the genome contains about the environment, the more complex it is.

Posted by: uppity cracka | November 25, 2009 4:06 PM

knockgoats, #43. good answer.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 25, 2009 4:06 PM

nejishiki writes:
what's the definition of complexity we are to use?

Use whatever's convenient. That appears to be how they play the game. So, I used the stupidest possible interpretation of the question to come up with the stupidest possible answer. After all, since they're stupid, they may get it.

Posted by: And-U-say | November 25, 2009 4:08 PM

Ya know... I went and read (blech!) the article referenced at AIG. When you think about it, what they are decrying is the very thing they agree with. If we were to assume that Evolution served as some sort of basis for Nazi atrocities (I don't agree, but stay with me here for a second), it's actually micro-evolution (a term I despise, but that's not the point at the moment) that they are talking about. Because the elimination of inferior races (in their mind) results in a superior race (in their mind) that is still human. Just like the finches (in their mind) represent mere adaptation not real change.

So its odd. They decry the Nazi link to micro evolution but they firmly support micro evolution.

hint to contest writers: you can use this to turn their own argument against them. One could both answer the question AND show that they themselves support Nazis (so to speak).

Sorry for all the disqualifiers above, but I just know someone is going to accuse me of thinking like them just because I am trying to use their (flawed) logic.

Enjoy!

Posted by: CelticLC | November 25, 2009 4:09 PM

1. Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

Eugenics is the science behind improving the human race by a process of selectively breeding certain heritable characteristics. This was the underlying justification for weeding out undesirables from Nazi society. Although the success in selective breeding for our domesticated animals and crops was used as one piece of evidence for the process of evolution, it is not evolution. Instead it is the artificial manipulation of a system that in nature gives rise to the diversity of species. The Nazi's wanted to preserve a set of characteristics in the human race, preventing diversity and restricting the genetic population using techniques that have been around for thousands of years, long before the theory of evolution was proposed.

The ethics of such manipulation and the manner by which the Nazis implemented it, even if it did stem from evolution (which it doesn't), has no bearing on the validity of the theory.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 25, 2009 4:12 PM

uppity cracka@52,
Thanks! All facts and some sentences cribbed from the wikipedia article linked to!

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 25, 2009 4:13 PM

cervantes writes:
Sorry, the soup gets less complex when you stir it, as its ingredients are distributed more uniformly. However, you are a part of nature and your creating the complex soup in the first place is no less natural than any other process.

I was trying to give a stupid answer, that was just sciency enough to confuse a creo, delivered with the kind of confidence that they're used to hearing and accepting in a stupid answer. I was even going to work quantum mechanics and the word "fuck" into it but I thought shorter stupid was deadlier than more involved stupid. And now you've gone and outed me. :(

Posted by: Gabby | November 25, 2009 4:15 PM

Aaron actually made this for Comfort and his bottombitch Cameron, but it also works for this toad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCNftnJZX1Y

Posted by: AaronSTL | November 25, 2009 4:17 PM

Q: Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

A: Evolution = Natural Selection
Nazi Eugenics = Artificial Selection
Creationist Argument = PWNED

Creationists don't have a problem with Darwin, they have a problem with things like dog breeding and agriculture.

2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

Yes. Three words: Gene Duplication. Wikipedia.

Posted by: D. McComb | November 25, 2009 4:21 PM

1. If Hitler had believed in evolution, and also believed that Jews were inferior and Aryans were superior, all he would have had to do was wait - the "inferior" race would inevitably have died out, replaced by the more "evolved" race. That he instead felt it necessary to embark on a plan of extermination says that he either believed that the Jews were actually superior (which he obviously didn't) or that evolution wouldn't eliminate the "lower" race.

2. From the formation of complex crystals from uniform chemical soups and magmas to the building of plant cells from light, water, oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and trace minerals, including the creation of the incredibly complex DNA molecule, nature forms complexity from simplicity all the time. If it did not, the universe would be a uniformly smooth and featureless cloud of quarks, and neither we nor anything else would exist.

Posted by: Quidam | November 25, 2009 4:22 PM

1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

Number of hits for the following search terms in Hitler's writings on www.hitler.org

Creator 10
God 28
Lord 20
Nazarene 1
Christ 2
Christian 13
Luther 1

Darwin 0

Posted by: bevo/devo | November 25, 2009 4:24 PM

1) A single reading of Mein Kampf will show any objective person that Hitler knew nothing of evolution by natural selection. (This is commonly referred to as Darwinism, but mistakenly so- would you refer to the advances in aeronautics as Wrightism?) Natural Selection does not act in a way to preserve a species, it acts to enhance the reproduction rate of individuals. Hitler, writing in Mein Kampf, spoke of his desire to preserve what he considered the superior race, and believed this superiority was passed "through the blood"- this is certainly not natural selection.

Nor did Hitler claim to be inspired by Darwin, who is not mentioned even once in Mein Kampf. One would have to assume that if Darwin was such a large influence on Hitler, then he would document this in his autobiography, but such is not the case. Hitler's influences are actually made quite clear; he was a life-long Roman Catholic, and the church was officially anti-Semitic until the mid-1960s. Hitler repeatedly used God, Jesus, and the afterlife as motivation in his speeches and writings to justify his actions.

Further, Hitler was blessed by the Vatican, and the celebration of his birthday was a church mandate until the year of his death. At least half of the Nazis were confessing Catholics, and they committed their atrocities in a largely Catholic country that permitted this death cult to rise to power using anti-Semitic propaganda. All this shows that Hitler and the other Nazis were heavily influenced by their indoctrination in a church that taught its members hatred for Jews, which led to Hitler's desire to 'preserve' his race. Hitler certainly did not learn about Darwin and suddenly decide to hate Jews, commit genocide, and employ eugenics.

Jerry Bergman immediately admits in his essay that in his eugenics program, Hitler employed not natural selection but artificial selection, which had been around for centuries before Darwin was even born. Artificial selection is the process of selecting the highest yielding plants or the most attractive animals for the breeder's desire; this practice helped Darwin arrive at his theory, and led Hitler to the foolish idea that a master race to be bred. If any practice is to be blamed for Hitler's barbarity, it should be the same methods used in the agricultural revolution. This, of course, would be ridiculous.

Bergman also admits that Social Darwinism was implemented, which is not "Darwinism" at all, it is a bastardization of natural selection put forward to justify the oppression of the masses. The ideology and practice of Social Darwinism had been around for centuries also, but giving it a name made it easier to spread. Nonetheless, the main point I wish to leave you with is this: even if Darwin's theory had directly inspired Hitler to do what he did, to suggest the theory is evil or to blame Darwin himself would be as silly as blaming 9/11 on the Wright Brothers and demonizing aeronautics.

Posted by: Kaelik | November 25, 2009 4:26 PM

1) Hitler was a Roman Catholic. Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews and the Homosexuals and non Aryans.

This has nothing to do with Evolution. Evolution does not tell us that some people are better than others. It tells us that all living organisms that produce offspring are equally fit.

Hitler hated various fit individuals. He hated Jews for being more successful than him. Hitler would have hated Evolution had he known much about it. Evolution determined the Jews to be fit individuals, Hitler disagreed. Hitler would not like the conclusions of evolution. He did not like the results of the evolutionary process, and sought to change them.

Lesson, Evolution says that people are generally equal in fitness, poor/rich, Jew/Christian/Atheist alike. Religious people, like Hitler, must determine some other way besides fitness to evaluate peoples worth. Whether that be looks or belief, evolution has nothing to do with claims of the value of people. Only their fitness.

2) A specific Organism has the following DNA code:

ATTACAGUATAG

It does not have the following code anywhere in it's genome:

ATAUCAGUATAG

The previous code is cloned in the next organism. Producing:

ATTACAGUATAGATTACAGUATAG

The first strand continues to exist in it's previous state. The clone suffers two point mutations over the next series of generation.

We now have an organism with all the same information it's ancestor had so many generations ago. It also has brand new information that it's ancestor never had.

We have created new information. Please give up this tired canard.

Posted by: nejishiki | November 25, 2009 4:28 PM

@Marcus #55
I think we shouldn't stoop to their level. Rather, we should expose that they don't know what they're talking about. To actually make their case, they would need to wade through a mess of mathematical and thermodynamic arguments. Fat chance.

Posted by: October Mermaid | November 25, 2009 4:29 PM

I like the way Olson keeps insiting that PZ be polite and accomodating to quacks, idiots, and liars.

He seems to think that Pharyngula and its readership sprung from the mind of his god, fully formed and with all fans present and accounted for, and that PZ's brash approach and insistence on reality, even when it conflicts with the precious, fuzzy fairy tales of the faithful is going to lose readers, rather than what helped him become popular in the first place.

Or maybe he's not quite that deluded and is effectively saying "I know I pale in comparison to you, intellectually and emotionally, so it sure would be awesome if you'd shoot yourself in the foot, then hand me the loaded gun. You know, be sporting."

Posted by: lbbhecht | November 25, 2009 4:30 PM

So here, I take two questions, 1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought? And 2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity? I throw them down into the alligator-infested pit of churning chaos, and I leave it to you to produce an answer.

1. Hitler most definitely did NOT accept evolution. He believed in reproduction within 'created kinds.' His words even echo the 'no new information' argument!: "The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. i, ch. xi
More:
"From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today." - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)

"The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator." - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)

2. Does Jesus personally craft each individual snowflake? No. Their intricate designs are formed by a natural process called crystallization. When it comes to evolution, natural selection cuts out unfavorable options (deleterious alleles) from the gene pool. It can be seen as sculpting order and meaning out of disorder. Natural selection decreases uncertainty, increasing information content BY DEFINITION.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
Complexity is a corollary of this growth of information. Of course, gene duplication is important as well. After a duplication event, you have two pretty much identical copies of a gene. This alone is not *new* information, but that second copy is open to the aforementioned "sculpting" by mutation and selection.

Posted by: Revyloution | November 25, 2009 4:31 PM

bevo/devo, you leave me with no choice.

All future references to avionautics will be referred to as Wrightism. And those silly people who believe that humans can fly in heavier than air crafts are Wrightists.

Posted by: Mike Wagner | November 25, 2009 4:31 PM

1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

No. The Nazi movement was built on ultra-nationalism, which invariably creates an Us vs. Them mentality, an effective method of managing a population. Bush used it to some effect in his statement "You're either with us or with the terrorists" because it works. (This is a comment on the process, not that Bush is a Nazi). The 'Them' used as scapegoats by the Nazis included many groups disliked by Hitler and his ilk, including Jews, Gays, and various intellectuals and academics. Lifting any blame for poverty and unemployment from the public and placing it on minority groups was enthusiastically welcomed by those living under the burden imposed by the Treaty of Versaille. Placing greater self-import on the German people through the concept of the "Aryan Superman" was not a Darwinian concept, but a perversion of Nietzsche. It wasn't Darwinism but selective breeding of political ideology.

2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity.

Certainly. An increase in complexity can easily be achieved with elements that appear naturally in nature. Hydrogen and Oxygen occupying a space can be presented in very simple terms. With the addition of a natural flame or spark you now have Hydrogen, Oxygen, and water occupying that space, and the resulting description contains more information. Increased information is increased complexity.

3) Are creationists self-deluded assholes with a monetary and/or dominionist agenda?
Almost certainly.

Posted by: ohioobserver | November 25, 2009 4:33 PM

1: As for the Hitler thing, I'm not much of an historian, although the quotes above seem to make a pretty clear case that ol' Adolf was more sympathetic to the creationist view. But I wonder: could anyone with a deep consciousness of common descent have conceived of the murder of millions of fellow species-mates on the grounds that they were biologically unrelated to themselves? Not that cognitive dissonance is a problem for fanatics.

2: complexity: Increasing complexity is obvious from observation, but I think Olsen's question was about whether evolutionary theory predicts and explains increasing complexity (and of course, if it doesn't, evolution must be wrong and creationism must be true. Yeah. Well.) Of course, evolutionary theory predicts that complexity will increase (by, for example, increasing the diversity of populations through selection of new species). Couple evolutionary theory with other approaches such as thermodynamic theory, and increasing complexity is easily understood. A high-school chemistry student knows that a benzene molecule is a more complex system than six carbon atoms and six hydrogen atoms randomly floating about, but the benzene molecule has a lower potential energy than the individual atoms, and will form spontaneously once a little activation energy has been borrowed from some other system. We observe this, and theory predicts it. Evolution obeys the same laws as everything else, so of course evolution predicts and explains the observed increase in complexity.

Posted by: NateL | November 25, 2009 4:34 PM

My vote is for #23, short and concise. It may also make the weirdos head explode.

Posted by: Tim | November 25, 2009 4:36 PM

1) Evolution was absolutely significant and essential in the sense that even Nazis evolved from ancestral forms of life. However, knowledge *of* evolution was irrelevant. "Evolution" != "Eugenics". Just as "Shitty Little Mustaches" != "Eugenics". We can see an example of this in the world today. There are many, many people who recognize that the theory of evolution is the preeminent theory underlying nearly all of modern biological knowledge. Of those many, many people, I am not aware of any who are currently practicing global genocide. I think it is safe to conclude that an understanding of evolution does *not* necessarily lead to being one of the biggest assholes the world has ever known. For that, it takes a profound misunderstanding of bananas.

2) I was going to try answering this question but I think it's clear that every single one of the examples I could give where a natural process does, in fact, increase complexity would just be met with a typical, "Nuh uh, Goddidit" answer. Prissy-pants will just claim that everything in nature came from God and therefore it's not actually a natural process at all that is increasing the complexity. Whether or not natural processes increase complexity, arguing with these buffoons certainly increases the hurt in my brain.

Posted by: Casey | November 25, 2009 4:38 PM

I would like to submit a response to be considered:

In order for me to be able to properly respond I will require the following things:

1. An article on the subject of Darwin leading to nazi ideals that is written by some one other than the person who initiated the claim during the debate, published by a credible organization that is not religiously biased and attempting to denounce evolution. I want historically accurate and academic writing supporting such a claim.

2. A list of biology classes you have completed in your past, along with any books you may have read which would be relevant to the second question. These items are so I know where to start your education in biology so that you can get up to speed on the science necessary to understand the idea of natural processes and their ability to create many complex things in the world today.

As an alternative to that you may complete the following:
You and Bergman can do some experiments with genetics and facilitate a less natural process.
Go to your local pet store, and acquire two animals of opposite sex that breed and develop quickly in comparison to humans, like guinnea pigs or rabbits. Have them make babies. Select two of their babies, preferably ones that look similar, and have them make more babies, then two of their offspring should breed and make babies, then two of those babies and so on and so forth, limit the gene pool as much as possible and document the experiment over time. You may also want to get a control group of bunnies or whatever animal you chose and have them breed as freely and diversely as they'd like (dress these up as hitler so it's fun for you) and watch the differences when their is a bit more genetic variation. This should be easy, and it will take up a bit of your time, which you apparently have a shit ton of based on the number of foolish emails you continue to send me requesting I refute claims that are far from scientific or accurate and are surely only sourced from Bergman's infinite colon.

[I was rushing so I had a bit of disregard for spelling, grammarr, and the like]

Posted by: edrowland | November 25, 2009 4:40 PM

Great challenge. Although the 500-word limit seems far to high.

What does Hitler's use of Un-natural selection have to do with whether new species can be created by random mutations, and survival of the fittest?

25 words. Although far too many of them are polysyllabic.

It seems to me that the challenge should be to do it effectively in in 25 words or less, with no word having more than two syllables.

Posted by: Revyloution | November 25, 2009 4:41 PM

Woohoo! Thats 2 votes for me, thanks NateL.

Now if I can just sway Trophy Wife (tm) Im a dead ringer!

Beebeeo, I think you could find many Christians who think vegetarianism is evil and wrong.

I personally see it as just more meat for me.

Posted by: JSug | November 25, 2009 4:44 PM

1) I think you'd have to ask Hitler. His writings on the subject seem to contradict your hypothesis.

2) Crystals.

Posted by: JRM | November 25, 2009 4:46 PM

1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

Yes. The Jewish people had evolved from violent tribesmen to bright, educated, achievers over thousands of years. Still, their evolution was incomplete.

As Hitler often said, "I'd like to see a Jew grow this mustache. [Dancing, waving arms int the air like he just don't care] Uh-huh. Oh yeah." Also, more relevantly, he said, "Evolution - the survival of the fittest - is an important key to the Nazi philosophy, as I point out repeatedly in Mein Origin of the Kampf."

Like the witches before them, the Jewish people largely did not evolve quickly enough to survive the evolutionary tests put before them. The Jews did not evolve to ingest poison gas without dying. Were it not for their inferior, slow-adjusting genetic code, the Jews would have walked out of the gas chambers. The Nazis took appropriate advantage of this failure, as would any proper evolutionist, and improved the overall human condition.

2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

No.

Many scientists use fancy-sounding words to convey secret ideas in their weird no-maker fantasy. As they come up with more and more words, it gets more and more complicated. To quote famous literary character Beavis, "Words suck."

It is a simple matter to see that this sort of evolution-science-nonBeavis complication of the world is not natural. Thus, only non-natural processes increase complexity.

Natural processes always make things simpler. The river goes through the Grand Canyon and makes it deeper and easier to see. Puppies are cute, because they are designed to be cute and they're tasty because they're designed to be tasty when barbecued. Women use naturally-occurring pepper to spray me, because they want me to get out of their closet and to let go of their puppies.

Each of these anecdotes (or: Data), show that natural processes make things simpler, while complication comes from the unnatural state of unbelief in obvious truth.

--JRM

Posted by: Cokehead | November 25, 2009 4:47 PM

1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

Yes. Also, Hitler had a mustache, which was a major guiding force within the Nazi regime.

2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

Only if you ask them politely.

Posted by: Madame LaJuju | November 25, 2009 4:51 PM

2) How does complexity evolve? The simplest example (perhaps) is the evolution of genetic complexity. A single gene can duplicate (this happens with some frequency in nature via fairly well understood molecular mechanisms) producing two copies of itself in a single genome. This in itself is not an increase in complexity – you only have two copies of something, not new information. But now, you have grist for natural selection! One copy of the gene is all the organism needs to survive – it got along just fine up to this point with only one copy. That means that the other copy is free to mutate. Some of the mutations will kill the function of the second copy. That’s ok, the first copy still works great and life goes on. Some mutations make the second copy work a little better – maybe increase the kinetics of an enzymatic reaction. Some mutations give the second copy a new function – ability to digest a similar food as the first copy. All of these types of mutations have been documented in natural and laboratory organisms. The two latter kinds of mutation also provide an advantage to the organism with them. The organisms with these kinds of mutations can reproduce a little faster or longer, meaning that over time, their numbers will increase. This doesn’t seem like a big deal – the addition of a single gene, but over time this happens to lots of genes. Some of the new copies make proteins that interact with each other and make whole new physical features that can confer an extreme advantage on the organisms possessing them. Of course, much of the time the “simpler” organisms also survive, albeit in a slightly different ecological nice than the more complex organisms. When this happens, ecological complexity also increases – more species means more possible ecological interactions. So something very simple that happens fairly frequently – the duplication of a single gene – leads to large scale increases in complexity over many generations.

...though the snowflake answers are pretty great!

Posted by: madamX | November 25, 2009 4:52 PM

Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

Evolution tells us not what we ought to do, just what is. At the zoo the other day I watched a chimpanzee torture a frog by sticking its finger down the frog’s throat, nearly killing it every time. Did the chimp act like an asshole, yes. Should it have acted like an asshole, no.

The blind forces of evolution can be the reason for all types of fucked up thought. I know I’ve had a few. The very thing that makes us human is the ability to not act on negative thoughts and to change our minds. We, as humans, can choose our behaviors, and an acknowledgment of the truth of evolution helps shed light on our shortcomings so we can choose better.

An acknowledgment of evolution did not cause the Nazi’s to do fucked up things, what did was weakness. They lacked the ability to rise above the greed, jealousy, and Schadenfreude that all of us struggle with. If they truly did understand evolution they would have seen their actions were nothing but reptilian, easy, less than human. To rise above, to do better in the light of knowledge – that is human. And the fact of evolution is the light.

Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | November 25, 2009 4:54 PM

Fixed this:

The most emotional audience response in the debate came to the charge that evolution Christianity influenced Hitler.

Actually, there is a strong case that it did, as shown in the linked article.

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognised these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognise more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice...and if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.
* Adolf Hitler, Speech in Munich (12 April 1922)

The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc, because it recognized the Jews for what they were. … I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions.
* Adolf Hitler, 26 April 1933, cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich)

And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God.
* Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1925), Vol. 1, p. 174

We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls. … We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity … in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.
* Adolf Hitler, Speech in Passau, (October 27, 1928), Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich

The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life.
* Adolf Hitler, Proclamation to the German nation at Berlin (February 1, 1933)

Jewish persecution only followed after Christians first were persecuted.
o American Catholic priest Charles Coughlin's radio address following the Nazi Kristallnacht attack on German Jews, November 20, 1938. In New York, two thousand followers of Coughlin chanted

Send Jews back where they came from in leaky boats!
Wait until Hitler comes over here!

on December 18, 1938 in protest to a potential U.S. asylum law.

I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.
o Adolph Hitler to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941

Today Christians … stand at the head of [this country] … I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit … We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press—in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past … [few] years.
o Adolf Hitler, The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922–1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pp. 871–872.

We are determined, as leaders of the nation, to fulfill as a national government the task which has been given to us, swearing fidelity only to God, our conscience, and our Volk. … This the national government will regard its first and foremost duty to restore the unity of spirit and purpose of our Volk. It will preserve and defend the foundations upon which the power of our nation rests. It will take Christianity, as the basis of our collective morality, and the family as the nucleus of our Volk and state, under its firm protection. … May God Almighty take our work into his grace, give true form to our will, bless our insight, and endow us with the trust of our Volk.
o Adolf Hitler, 1 February 1933, addressing the German nation as Chancellor for the first time, Volkischer Beobachter, 5 August 1935, from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich

The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc, because it recognized the Jews for what they were. … I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions.
o Adolf Hitler, 26 April 1933, cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich)

Posted by: Romas | November 25, 2009 4:55 PM

1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

Nazies were not litterate people, they were simple majority, farmers, workers, officers, etc. Evolution was not driving force in their actions, the seek of power and the seek of domination. In order to reach that they have found variouse ways and arguments to push their policy. Hitler was a leader of political group - they used techniques to make people feel right of what they will do. Simmilar the religions, which push people to vote for war against fellow humans, with a reason to convert them or kill them. Nation of GOD is = Nazi nation.

2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

Natural processes are there to make everything more complex, why should it do othervise?

Posted by: Orson Zedd | November 25, 2009 4:59 PM

Charles Darwin is no more responsible for Hitler's actions than Jesus is responsible for the Jonestown Massacre, the Crusades, or any number of tragedies carried out in the name of your godling.

Natural processes most certainly can account for an increase in complexity. I defy anyone to provide a supernatural process that does or, barring that, undeniable evidence of ANY supernatural process. I'll take a single peer reviewed article in any reputable journal.

Posted by: neoSprockets | November 25, 2009 5:03 PM

2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

How about 500 lines of code or less?
Genetic Algorithms and Coevolving Zombie/Human Simulations

Posted by: daveau | November 25, 2009 5:10 PM

Very tempting, SEF@114, but I've already voted for Revyloution@23. I also think you're giving Olson a better answer than he deserves. Appropriate answers, among others, are Odilar@98's muffin recipe, and JRM@101's invocation of Beavis.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 25, 2009 5:11 PM

PS I still think that you should use your influence to rein in your most vehement supporters in the blog -- it resembles mud wrestling and is probably an embarrassment to serious evolutionists and atheists.

Hey Olson, fuck off. Whining about tone just shows you to be a prissy prude.

Posted by: edrowland | November 25, 2009 5:17 PM

Ok. New attempt at a record for density of argument.

1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

-----
No. Darwinian evolution requires natural selection. The idea of cleansing gene pools comes from animal husbandry, which predates Darwin by at least five thousand years.

---
25 words.

Posted by: Suck Poppet | November 25, 2009 5:18 PM

1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

This IMHO is a non sequitur.

Even if Hitler used evolution in same way to guide Nazi thought (and that is surely a big if) I would say "So what?" - it does not associate in any way to the veracity of evolution.

Unfortunately just because you don’t like something does not mean it is false.

If Idi Amin used gravity to justify his evil ways, would we ditch the theory forthwith?

It doesn't make sense - the whole argument is meaningless.

2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

New elements are being formed in stars all the time, each more complex and chemically diverse than the sum of their progenitors.

Does evolution follow similar patterns - patently yes. I suspect creationists will merely redefine "more complex" to dispute this obvious fact, I fear.

Posted by: Nomen Publicus | November 25, 2009 5:21 PM

1. "An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it." Even if Hitler publicly claimed to base his insane politics directly on Darwins works, it doesn't mean that Evolution by natural selection is a wrong idea. As Hitler did no such thing and banned Darwins work, it's a wonder that such a stupid claim continues to be raised.

2. Yes. Humans are the result of natural processes and we created vastly complex things such as libraries and the internet that do not appear in nature.

As for the mud pit, nobody is forced to read or post here.

Posted by: crowepps | November 25, 2009 5:24 PM

resembles mud wrestling and is probably an embarrassment to serious evolutionists and atheists

Fundamentalists of all stripes have so much trouble understanding the difference between 'serious' and 'humorless'. It is possible to be informed, competent, educated, and still have a sense of the ridiculous, particularly when contemplating humanity. It actually seems to be a requirement for graduating to wise.

Posted by: 386sx | November 25, 2009 5:28 PM

This question can't be answered on the basis that the person asking it will not accept any answer given.

That's actually true, because no matter what anybody says, creationists can always say that the "information" was always there lying dormant waiting to happen. IDers call it "frontloading", and yep it's a last resort for when they are cornered. And... yeps they don't need no stinkin evidence for it neither.

Posted by: Joffan | November 25, 2009 5:30 PM

Going for brevity with content...

Q1: No - evolution requires variation between individuals, which Hitler was eliminating.

Q2: Frost flowers.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | November 25, 2009 5:34 PM

Since my fellow pharyngulians have eviscerated both lines of propaganda in the original piece of garbage efficiently I will limit myself to this:
PS- I still think Michael Behe should pull whatever strings he can to put an end to the "Darwin gave us Hitler" calumny. This can only be embarrassing to any creationists with a whit of intellect, in the rare event there are any left.

Your brother inside Christ,
The Insightful Ape

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 25, 2009 5:35 PM

As to the main point of the post, this is, of course, an entirely pointless exercise. Whether or not evolutionary theory influenced Hitler is immaterial to the question of whether evolutionary theory is objectively true. It's an argument from consequences.

Surely if they were serious about science they would be trying to make a falsifiable hypothesis, proposing mechanisms of actions, making predictions, running experiments, etc. They would be knocking down the doors of Nature or Science with data instead of cries of persecution. But no, because it matters how God createth not. It just matters that they can sayeth God createth, so that they can save society from this immoral existentially-dead situation we find ourselves in thanks to Darwin.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | November 25, 2009 5:40 PM

“Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?”

Dear Professor Myers,

As a devout Young Earth Creationist, nothing would bring greater joy to my sanctified soul than definitive proof that the Nazi’s genocidal rampages were primed and pumped by the excrescence of Darwinism.

Initially, after much prayer and two weeks of fasting, I thought I had been blessed with a sacred epiphany when it was revealed to me that “Evilution” rhymes with “Final Solution”. So I prayed to Jesus about this during my morning devotions. I set down now, with a shaking hand, our verbatim conversation.

[Be aware, oh hell-bound atheists, that this is the word of the Son of God. It is divinely revealed wisdom and will form part of ‘The Book of Smoggy’, currently in preparation for inclusion in the Bible’s ‘Next Testament’.]

--------------------------------------

Smoggy Batzrubble: Dear Jesus [sniff]?

Jesus Christ: What is wrong, my son, you are weeping?

SB: Oh Jesus [sniff], I was just thinking about all those millions of people who never would have died if the Nazis had not heard of Darwin’s foul theory of Evilution.

JC: Say, what?

SB: Darwinian Evilution, Jesus. The theory that gave the Nazis the idea that they should wipe out Jews and ‘lesser races’ to improve the Master Race.

JC: Oh Smoggy…Smoggy…Smoggy…you do say the darndest things! Evolution had nothing to do with the Holocaust beyond the fact that the brains of its perpetrators evolved like all other human brains to fear difference as a means of ensuring group survival. Nazi xenophobia was just a grotesque perversion of those initially positive features of early humans that enabled them to endure in a hostile world.

SB: What ‘initially positive features’ Jesus?

JC: Such useful adaptations as the urge to form communities; the innate suspicion of strangers; the valuing of similarity and the fear of difference; the terror of death producing myriad different myths of an afterlife; and particularly the quest for some supernatural explanation for forces and experiences beyond the realms of present knowledge. For small, beleaguered communities these types of evolved behaviours preserved the group by ensuring cohesion and maintaining discipline.

SB: You’re saying that religion is an evolved behaviour, Jesus?

JC: Absolutely, Smoggy. And of its time it was an excellent behaviour. What other manifestation of our culture can produce conformity, give hope to the suffering, abet the power hungry, and stifle free enquiry and dissent all under one guise? Believing religion is arguably humanity’s most powerful urge, Smoggy, surviving against all evidence and reasonable thought. Aren’t you amazed that even in this modern world where humans can split atoms, fly into space, unravel the genetic code, build particle accelerators, and discover botox, religion can still distort the public life of many of the world’s largest and most progressive nations?

SB: So evolution played no part in the Nazis’ Final Solution?

JC: Genocide is as old as human history, Smoggy. My Divine Father was very big on nations destroying other nations. He had no problem bringing even His chosen people to the brink of extinction. Pogroms against Jews in Europe are older than the blood libel. At its worst, evolution supplied a few new words to shore up irrational prejudice—a thin coat of paint on a massive, ancient edifice of hate. People who cling to ancient hatreds and irrational prejudice need scapegoats, Smoggy. The Jews were the scapegoat for the Nazis. Darwin is the scapegoat for creationists. Neither scapegoat will do anything to alter the wrongness of their position. Only time, education and (from rational people) the superhuman patience of an adult trying to help a backward child, will remove the redundant stains of religion from this modern world.

SB: Wow, Jesus, this is scary. And [small, frightened voice] what will happen to you if religion dies out, Jesus?

JC: I’ll be free Smoggy. And so will you.

SB: [in a still smaller voice] Amen . . . I think.

Posted by: SEF | November 25, 2009 5:40 PM

Stars condense and burn,
producing more elements:
complexity forms.

The moving earth writes
its complex story in rocks,
where it may be read.

The wine tells a tale
of its soil, yeast and sunlight
in complex bouquet.*

* From the prompt "in vino veritas".
(PS/NB I evidently like Q2 better than Q1! - albeit PZ's version of Q2 rather than Ross Olson's)

Posted by: jcaps | November 25, 2009 5:41 PM

Isn't the "Post Script" a little outdated? I mean, Come On, spend a little time organizing your thoughts and if you screw up, just cut and paste into the body of the letter. These aren't 1940's love notes to your sweetie.

Posted by: Robert | November 25, 2009 5:45 PM

1) If Hitler believed in evolution, and believed that white men were superior to Jews, he would not have needed to kill them all, since then he would have believed natural selection would do the job for him.

2) Vague question, since to me it isn't very clear how you'd define complexity and natural processes. But if we assume 'natural processes' is anything excluding the hand of god (in other words, everything...), and complexity the opposite of entropy, then any course in thermodynamics will tell you: globally no, locally yes.

Posted by: Ric | November 25, 2009 5:48 PM

1. The Nazis seized on anything and everything (including creationist dogma) that they thought could be used as propaganda purposes to further the goals they already held. They held these goals primarily because of irrational antisemitism, much of it stemming from a millennium of Christians slandering Jews.

Oh, and genetic fallacies and guilt-by-association make Baby Jesus Cry.

2. Whole trees grow from acorns, and you grew from a tiny embryo-- although apparently your brain didn't grow much past the infantile stage.

Posted by: Yorick | November 25, 2009 5:49 PM

Hopefully no one tries to define the vague term 'complexity' as 'Kolmogorov Complexity', as Information Theory is Just A Theory.

Posted by: raven | November 25, 2009 5:51 PM

The structure of a tornado is more 'complex' than the winds that form it. 2 options: A - God specifically designs tornadoes which decimate innocent people every year, or B - Increasing complexity doesn't need God. Take your pick.

Oh, c'mon. Everyone knows god is always smiting the fundie heartland of the south and central USA with tornados and hurricanes. God hates fundie xians.

Posted by: Dentroman | November 25, 2009 5:52 PM

I don't feel like addressing (1) right now, but (2)'s a different story. Here's my entry. (447 words)

2)Let us (for the simple purposes of this discussion) consider information (and therefore complexity) as a measure of how complicated it is to summarize a sequence of symbols (ATCG in DNA, but I'll just use 1's and 0's). It's very easy to store a series "00000" but far less easy to summarize "01011", so by my definition, "01011" has more information than "00000". This can be measured quantitatively by something called the entropy of the sequence, a generally accepted as standard measure of information in the field of Information Theory (a fascinating subfield of mathematics). For a more in depth discussion of entropy, I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory), but for this purpose, suffice it to say that “00000” and “11111” have very low entropies, and “01011” and “10100” have very high entropies.
It's easy to see that each string could transform into the other by means of sufficient random mutations (they might transform into other strings as well of course, but the principal will be the same). In one case, this would result in an increase in information, in the other, a decrease. Mutations lead to changes in the amount of entropy, and thus information.
Here's where Evolution comes in. Although an oversimplified model, we may consider each creature to be summarized to a large extent by its genome. The information (and thus the complexity) of a creature can either increase of decrease with random mutation. Although there is no hard and fast rule, more complex creatures are often better fit to their environment that the less complex creatures, and thus outperform their peers. A series of beneficial (or even neutral) mutations can thus easily result in an increase in the complexity of creatures.
This theoretical observation is well documented in the fossil record. We see, for example, the typical inner ear of mammals transformed into the very different, and arguably more complex inner ear of whales in specimens from the dog-looking Pakicetus to the almost crocodilian Ambulocetus to the undoubtedly whale-like Rodhocetus, through a variety of wonderfully documented transitional forms, until we arrive at inner ears not so different from those we see in whales today. In Darwin’s own words we see “numerous gradations… each grade being useful to its possessor”.
Increasing complexity is not only an expected part of Evolution, but its greatest cornerstone. How we find multi-cellular creatures where we once would have found only single cells, mammoths or dinosaurs where we once could only find small reptiles, humans where we once found only small shrew-like creatures, is not only something that Evolution explains, but is the entire point of the theory. Explaining increasing complexity is Evolution’s great strength, not its petty weakness.

Cheers!
Dentroman

Posted by: daveau | November 25, 2009 5:54 PM

Dentroman-

Of course that's now 894 words...

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 25, 2009 6:03 PM

I might try this haiku thing

Hydrogen fuses
Through natural processes
To form Helium

Random mutations
That give life an advantage
Get passed to offspring

Posted by: brady | November 25, 2009 6:04 PM

i feel that the only way to combat such a mind numbing question such as one involving Hitler and evolution is to pose a question back invoking such backwards logic. (that is to assume there is any logic in it at all)

So, god intelligently designed Hitler. Why does god hate mankind?

Posted by: BioMcLogy | November 25, 2009 6:07 PM

1) Yes! Unlike your earthly Hitler, our Hitler² was a confirmed überevolutionist, his speeches were about how to artificially help natural selection to eliminate our Martian intruders, who were obviously physically and mentally a lesser class of species then us Plutonians*. His superb efforts made sure we would all understand this and we all helped to free our world from these intruders! Our Hitler² was a beloved man, and still is being regarded to be the greatest Plutonian to have ever lived. (Although we prefer to talk about your Hitler as √hitler, as he lost the war. )

2) Another yes! On our planet we have observed many instances of species colliding with each other only to create a new species! As we have asexual reproduction some species have even managed to reproduce and multiply to an extend they are regarded as a pest! These new collidical (this word may be unknown to earthlings) species indeed have the information of both species in them, it's EXACTLY the sum of the two species. If we had genes this might have been impossible, but we don't. Our genes are actually made of plain text, and Dog decides what the result will be, our text doesn't deteriorate, we only produce perfect copies and Dog decides once what a new species will look like, and how it'll be. Obviously this newly created species will have have more complexity, as more information means more complexity! (Over here)
Viva la Pluto!

(*Of course Pluto isn't called Pluto over here and of course we don't speak English, but our cute Babel Fish can even write and send text messages on your internet! )

Ps. Please promote Pluto to being called a planet again!

Posted by: Dentroman | November 25, 2009 6:10 PM

@153
Wait, how so? "The rules: answer each question separately in less than 500 words." I took this to mean each question got 500 words each, for a 1000 word total...Could someone *coughPZ*clarify this? I can frantically cut it down to 250 if I have to, but I'd really rather not.

Thanks
Dentroman

Posted by: SEF | November 25, 2009 6:12 PM

Nazis don't believe
in Darwin but in breeding -
as per the Bible.

Posted by: Lee J Rickard | November 25, 2009 6:19 PM

There's some pretty scary perspective in Stephen Norwood's book The Third Reich and the Ivory Tower. No evidence of Nazism influencing evolution, but plenty of it influencing German departments and administrations at top universities.

Posted by: Suck Poppet | November 25, 2009 6:21 PM

Only time, education and (from rational people) the superhuman patience of an adult trying to help a backward child, will remove the redundant stains of religion from this modern world.

Wow Smoggy ... you ... you ... your words move me so

Posted by: Brett | November 25, 2009 6:23 PM

1) Taking the Nazi perspective on race as having two aspects, namely (a) that the Aryan race is superior to all others, and (b) that the inferior races should be eliminated, it can easily be shown that evolutionary theory is irrelevant in the formation of such a belief system.

The notion that one race, species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, or kingdom is better than another is utterly meaningless within the context of evolution specifically and science in general as it is a moral assertion. Science concerns itself with knowledge of the state of the world. Scientific knowledge cannot be used make assertions of morality. The attempt to jump from the way we know the world is to how we believe the world ought to be is a logical fallacy known as the naturalistic fallacy. Thus, the scientific theory (fact) of evolution cannot support the assertion that anything is "better" or superior to anything else.

There is a notion of "fitness" within the theory of evolution, where one species may be better suited to an environment than another and therefore exhibit a greater level of reproduction success. Had the Nazis conducted extensive surveys of birth rates and death rates of the varying races in their territory and concluded that the Aryan race was increasing its demographic share before declaring them to be superior, a case could be made that they were influenced by evolutionary theory. However, this is clearly not the meaning with which the Nazis declared the Aryan race to be superior, moreover, even if this was the usage, evolutionary theory certainly does advocate any action, let alone the genocide of less fit races.

The concept of genocide long predates both the Nazis and Charles Darwin. If you eliminate a group they no longer exist, no scientific theory is necessary to back up this assertion.

Posted by: fribble | November 25, 2009 6:24 PM

#1

Probably, but this does not say anything about whether or not evolution is correct.

Remember that Hitler was also inspired by Catholicism. "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” (Mein Kampf, page 562) Neither Evolution nor Catholicism is automatically evil because of Hitler's support, any more than beating someone to death with a baseball bat would mean that baseball is inherently evil.

Moreover, even if the concept of evolution were inherently evil (which it is not - it is completely amoral as it explains how something works, and it does not say anything about how anyone *should* behave) it doesn't matter - because it is correct.

#2

Yes. All that needs to happen is that a gene is duplicated, then one of the copies is free to mutate. The first mutation after the duplication is an immediate increase in information. (Information has a specific, mathematical meaning, as defined by Shannon, which I avoid going into here. Intuitively, it feels that if I send you two messages which say "TTACG TTACG" and "TTACG TTATT", then the second one holds more information, as the first one's repetition hasn't told us anything new.)

(Incidentally, duplication of a gene also increases the information, but this is slightly less obvious.)

While there is no guarantee that the new information will be any use, the whole point of evolution is that after thousands or millions of useless or harmful mutations occur, there will eventually be a benefitial mutation. Any individual with this benefitial mutation is more likely to survive and pass it on to the next generation.

There are a whole bunch of specific examples of this at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html in the references section. Please read them. Please, please, please read them.

Posted by: Michael | November 25, 2009 6:27 PM

I'd be up for the challenge, but I thought the little essay you wrote a while back explaining why the Hitler reference is ridiculous (Evolution need never have been discovered, and it wouldn't change the 'Final Solution' since people have known for thousands of years that dead people don't reproduce...). So I'd offer that link to him, since I don't think I can improve on it.

As for the second question, I'd throw the old 2nd law of thermodynamics back at him. Disorder/loss of information tends to increase unless energy is added to the system. Thanks to the sun plenty of energy is added to the earth to allow seeds to grow into plants/trees, etc.

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 25, 2009 6:31 PM

Is it more complex
To be born with a tail?
This needs to be known

Gene duplication
Increases the size of the
Genetic code's length

The genes for smelling
Are dupes of a single gene
Helping survival

To digest nylon
The bacteria evolved
Gaining a free lunch

Posted by: infozombie | November 25, 2009 6:35 PM

Oops, I meant "Amalekites" of course, not "Malachites".

Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | November 25, 2009 6:37 PM

The notion that there are "superior" breeds of human pre-date Darwin for centuries; perhaps millenia.

If any "science" is to blame for the Nazi attitude about race, I'd actually be pointing my finger at animal agriculture.

Posted by: Christie | November 25, 2009 6:40 PM

500 total or 500 each?

Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | November 25, 2009 6:42 PM

[blockquote]So suppose Hitler was influenced by evolutionary theory. Then what follows? NOTHING. The irrelevant nutbags are tossing about obviously irrelevant arguments.[/blockquote]

Exactly, it would be like saying that ballistics and Newtonian physics were false because Werner Von Braun used them when building the V2.

I guess magic propelled those missiles when they were launched on London.

Posted by: hf | November 25, 2009 6:48 PM

1. Can you show us any comment on the subject by Hitler that could not have come from a 'Christian' Republican here in the US? No? Alright then. See also comment #13.

2. You mean in DNA? I don't know, let's see what Wikipedia has to say. Oh look, a respected journal with a historical review of the subject linked from the Wikipedia "gene duplication" article. I don't know if more and different genes count as "increasing complexity", but if they don't it would seem we don't need complexity.

Posted by: Peter McKellar | November 25, 2009 6:52 PM

I liked Smoggy's entry, but think my vote goes to SEF @114.

2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

Would a nuclear reactor qualify?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

Posted by: Gus C | November 25, 2009 7:00 PM

1.
Yep, Hitler used evolution to guide his thoughts just like how Christians in the dark ages used it to weed out the "impure" ones.

2.
Nope, Im still in zygote form and using facilitated communication to type out my answers, because, ahem, I am still waiting for god to zap me some complexity.

:D

PZ, can you afford to send to Samoa?

Posted by: No BS | November 25, 2009 7:01 PM

1)From the Bookbanning guide of Nazis:

Guidelines from Die Bücherei(The Library) 2:6 (1935), p. 279

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (H�ckel).

2)And Nazi persecution of Atheists (from wikipedia):

The German Freethinkers League ('Deutscher Freidenkerbund') was an organisation founded in 1881 by the materialist philosopher, and physician Ludwig Büchner,[1] to oppose the power of the state churches in Germany.[2] Its aim was to provide a public meeting-ground and forum for materialist and atheist thinkers in Germany.

By 1885, the group had 5,000 members.[1] The first of such organisations to be founded in that country, the German Freethinkers League had by 1930 a membership numbering around 500,000.[citation needed] The League was closed down, however, in the Spring of 1933 when Hitler outlawed all atheistic and freethinking groups in Germany. 'Freethinkers Hall', the national headquarters of the League, was then converted to a bureau advising the public on church matters.

Among its Chairmen was Max Sievers, who was beheaded at the guillotine by the Nazis in 1944.

Posted by: JG | November 25, 2009 7:06 PM

First time poster, taking my stab at fame and glory:

Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

In short no, racism and eugenics were, not evolution by natural selection.

But I think the better approach is to inquire: If it could be demonstrated (which it has not been) that evolution were a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought, does it make it any less true?  

This tactic can be recreated in the following manner:

Einstein's ideas lead to mass murder and the cold war!

Einstein was influential in development of the atomic bomb and his mass-energy equivelance theorem is undeniably tied to the development of nuclear weapons and the arms race that held our world hostage for 46 years and threatened a cataclysmic end to life on our planet.

This of course has absolutely nothing to do with whether atomic theory is true or not. Does it undermine the fact that energy and matter are the same but in different forms? 

Similarly the fact the terrorists hijacked airplanes to use as weapons on 9/11 has zero bearing on jet propulsion theory. 

The same case can be made again and again with discoveries about the natural world being used and manipulated by our species to harm other members of our species and to commit atrocities.

In matters of science I submit that this is the lowest of tactics used when the opposition has absolutely no credible evidence to falsify a current scientific theory. Moreover they lack a competing alternative theory to replace the current theory even if it were falsified.

When all else fails, scare the uneducated to detract from the truth.

This is the drum beat to the march of the defeated.   

Posted by: Paul Murray | November 25, 2009 7:10 PM

2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

Wind on the ocean creates waves, which hit the shoreline causing surf. Surf, with all its types of waves (just ask any surfer or marine engineer) is far more complex than wind, water, and a static coastline.

Posted by: Ironic Name | November 25, 2009 7:21 PM

1)I personally am of the belief that the evil godless theory of gravity had more of an influence. Hitler' supporters were all Newtonists!

2)As far as irreducibly complex, things that work stay, things that don't don't. Wait a billion years, and you get "irreducibly complex". It's logic that my eleven year old brother understands.

Posted by: alextangent | November 25, 2009 7:31 PM

I really like the shorties, reproduced here;

1) No
2) Yes

My vote.

Posted by: greg | November 25, 2009 7:34 PM

1) Yes. Nazi scientists wanted to create an Arian master race. Since evolution shows divergence occurs uniquely to specific environments, clearly the nazis were trying to BLOCK the natural flow of evolution by trying to create everyone in a single image.
2) Yes. Let's try to answer this in Creationspeak. In the bible, when there was all of the "begatting" going on, perhaps god was directing a divergence of genotypes and phenotypes. But, now we have worked out in the lab how DNA replicates without god's involvement, so i think even a creationist would agree the we do our own "begatting" now. If two phenotypically distinct individuals (e.g. black and white-prohibitted in the bible) will produce a third that is unique. Therefore, naturally increasing complexity by 1/3. So, Barack Obama is the anti-christ.

Posted by: JT | November 25, 2009 7:44 PM

The history of eugenetics is a fascinating and complicated topic -- one worth far more than a mud fight in the blogosphere. I won't even begin to answer. More importantly, I can't believe you compared a creationist to a cat!!! What an insult (to cats, of course).

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 25, 2009 7:46 PM

Neither essay is really worth writing.
1. I don't know if evolutionary thought influenced National Socialism, and I think it hardly matters. The Beatles influenced Charles Manson, right? Does that mean that the Beatles didn't suck? Hell no.

2. This is an empirical question, and the answer shouldn't take the form of an essay, but an annotated bibliography. Genes and gene systems are duplicated all the time (the way alleles are), and copies obtain different functions over time. Hemoglobin and Myoglobin genes have a common ancestor. The photosystems were results of a genomic duplication, followed by independent evolution and eventual reunion in the cyanobacteria. There are one bazillion such examples, each of which lead to increases in organismal and ecological complexity. Oh, howzabout hox genes, and segment duplication in metameric organisms? What about modern organisms that resulted from ancient polyploid events? I mean, shit.

Sorry to be a buzzkill, but an essay is not any more likely to be persuasive to a guy like Olson than it would be to a lemur. Fucking lemurs.

Posted by: Eva | November 25, 2009 7:53 PM

My vote is for 114, the haikus. They're harder to quote-mine, too.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 25, 2009 8:12 PM

Just to correct one misapprehension, repeated here numerous times: Hitler wasn't a vegetarian. He didn't eat much meat, for supposed health reasons, but according to various biographers, loved German sausage, stuffed squab, and caviar.

He was a non-smoker, though. Attempts to restrict smoking will therefore obviously lead to a new holocaust.

Posted by: Vireo | November 25, 2009 8:21 PM

Antiochus Epiphanes |
Neither essay is really worth writing.
1. I don't know if evolutionary thought influenced National Socialism, and I think it hardly matters. The Beatles influenced Charles Manson, right? Does that mean that the Beatles didn't suck? Hell no.

The Beatles suck!? You sir (or madam) are despicable! i challenge you to a duel with diamond stylus(es) on 10 inch tone arms, at 3 paces!

Posted by: MadScientist | November 25, 2009 8:29 PM

Since there's no rule against multiple entries ...

I just had a session of mental regression therapy to reduce my mental capacity to one equivalent to a proto-simian species; that way I can argue like a creationist.

1. In the bible, Jesus told his minions that some bread and wine are his body and blood and furthermore, any cult members need to eat him. Jesus is obviously responsible for cannibalism over the past 2000 years. Jesus also told his minions to sell all their property and own nothing - so he's responsible for Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and other vicious commies. It's not Marxism, it's Jesusism. Jesus also went on a rampage, scattering the meager possessions of the money changers at the temple. So the Kristallnacht was another Jesus inspiration. It was Jesus who inspired the Nazis, not Darwin.

2. Natural processes lead to curiosity, which in turn leads to intellectual development and a reasonable and useful understanding of the complex world around us. In comparison, human inventions like christianity tend to prevent development of any complexity and promote simple-mindedness. Jesus kills your brain cells - even more so if you drink too much of his blood. I must admit though that all that booze vampirism is really kinky and fun.

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 25, 2009 8:36 PM

He was a non-smoker, though.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 25, 2009 8:40 PM

Ross Olson is back slagging PZ. Since he started it, time slag him back, golden rule and all. And don't forget to mention that. For those of you who missed it, check out this thread.

Posted by: Peter McKellar | November 25, 2009 8:41 PM

I know this is probably nit-picking, but:

I have a mud-wrestling pit!

WTF is this bigotry against jello? By far my preference and makes any spillage easier to clean up.

Posted by: bevo/devo | November 25, 2009 8:48 PM

WTF is this bigotry against jello? By far my preference and makes any spillage easier to clean up.

The KY Jelly pits are far more crowd-pleasing, but admittedly much harder (and more unpleasant) to clean up.

Posted by: sean14916 | November 25, 2009 9:14 PM

1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

Eugenics, to be applied, needs a specifying of what the 'best' qualities are. Evolution by natural selection is as juxtaposed as you could get as it clearly restricts itself from saying there is a clear best quality. The quality in question is situation dependent.

The idea of genetic supremacy is again ridiculous as evolution is a mechanism of propagating, and magnifying, variation. The point is there is no best race, no perfect being. Views of genetic supremacy tend to restrict the size of the possible combination's of variations within the gene pool. There are negative effects associated with this.

Eugenics is at heart the application of artificial selection to man, in an attempt to amplify certain characteristics, this has little to do with evolution in its common terms though. Every concept of evolution by means of natural selection is opposed to what Hitler attempted. The best possible argument to be raised would be against artificial selection and eugenics. However these are processes. It's as ridiculous as blaming guns for killing people.

As eugenics was a key component in Hitlers regime the idea of Nazi Germany's policies being linked with a theory which directly refutes the claims of purity and racial supremacy seems unlikely at best.

However even if this were the case it would be a red herring at best due to the fact that this line of thought commits a naturalistic fallacy. One might as well say 'people die' therefor 'people should die'.

If all else fails read Mein Kampf.

2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

First off what method of judging complexity are we using?

Secondly seeing as humans themselves are the product of wholly natural forces any 'complex' object a human makes is automatically an example of complexity being produced by natural mechanism.

Thirdly planetary orbits are pretty complicated compared to planets moving in a straight line. Is this an example of gravity creating a complex system? Well it depends on your definition of complex doesn't it.

meh that's the best answer your going to get from me at 2 in the morning. damn lack of sleep.

Posted by: ckitching | November 25, 2009 9:29 PM

Magic Eight Ball Answers:

1) No way!
2) Maybe

I stand by the science of the magic eight ball.
Is the Magic Eight Ball always right?
"Absolutely!"

Can't argue with that!

Posted by: 386sx | November 25, 2009 9:41 PM

You guys do know that, as expected, Mr. Olson is completely disregarding all of your answers, right?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/i_get_email_48.php#comment-2102588

I'm thinkin maybe Mr. Olson just likes the spotlight. :P Nah, couldn't be...

Posted by: Jake | November 25, 2009 10:03 PM

Answer to Question 1:

I hate creationists.

Answer to Question 2:

I hate creationists.

Thank you. Thank you, you're too kind.

Posted by: The Naked Brain | November 25, 2009 10:36 PM

1) The Nazis may have used ideas from the theory of evolution, but they were mistakenly taking a physical/biological law and applying it socially.

Evolution explains how we came to be, not who we should be.

It's like observing the law of gravity and deciding that it means we should throw people off cliffs.

2) If you accept evolution, you accept that life started as the simplest strings of DNA and evolved up to humans, crocodiles, ostriches and wee little fishies.

Do complex animals have more DNA information than tiny microbes? Then evolution has created more information.

Posted by: JimboK | November 25, 2009 11:07 PM

"Gott mit uns"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns

(Note that the poster is a SATIRE by the Polish undeground...)

Posted by: Insightful Ape | November 25, 2009 11:16 PM

Dear Mr Olson-
There was never a shortage of moral vices by which I know you.
You really didn't need to go to the length to add cowardice to the list.
Nonetheless, your efforts are appreciated.

Your brother inside christ,
The Insightful Ape

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | November 25, 2009 11:24 PM

1) No. The basis of the arguments used by the Nazis was a belief that Jews controlled the banking system - which had collapsed causing the Great Depression. This was the largest influence on how Jews were percieved as a threat.

This coupled with the Abrahamic belief in blood guilt (Where sin is carried unto the third generation - which is about as far back as the Nazis went to establish whether someone was Jewish) and centuries of anti-Jewish propaganda by churches played a far greater role in getting people to vote for Hitler.

Scapegoating minorities works best if there is a long history of suspicion against them.

Further the eugenicist movement's belief that Jews were inferior was based on older prejudices caused by a long history of anti-Semitic propagandising, rather than any actual science, evolution included. Eugenics, ultimately existed and still exists with the basic flaw that studies done by eugenicists ultimately and unfailingly confirm their own biases, bringing into question how valid those studies were.

The English found the Irish to be inferior, the colonials found the blacks and native Americans to be inferior, the studies ultimately didn't change prevailing attitudes because they were not based on science or evolution but on those prevailing attitudes.

The sad history of eugenics is part of how we now know to view such studies with suspicion, if it agrees with your basic ideas when coming into it then you should be that much more careful to make sure you got your study right and allowed for all the factors going into the study. It is not enough to find a corrolation to confirm cause and effect.

Posted by: Arnold T Pants | November 25, 2009 11:40 PM

1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

No more than Newton's Laws guide a person to throw somebody out of a window.

2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

Yes. Look at volcanic islands. They start out as a hot volcanic mess, then turn into Hawaii. No creator necessary. Of course, the creationist then oils the wheels on the goalpost and changes the definition of complexity.

Posted by: Samantha | November 25, 2009 11:43 PM

1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

The simplest answer to this is no, not any more than it has been a significant and essential factor in guiding any thought since its discovery and explanation. It was, however, a significant factor in guiding Nazi rhetoric. By aping evolutionary diction, they obviously hoped to give the veneer of natural process to their actions. However, anyone with a basic understanding of evolution and its processes would know that evolution works based primarily on physical characteristics that influence sexual attractiveness or survivalist tactics, and anyone with a basic knowledge of human anatomy and neurophysiology could tell you that there is no discernible physical difference between many followers of Judaism and Christianity. Therefore, it's pretty obvious that the most significant factor affecting the Nazis was their belief in the party line, which would have put them more in line with most religious folk than with the evolutionists of the time.

2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

There's many simple answers to evidence this, from the simplest of carbon bonds to the evolution of bacteria to be immune to antibiotics. Diamonds are more complex than their carbon predecessors simply through heat and pressure, two of the most naturally occurring processes. Naturally occurring increases in complexity are seen in abundance in chemicals. Of course, all these natural occurrences could be said to be created, caused or directed by an omniscient power, but this is totally unprovable. Thus, natural chemical complexity must be considered and as we can see atoms forming molecules and even create these ourselves through controlled natural processes, it is not hard to answer that yes, it can occur. Of course, proving it through life forms is impossible if their is the a priori assumption that all life was created by an unnatural omniscient force, but if that assumption is cast aside, it is not hard to assume that if natural forces can create molecules out of atoms and diamonds out of carbon, it can create life out of molecules, even if we can't replicate it yet.

Posted by: Kevin F. | November 25, 2009 11:45 PM

Question 1.

Hitler said it best in Mein Kampf: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of evolution: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of Darwin.

(Except where it says "evolution" put in "Almighty Creator" and where it says "Darwin" put "the Lord".

Question 2.

Biology has tens of thousands of examples of evolution increasing complexity- genetic, biochemical and morphological. My favorite is polyploidy in plants. Heterosis increases vigor as a direct result of an increase in genetic complexity, achieved by genetic change and selection. Ross doesn't dig too deep for information.

Posted by: latsot | November 26, 2009 12:08 AM

How do creationists always manage to ask exactly the wrong questions?

I suppose it's because they always ask the same questions, over and over again, regardless of how often and satisfactorally they are answered.

Posted by: Craig | November 26, 2009 12:27 AM

1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

I think the real question is does it matter when it comes to determining whether or not evolution is true (as a physical phenomenon in nature)? While yes, despite Hitler's profound misunderstanding of it it is true according to evolution (particularly natural selection) that the elimination of genes allows for the greater selectivity of other genes which are no longer in competition with those that had been eliminated. But then you could also say that fire can be used to burn books and eliminate competing sources of knowledge. Unfortunately, being morally atrocious in this instance does not disprove the existence of fire - just as Hitler's morally atrocious application does not disprove evolution which is what scientists are actually concerned about.

2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

Let's see... Nuclear Fusion is a natural process, and naturally results in far more complex atoms with more protons. Therefore increased complexity?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 26, 2009 12:29 AM

If Olson isn't too stupid to understand the clear differences in origin between natural selection and animal husbandry then he's intentionally dishonest and really isn't looking for an answer.

*crickets chirring*

Posted by: John Sandlin | November 26, 2009 12:33 AM

Did Evolution play a role in Nazi thought? Hitler was born and raised Christian, which was sufficient to inculcate all the appropriate anti-Semitic notions present in Nazi philosophy. His writings refer often to Biblical reasoning for his beliefs regarding the races, never to scientific reasons. Does “God with us” ring any bells? Evolution had no role in Nazi thought.

Can natural system create complexity? Yes, of course. Complexity is what happens when you don’t plan ahead. Nature never plans ahead. Don’t believe nature can create complexity? Look at the weather patterns, layers in rocks, or crystalline structures. Nature is adept at complexity.

Posted by: John Galpin | November 26, 2009 1:09 AM

Marcus Ranum 6

Impossible though it seems if you stir creationists they get simpler and simpler.

The question re Hitler is so fundamentally misguided, as if evolution as a process is somehow shaped or invalidated by what Hitler thought about it.

Hitler liked Beethoven too and the question is actually like asking if Beethovens compositions were somehow influenced or devalued by what Hitler though about them over 100 years after they were written.

It was Hitler who was debased, not evolution or Beethoven, and it is they that endure. Not aberrations like Hitler or Creationists.

Posted by: ncovington89 | November 26, 2009 1:15 AM

1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

No, because nothing in Evolutionary Theory states that Jews or other ethnic group are inferior (in any way) to any other ethnic group. Furthermore, moral values cannot be derived from scientific theories (the infamous 'naturalistic' fallacy), and so even if some ethnic group were shown to be inferior to others, that would not dictate that human beings should exterminate that group.

2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

Let's define complexity: Roughly, complexity is the measure of functional parts a system contains. So an increase in the number of functional parts in some system (say, a cell) qualifies as an increase in complexity. The evolution of new biochemical pathways and 'tools' has been observed numerous times:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10838562?dopt=AbstractPlus

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-02/uom-eci021904.php

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/Parts-is-Parts.html

Posted by: Amy Jackson | November 26, 2009 2:01 AM

Because people have so many excellent scientific answers here, I thought I'd pull a bit from my western religion class. I'm going to argue that Christianity was a significant and essential to factor to guiding Nazi thought. (Since these people don't listen to scientific reasoning anyway, maybe we should give them some Christian reasoning):

Martin Luther: A German scholar whose Protestant Reformation separated the Christian church from the Catholic. He is greatly praised throughout the Christian world for his works, specifically for bringing the Catholic church to accountability (95 theses).

However, his later work "On the Lie's of Jews", could be held responsible for the violent anti-Semitism generated within Germany. Most Christians who vouch for Luther either are unaware of this writing, or simply deny its existence. In Mein Kampf, Hitler greatly praised Luther as one of the great reformers. Lets have a look at a passage from "On the Lie's of Jews", suggesting how Jew's should be dealt with:

"I shall give you my sincere advice First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians."

A few Nazi quotes for consideration, praising Luther's work, and using it to justify their actions: (cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich)

"Through his acts and his spiritual attitude he began the fight which we still wage today; with Luther the revolution of German blood and feeling against alien elements of the Volk was begun."
-Hans Hinkel, a Nazi who worked in Goebbels' Reich Chamber of Culture, 1933

"Since Martin Luther closed his eyes, no such son of our people has appeared again. It has been decided that we shall be the first to witness his reappearance.... I think the time is past when one may not say the names of Hitler and Luther in the same breath. They belong together; they are of the same old stamp"
-Bernhard Rust, German Minister of Education, 1933

"Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants' dock today, if this book had been taken into consideration by the Prosecution. In the book 'The Jews and Their Lies,' Dr. Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent's brood and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them..."
-Julius Streicher, one of Hitlers top men, during the Nuremberg trials

It is also to be noted that during Nazi Germany. The government had strict control over daily life. Luther's brand of anti-sementic Christianity was taught in schools (actually, not even removed from the curriculum until 1961). Hitler justifies this in the following speech:

“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

Another interesting quote from Hitler follows. Showing that he was not interested in pursuing a specific race (believing in Aryan superiority), but only a specific religion. This would knock out any evolutionary debate, as he wasn't looking to remove specific genetics from the population, only people with a specific belief system.

“The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.” –Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

So therefore, it was the works of the great Martin Luther of Christianity, that were a significant and essential to factor to guiding Nazi thought

Posted by: Jason | November 26, 2009 3:02 AM

Did evolution influence Hitler?

Evolution influenced Hitler no more than the Wright Brothers influenced 9/11.

Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn | November 26, 2009 3:24 AM

First, Rosser called us "an embarrassment to serious evolutionists and atheists" based on our "mud wrestling".

Now, he's calling us "groupies".

Name-calling: it lends all kinds of credibility to your shakey-at-best stance.

I suppose, because he didn't swear, god doesn't mind him insulting people. Or maybe because it's true - we're all just groupies - it doesn't count as an insult. He's doing god's work!

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 26, 2009 4:04 AM

Hitler took his idea from animal breeders. We should therefore stop the horror that is crufts as that could clearly lead to a new hitler army.

which will be very well groomed.

Posted by: Francesco Orsenigo | November 26, 2009 4:21 AM

Ok, let's feed the creationist troll...
I'll try to write in a way that's difficult to quote-mine, and I will use the great quotes already found in the thread (of course, I make no claim to any prize, since I'm using the other's work).

-------------------------------------------------
1) While the point is irrelevant in regard to the validity of the Theory of Evolution, the consideration is nonetheless of historical interest: Nazism coaxed and perverted Christianity and a variety of other ideas and beliefs, including Darwinian Evolution to justify its horrible actions.
Proof can be found all through Hitler's Mein Kampf:

"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x" (subbie #13)

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them. - Adolf Hitler, speech, April 12 1922, published in My New Order" (subbie #13)

2) The question does not provide a specific definition of 'complexity' and cannot be exhaustively answered until one is provided.

--------------------------------------------------
Any other answer to 2) will be misinterpreted and exploited.

Also, pleasepleasepleas, PZ, include M31 #58 first point, it would be awesome to have it posted on AIG website!

You can even tell them >>in order to understand what viable refutation strategies would you accept, we will answer after you will have answered to the question: "Was Christianity a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?"

Posted by: uksceptic | November 26, 2009 5:08 AM

1)

Hitler said "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator"

Hitler did not say "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Darwin and all that his theory teaches us"

Even if Hitler was influenced by evolution this does not make it incorrect. There are lots of things that Hitler believed in that are correct, just because he is an evil man doesn't mean everything he believed is incorrect. He could read and write, should the Germans rewrite their language as it may have influenced him? He could add and subtract, does this make the fundamental laws of mathematics wrong? He believed in the theory of gravity - does this make is untrue also?

Who believes in a theory is irrelevant to the merits of that theory. The strength of a theory is based on the strength of the evidence for it and its ability to stand up to scrutiny.

2)

Get a seed, plant it, water it, watch it grow more complex.

Posted by: Guy G | November 26, 2009 5:58 AM

1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

Does the fact that the US used the atomic bomb on Hiroshima mean that Japanese people should reject the theory of nuclear physics?

Posted by: Ryan | November 26, 2009 6:15 AM

I was going to wax poetical in my attempt to answer the questions, but then I realized I could answer both questions with a very simple answer.

"Shit Happens."

Posted by: Rorschach | November 26, 2009 6:22 AM

My answer to the challenge :

Why, of course a Youtube video !!

Torture instruments of the catholic inquisition

Posted by: Steve in Dublin | November 26, 2009 6:26 AM

(I purposely didn't read any other comments before I posted, because I didn't want anything I'd read to colour my response. So apologies if this happens to be a dupe, but if it is, I didn't plagiarise from anyone).

1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

Most certainly not. Evolution works through *natural selection* in the wild. What Hitler was trying to accomplish with his 'master race' idea is the complete opposite: unnatural selection. He was taking his cue from dog breeders, not Darwin.

2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

This is in fact the very mechanism by which speciation operates, and accounts for the large variety of species we see on Earth today. Just as a mutation in the DNA of a species can produce a loss in genetic information (which may or may not be beneficial to future generations of the species), so it can produce a gain in genetic information. Whether or not this gain is beneficial to the survival of the species in question will determine whether this new information is propagated to future generations. If it's not beneficial, this variant of the species will die out.

Over large periods of time, these gains (and losses) of genetic information will eventually result in new species appearing, which is borne out by the fossil record (the evolution of horses and whales, for example, are well supported by transitional fossils that show a clear progression from earlier forms to the forms we see today).

Posted by: felixsapiens | November 26, 2009 6:49 AM

1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

No. The simple facts can't point in that direction. Hitler wrote much on the immutability of "kinds." "The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. i, ch. xi The German population that overtly or covertly created and supported the Nazi party were mainly Lutheran's and Catholics. Hitler would have had no truck with the Darwinian idea that the "Aryan Race" was so closely related to the Jewish race. Which is why Darwin's books were burnt by the Nazi's. In what way that can be construed as the theory of evolution being responsible for Hitler and the Holocaust, I don't know.

Hitler's notions were all about selective breeding, which farmers have known about for millenia before Darwin wrote a book about speciation. They are two very different concepts - the first is something that no creationist would deny happens. The second is something that both creationists and Hitler deny happens. Why is Hitler

And 2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

Every time simple water molecules form into snowflakes, the incredibly complex (and beautiful) crystalline structures are formed by entirely natural processes.

Every time genes are copied, there is the potential for discrepancies in the copying, meaning the descendant is different to the parent. This is usually referred to as an "error" in the copying, but it needn't have such a negative connotation. It could be a mis-copying of a part of "code" or a replacement of one part of "code" with another, or a doubling of parts of code. The changes of code will do all sorts of things - some will appear to do very little, some will alter small things in development meaning that the organism develops slightly different to their parent - taller, shorter, stronger bone, weaker skin, who knows? Others might radically alter something else - become resistant to a disease or produce different hormones or different skin pigments. Some might screw the whole development process up, leaving the organism deformed, chronically ill, susceptible to disease or dead.

All these "discrepancies" in code are changes in information. Over time the information can "increase" or indeed "decrease" as bit of code are lost, duplicated, edited, rewritten - evolution will happen when this "information" is both gained and lost. It's no secret that some simple looking bacteria have genomes far longer (more "complex?") than humans.

When I take a simple, smooth slab of rock and leave it at the mercy of wind and tides for millions of years, I am left with an amazingly complex (and beautiful) pattern of carvings in the rock, holes, rock pools, spindly bits of rock, stalagmite-like structure. Is that rock now more "complex" than it was before? Is it now home to organisms that depend on it's complex structure for shelter? And yet has information been "removed" from it by the erosion?

Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | November 26, 2009 7:05 AM

1) As Subbie said in post 13, a reading of Mein Kampf shows Hitler was heavily influenced by religion, not evolution.

Which means Hitler is more trustworthy than Ross Olson.

_____________<;,><_____________

2) Blue water (Molybdenum blue).

Posted by: CunningLingus | November 26, 2009 7:12 AM

It seems apparent that the Olsen retard has some kind of fixation on PZ. Regardless of how anyone answers his pathetic "questions", I can't help but notice that Olsen is merely trying to garner some legitimacy, from trying to get into some kind of debate with PZ (and PZ alone). Olsen neither deserves, nor merits any kind of dialogue, especially if the only part of his argument is "Hitler was a Darwinist". The only thing Olsen seems to be good for is ridicule, fortunately.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 26, 2009 7:30 AM

The "Hitler was influenced by evilution" is an attempt by creationists to claim "evilution is ebil and God hates ebil and so GODDIDIT!"

It's like Ken Ham's refutation of PZ's evolutionary arguments: "You're an atheist." Creationists like Ham and Olson know they don't have any real arguments against evolution so they fall back on non sequiturs and appeals to emotion.

Posted by: MorboKat | November 26, 2009 7:54 AM

1)Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

(Wordcount: 483. JUST made it!)

Humans have known about breeding for centuries. Taking a cow that produces lots of milk and making sure she has babies helps ensure that the next generation of cows will also give more milk. We have taking breeding to horrible extremes, where the animals could no longer survive without human assistance. This has been going on for at least centuries and, in some cases, one could safely say millennia.

Darwin postulated Survival of the Fittest, where an animal with a desirable trait (bigger teeth, longer legs, a specialized eye or beak, etc.) will breed and that trait will be passed on, subsequently the species will flourish having gained a skill that helps them survive. They are fit, so they survive.

The difference is obvious. Humans breed for what they want and the ability of the animal to survive or the desirability of the trait in the species be damned. That is the difference between Darwin’s Evolution and the ultimate goals of the Nazi regime. Hitler felt that the “Aryan Race” was superior and should ultimately rule the world. So he set out to both encourage the race he wanted and to discourage/kill what he didn’t want. He set out to breed Humanity, exactly as we have done to dogs, cats, cows and plants. He wanted to limit the gene pool and control it, not allow it to grow in a direction congruent with the needs of the species vs the environment.

One need only look at the extremes of animal breeding to understand Hitler’s folly. There is nothing about fitness or survival; there is nothing natural about human-encouraged breeding. Our best examples are in purebred dogs and cats. The Daschund, the Pug, the Sphynx and the Munchkin were all based on genetic mutations in animals that Humans found pleasing, then bred to extremes. None of these animals are capable of survival on their own. The Daschund’s elongated spine leads to a great number of problems with the breed. The Pug is prone to breathing problems and eye infections; without central air and daily face-cleaning, a Pug will die. The Sphynx cat is completely hairless; it couldn’t survive in cold weather climates and, lacking protection, would burn to a crisp in hotter ones. Finally the Munchkin, bred for its adorable short legs, does not have the reach (both leaping and hunting) of an average cat; hunting would be extremely difficult and the cat would have to put its face much closer to its prey, resulting in damaging bites from rats and mice that would grow infected over time and kill swiftly.

This is artificial selection; a dangerous idea when you look at its extremes. This is what Hitler wanted; not Evolution, where Nature dictates the needs and growth of the species for the best, but Godhood. In short, Hitler was more influenced by the breeding of the German Shepherd than the work of Darwin.

Posted by: puseaus | November 26, 2009 7:55 AM

Using Wikipedia to do some research for the project really pays off. I never heard about the Nazi Flying Saucers from Antarctica.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-volkisch_movements#Tempelhofgesellschaft

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 26, 2009 7:57 AM

David Marjanović, OM@279,
Thanks for the correction. I speak practically no German (on a visit to a Max Planck Institute for an unsuccesful job interview, I asked for "klein, bitte" when getting lunch, and was told that was more German than most UK/US staff ever learned!), and was relying on a translation from a book I read a long time ago. But doesn't "Völk" have blood-and-soil connotations which "People" lacks? "Folkish Observer" sounds weird in English, but might be closer - it's the kind of title British Nazis might use.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | November 26, 2009 8:11 AM

The Nazis said that they were inspired by the hygeinic discoveries of Pasteur and Koch; I await the creationists' condemnation of hand-washing.

Posted by: Ajje | November 26, 2009 8:21 AM

1) Evolution is as much to blame to Nazi's as Newton's Law of gravity is to suicide jumpers!

2) Complexity, complexity, complexity.....bacterial flagellum.....complexity, complexity, complexity.....human eye.....complexity, complexity, complexity.....DNA.....that question is way to complex for you.....complexity!

Cheers

Posted by: Tim | November 26, 2009 9:08 AM

How to answer #2 well in 500 words is an interesting challenge. While the evidence is ubiquitous given the complex lifeforms all around us, which have evolved, it is difficult to give a complete proof from A to Z in 500 words without begging the question.

It follows from all we know about natural history that evolution can increase complexity. The evidence is empirical. The fossil evidence is the best evidence that I'm aware of. But summarizing all that in 500 words is hard. Didn't Richard Dawkins just right a whole book about this?

Posted by: Svlad Cjelli | November 26, 2009 9:11 AM

According to Hitler, jews are second only to aryans in terms of "purity" and "strength".
He had to eliminate them because they were the "strongest" and most dangerous of the evil forces.

***

1. akdpendpnf
2. akdpendpnf akdpendpnf
3. akdpendpnf akdvendwnf
4. akLpondpnf Bkdvendwnf

Posted by: Deacon Duncan | November 26, 2009 9:50 AM

Dear Ross:

I understand that you and your fellow creationists claim that Hitler believed the Holocaust could be scientifically justified by an appeal to evolution. I will not argue against this claim, as I think there is much we can all learn from the fact that creationists are most vocal in their agreement with Hitler, and that scientists are most vocal in their disagreement with Hitler.

Have a nice day, and seig heil or whatever it is you guys say.

Posted by: FlameDuck | November 26, 2009 10:24 AM

So called Social Darwinism was main idea in Hitlers race dogma.

Hitler was also a strict vegetarian and loved dogs. Does that make PETA evil?
He was also a right-wing fundamentalist Christian. Does that make the GOP evil?

The answer is of course that neither PETA or the GOP are evil because they share certain similarities with Hitler. They're evil because they're self-serving, egotistical, parasitic, hypocrites.

Read "Mein Kampf".

Posted by: Gro Martin Gunnarsen | November 26, 2009 10:33 AM

I really love the fact that it's not even Darwin he tries to make out as a influence to nazism, but evolution itself.

1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

If we take evolution as a well supported theory based on lots of evidence. Then the answer is yes, of course. The theory of evolution was a big influence to guiding nazi thought, in the exact same manner that it is a big influence on guiding creationists thoughts, liberals thought, racists thought and so on. At least in the sense that evolution is the factor in the development of the human brain. And the brain is what we use to think with, and as so it's the brain that accumulates thought. But if the underlining idea behind this question is if it's evolutions fault, that the nazi's became what they became, I would say no. It would be the same as blaming gravity, if I died because I jumped out of a window on the 10th floor. Evolution is a fact (or a theory with lots of evidence), and this fact/theory doesn't take a stand on good and evil. Because the theory isn't about beeing good or evil, but is about how our world evolved. That also takes us to a second point. If we (because we are deluded, or uninformed or otherwise excused) don't believe in evolution, then the answer to the question is no. You can in no way say that there is proof that Hitler were directly influenced by evolution. But if you don't believe in evolution, but you believe in creation, then Creation actually is to blame for the nazis. Because Creation would require an intelligent designer to design Hitler, and since creation deals with a creator, let's call him god, then god would be to blame for Hitler, since god doesn't only deal in the origin of life, but also in what's good and evil in this world. But of course no one really believes that god is responsible for Hitler, since Hitler was a product of evolution, and evolution can't be blamed since it’s not an intelligent person but more a mechanism.

Posted by: D Johnston | November 26, 2009 10:39 AM

1) The Nazis were influenced far more by Lamarck's psuedoscientific theories and the centuries-old philosophic construct of the Great Chain of Being than anything Darwin wrote. However, before you continue with this particular argument, may I make a recommendation? Look up "good faith" on the Google. Now ask yourself - am I using this?

2) I could probably take a few hours and develop an in-depth answer to this question, backed with scientific case studies. However, it's likely that you wouldn't understand it, and a month from now, when you e-mail this question to someone else, you'll have completely forgotten about it anyway. So, I'm going to mock you instead. You won't hear or read this mockery, because I'm doing it in my head. But believe me, it's there and it's vicious.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 26, 2009 10:48 AM

1) This has been done ad nauseam by now, both the answer to the question, and the fact that the question itself is wrong because it's an argument from consequences.

So let me just bring up my pet topic: While English distinguishes struggle and fight, German has a single noun for both, and the primary meaning of that word, Kampf, is "fight". I can't help wondering whether this had a large impact on the way the slogan "struggle for life" was understood.

(It's also a bit strange that it was translated as "for existence" rather than "for life"…)

Of course, struggle isn't unambiguous in English either, and of course, Darwin immediately went on to explain that, while it may well be said that two dog-like animals fight for food and thus struggle for life in a time of want, it may just as well be said that a plant struggles for life at the edge of a desert, and that in terms that translate just fine… but that couldn't stop the slogan from spreading and being misunderstood.

2) Comment 132 has gone pretty far in the explanation. I expect that Olson will bring up the objection that, while a sequence of double length does technically contain more information, that doesn't appear relevant to biology. It is relevant to biology twice over:

– If you need twice as much of a certain protein, having the gene twice or just turning the regulation up will probably have the same effect. But if you need lots and lots, having several copies of the gene will enable to produce several molecules of the protein per cell at the same time, and that's an advantage. There are genes that we possess something like 10 times per genome.

– If a gene codes for something that isn't needed often, one of the two copies is simply useless. It can therefore accumulate deleterious mutations to its heart's content. Usually, that's it, and that copy becomes a so-called pseudogene, functionless litter, part of the famous junk DNA. Sometimes, however, a mutation happens that gives the mutated copy a new function.

This way we go from one gene with one function to two genes with two functions, without losing any gene or any function in the process!

And indeed, lots and lots of our genes can so far be traced back to such duplication events. This goes so far that some duplication events must have happened in or before the last common ancestor of all known life because all known organisms share genes that result from them! For instance, PyrD (the gene for dihydroorotate dehydrogenase, an enzyme in the synthesis pathway of uracil, cytosine, and thymine), HisA (the gene for P-ribosylformimino-AICAR-P-isomerase, an enzyme in the synthesis pathway of histidine), and HisF (the gene for… an enzyme that takes the product of HisA and does the next step with it) are present throughout known life, but are still, after all those billions of years, so similar that they must have come from two successive gene duplication events, just like how the "green receptor" and the "red receptor" in our eyes are the results of a gene duplication that happened maybe 40 million years ago.

There are vast gene families out there that have already been discovered. All vertebrate smell receptors are one example that has been mentioned above.

=======================================

A specific Organism has the following DNA code:

ATTACAGUATAG

Ouch. If it really has a U in its DNA, either the repair mechanism will come, cut the whole region out, and make it anew in the "hope" that the correct C will be inserted this time, or the next replication will give you an A on the other strand where a G was. The only way to get U into DNA is by decay of C; this is the whole reason for the existence of T in the first place. :-)

First off, Olson walks into the evo-devo "den of vipers" and wants the vipers to back-off? WTF is up with that? Where's his gawd to control the angry vipers?

Not vipers. Lions. Daniel the Prophet in the Babylonian lion pit is the story you're looking for.

You ask whether natural processes can create an increase in complexity. The dipstick who corresponded with you asked for evidence that evolution increases complexity. They're rather different questions. One answer to your question is Yes; see, for example, the growth of any organism. An answer to the dipstick would be: look, say, at the well-documented development of mammals from reptiles.

Why do you think an increase in complexity was involved there?

Diamonds are more complex than their carbon predecessors

No, they're exceedingly simple, because they're completely regular.

He proposed a vision of rebuilding the Holy Roman Empire (Heim ins Reich).

No. Heim ins Reich means "home into the kingdom/empire" and was a somewhat bizarre action of taking the population of German-speaking language islands all over central and eastern Europe and shipping those people into the Reich. All Germans in one country, one way or the other, it seems.

But doesn't "Völk" have blood-and-soil connotations which "People" lacks?

The Nazis tried to add some… the word (which is, incidentally, just Volk when no suffixes follow and trigger the process called Umlaut) has been used less and less with the realization that no "pure peoples" (as biological populations) exist, but it is the way to translate things like "We the People of the United States" and "We the Peoples of the United Nations" – Wir, das Volk der Vereinigten Staaten, Wir, die Völker der Vereinten Nationen.

"Folkish Observer" sounds weird in English, but might be closer -

Etymologically it's exactly the same*, but it would be rather misleading because you just don't use "folk" instead of this meaning of "people" in English.

* The spelling with v is a bizarre phenomenon with late Old High German reasons that I don't understand. It's pronounced [f].

Hitler
Farmed the Aryans
Like the banana

Brilliant.

The Nazis said that they were inspired by the hygeinic discoveries of Pasteur and Koch

And they used lots of such metaphors. For instance, "the Jew"* was called "a cancerous abscess on the Healthy Body of the People®" that had to be gotten rid of.

* The enemy was always singular in… German militarism in general.

Posted by: KI | November 26, 2009 10:58 AM

@306
I am assuming you are referencing the babble. As has been pointed out (a thousand times) many atheists arrive at their conclusions BECAUSE they read that stupid piece of propaganda. (Twice, KJV and New Standard. All the way through. ugh.)
Dumbfuck. And I don't usually curse when I'm here.

Posted by: Ben in Texas | November 26, 2009 11:09 AM

You have no evidence for the non-existence of Vishnu. Does that mean you're going to convert to Hinduism?

Use some logic. Seriously.

Posted by: Iris | November 26, 2009 11:16 AM

Con job 306:

Many if not most of the atheists I know, and certainly those that hang out here, know more about the bible and theology than most Christians.

And so I can say, having studied and considered the Christian god and bible at great length, that even if a god in fact wrote that misogynist, bloodthirsty, morally depraved, inconsistent, incoherent, insipid book, then it is certainly no god I would find worthy of respect, much less worship.

That being said, I can TOTALLY see how bloodthirsty, morally depraved, inconsistent, incoherent, insipid people such as yourself would be into it. It feeds your narcissism, after all, to think you were made in such a god's image, when it's painfully obvious such a god was made in the image of people just like you.

Atheists don't "pretend" to know anything - that distinction belongs to the deluded faithful, who have no evidence for their sky daddy but just "know" he's real. Thanks for providing a case study in psychological projection.

I hope you get some professional help.

P.S. Who is "Mr Meyers"? It is easy to criticize a blog you have never studied, isn't it?

Posted by: Ben in Texas | November 26, 2009 11:22 AM

"Anyone who says they have studied the Koran in depth and rejects Allah is LYING 100%"

See how easy that is?

Posted by: ChrisH | November 26, 2009 11:24 AM

"Anyone who says they have studied On The Origin of Species in depth and rejects evolution is LYING 100%"

Er, can cut a variety of ways.

"Anyone who says they have studied Harry Potter in depth and rejects wizards is LYING 100%"

This is fun!

Posted by: Ben in Texas | November 26, 2009 11:32 AM

"the book of the Christian GOD can be seen and verified"

I was going to ask, "By whom?" Then I realized a better question would be, "What the hell does this even mean?"

That's a rhetorical question. I'm not really asking, because I don't want to hear the insane, rambling response.

I guess it's no surprise that people without rational minds don't realize they don't have rational minds.

Posted by: ChrisH | November 26, 2009 11:37 AM

"I place my faith in the written words of finite fallible human beings who were INSPIRED by the infinite omni Being. I have a problem when anyone appeals or uses the bible incorrectly."

Who defines how the bible is supposed to be used? You? Your preacher? The pope? There are as many interpretations of the bible as there are believers in it.

I can guarantee that there will be plenty of believers who will class your flavour of christianity as incorrect.

Sort out the inconsistencies amongst yourselves and then annoy the rest of us with it. It all gets rather tiresome.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 26, 2009 11:48 AM

Vishnu, thor, and zeus and hera, etc, did EXIST, but i have rejected their false premise.

by the infinite omni Being.

Posted by: Olaf | November 26, 2009 11:51 AM

Con Sumatum @306:

There are NO atheists, regardless of what label you choose to wear. Agnostics do exist but not atheists. The Greek use of 2 words "a" and "theos" means no gods or without gods but it does NOT mean belief.

Thank goodness the word didn't change meaning at all during the course of twenty-six centuries and passage through three different languages. Why, if that sort of thing happened we might not even be able to understand ancient Greek without years of study!

Posted by: KI | November 26, 2009 12:00 PM

Hey! Isis and Nerd get called out but no response for me? And I even swore at the little imbecile! I even planned to be a preacher at one point, so I studied that stupid piece of tripe in depth with a proper preacher led bible study group.

As Rodney Dangerfield complained, "I get no respect".

Posted by: Con Sumatum | November 26, 2009 12:12 PM

KI, DULY NOTED.
You too are spouting off emotive behaviour but not really saying much.

I accept the bible as truth because I have Proven it to be Truth, absolutely so. I also made it clear that NO ONE has ever shown or proven the bible to be a book of lies and fradulent and mythical. NOW if you can disprove that Claim, please produce it.

Posted by: SEF | November 26, 2009 12:20 PM

The snowflake carries
a record of its journey
through the clouds - sans gods.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 26, 2009 12:29 PM

1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

No, but centuries of Christian tradition obviously were.

2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

Yes. A zygote becomes a biologically autonomous mammal in about a month in some species, for example.

Dr. Olson's "questions" simply aren't worth any more of my time than that. I'm a busy piranha in here; I've got capybaras to devour.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 26, 2009 12:32 PM

What does evolution do that makes it the TRUTH

I see evolution in contradiction to the bible,

Nerd, thank you for proving my point that you have failed to study a book in depth that you criticize.

You and your heroes Meyers and Dawkins are clueless as to the nature of God.

You pretend to be infinite beings with infinite data; boy are you Delusional

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 26, 2009 12:48 PM

The hebrew/aramaic and greek texts are non contradictory.

Show me.

The Bible can be corroborated and or tested to see if it is a book of lies, and it has passed all tests.

Show me.

The bible is looked upon as a part of the HISTORY of mankind. NO ONE has proven the bible to be myth OR a book of lies.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Everything before 2 Kings is myth, and most of that is cribbed from earlier myths, usually Sumerian ones.

What does evolution do that makes it the TRUTH and NOTHING but the truth?

That's not how science works. Instead, we compare the theory of evolution to reality and have, in 150 years, failed to find a single contradiction so far; we have, furthermore, failed to find any other theory that explains the same facts in an even simpler way. This means we're stuck with the theory of evolution so far.

I accept the bible as truth because I have Proven it to be Truth, absolutely so.

Show me.

Also, Stop using capital letters at Random. It Makes you look childish. And learn to spell Myers.

Posted by: SEF | November 26, 2009 12:54 PM

NO ONE has ever shown or proven the bible to be a book of lies and fraudulent and mythical

False. People are continually showing "the bible to be a book of lies and fraudulent and mythical". Reality has this anti-fantasy bias to it, you see. Or rather, you probably don't see because you're very assiduously avoiding looking.

Posted by: Iain Walker | November 26, 2009 12:54 PM

Amy Jackson (#256):

“The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.” –Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Um, Hitler isn't talking about Nazi ideology here. He's talking about the ideology of the Christian Social Party (an anti-semitic party in Austria which influenced him during his youth). The fact that the CSP's anti-semitism was explicitly based in religion rather than racist pseudo-science does not mean that the same is true for Hitler and the Nazis.

To add a little context re Hitler and the CSP:

"Not until my fourteenth or fifteenth year did I begin to come across the word 'Jew,' with any frequency, partly in connection with political discussions. ... For the Jew was still characterized for me by nothing but his religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I maintained my rejection of religious attacks in this case as in others. Consequently, the tone, particularly that of the Viennese anti-Semitic press, seemed to me unworthy of the cultural tradition of a great nation." (Mein Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 2)

"I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought. At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party." (Mein Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 2)

"How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement! My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all." (Mein Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 2)

I.e., Hitler was heavily influenced in his youth by the (religiously-based) anti-semitism of Catholic politicians like Karl Lueger, but that does not mean that his own anti-semitism didn't have a substantial racial dimension. When he says "For the Jew was still characterized for me by nothing but his religion", he is speaking of his past beliefs, in contrast to the views he held when he was writing Mein Kampf.

So while Christian anti-semitism still stands out as an influence on Hitler, the quotation about the CSP does not show that "he was not interested in pursuing a specific race (believing in Aryan superiority), but only a specific religion." Hitler was an out-and-out racist, not a mere sectarian bigot.

Posted by: Francesc | November 26, 2009 1:07 PM

#324
"NO ONE has proven the bible to be myth OR a book of lies"
Two words: flat earth

Posted by: Hagamenon | November 26, 2009 1:19 PM

1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

Well, it is true. Without evolution there would be no guided thoughts and no brain.

2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

Yes. Look around.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 26, 2009 1:23 PM

The Bible does not state that the Earth is flat. Thank you for proving my point that you have failed to study a book in depth that you criticize. Nowhere in the official hebrew and greek texts does it say the earth is flat.

Posted by: Naked Monkey Guy TM | November 26, 2009 2:42 PM

As many of the above comments have already shown, even a cursory review of Hitler's own words does not reveal any association with Darwin or evolution (and as others have pointed out --- even if Hitler was a big ole Darwin fan, so what...). Surely Olson and Bergman don't really expect to get away with throwing out accusations like this without having the more obvious connection between Hitler and christianity flung right back at them. Since it is hard to take this question seriously, I am going to let Cyndi Lauper answer #1 for me:

1. “How do you see yourself inside your mind?
Who do you look at when you close your eyes?” - High & Mighty

And while I am voting for #98's Bran Muffin response to #2 (because it made me laugh out loud), I think the ever moving goal post and convenient lack of consistent definitions on the part of id/creationists calls for another Cyndi Lauper response (uncensored version) to #2:

2. “Well, It's the same old fucking story
With your two different sets of rules
The same old fucking story
One for me, two for you” - Same Old Story

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 26, 2009 3:05 PM

Perhaps Con Sumatum could trot out some dragons and unicorns, just as a small sample of biblical truth.

The unicorns are incapably translated wild oxen, and the dragons… do you mean the leviathan, which is a crocodile?

The bits about the dome of heaven and the four corners must have been metaphorical.

And the bit where Satan takes Jesus on a high mountain and shows him, from there, all kingdoms of the Earth.

Posted by: Con Sumatum | November 26, 2009 3:43 PM

My logic is still sound; NOW if you can disprove my Claim, please produce it. You can't and you fail.

Typical wannabe atheists. You are not even good skeptics.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | November 26, 2009 3:49 PM

Dear Brother Con Sumatum,

Your repetitive mode of thought and content-free debate is sadly reminiscent of that sad prick David Mathews. I'm not going to waste time responding to you--I think I'll go and fuck some sheep.

Yours in hopes of a well deserved banning

Smoggy M. Batzrubble
Missionary for Jesus

Posted by: Calilasseia | November 26, 2009 4:33 PM

I'd like to enter this in answer to Question 1.

BEGIN

[1] Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

No. First of all, as has already been established courtesy of searching through Mein Kampf in detail, Hitler's assorted eructations on nature reproduce well-known creationist canards, including the static species fallacy, and Hitler also asserted that fertile, viable hybrids were inpossible, which is manifestly refuted by this scientific paper (among many others):

Speciation By Hybridisation In Heliconius Butterflies,/i> by Jesús Mavárez, Camilo A. Salazar, Eldredge Bermingham, Christian Salcedo, Chris D. Jiggins and Mauricio Linares, Nature, 441: 868-871 (15th June 2006)

Also, even an elementary search of Mein Kampf reveals the following statistics. The number of instances of key words are as follows:

"Darwin" : ZERO

"Almighty" : 6

"God" : 37

"Creator" : 8

Hitler was inspired by the anti-Semitic ravings of one Lanz von Liebenfels, who was a defrocked monk, and whose magnum opus bore the Pythonesque title of
Theozoology, Or The Account Of The Sodomite Apelings And The Divine Electron. This was in effect a warped Biblical exegesis, which rewrites the Crucifixion story, and also contains a mediaeval bestiary replete with instances of Liebenfels' florid imagination.

Additionally, the Nazis placed textbooks on evolutionary biology on their list of seditious books to be burned, as illustrated nicely here, where we learn that in 1935, Nazi guidelines with respect to seditious books included:

6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel).

Translated into English, this reads:

Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)

The evidence is therefore conclusive. Nazism was not inspired by evolution, and indeed, much of Hitler's own writings are creationist in tone. The Nazis destroyed evolutionary textbooks as seditious (much as modern day creationists would love to), and the Nazi view of the biosphere is wholly at variance with genuine evolutionary theory, involving fatuous views of race "purification" by the establishment of monocultures that are the very antithesis of genuine evolutionary thought, which relies upon genetic diversity.

END

Word count: 349.

Is this an acceptable entry, PZ?

Posted by: Calilasseia | November 26, 2009 4:52 PM

And now, Question 2.

BEGIN

[2] Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

The overwhelming evidence from the scientific literature is yes. Appropriate papers include:

Evolution Of Biological Complexity by Christoph Adami, Charles Ofria and Travis C. Collier, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 97(9): 4463-4468 (25th April 2000)

Evolution of Biological Information by Thomas D. Schneider, Nucleic Acids Research, 28: 2794-2799 (2000)

Indeed, in the latter paper, Schneider establishes that selection processes cause the amount of information in the genome to increase to a maximum.

Likewise, instances of this taking place in real world organisms are well documented in the scientific literature. Such as Lenski's landmark paper on historical contingency in Escherichia coli, the literature centred upon nylonase, and the evolution of antifreeze glycoproteins in Antarctic Notothenioid fishes. From the world of aquarium fishes, there is also a well documented mutation known as the double tail mutation, which results in indivduals of Betta splendens inheriting the mutation developing two complete tail fins, a mutation that moreover, obeys single-factor Mendelian inheritance. This constitutes an example of increase in organismal complexity, that comes about as close to realising creationist canards with respect thereto, as any observed instance in Nature is ever likely to.

More to the point, there exist numerous papers covering de novo origination of genes, of which:

De Novo Origination Of A New Protein-Coding Gene In Saccharomyces cerevisiae by Jing Cai, Ruoping Zhao, Hifeng Jiang and Wen Wang, Genetics, 179: 487-496 (May 2008)

is merely one of the more spectacular instances. Surely the emergence of a gene where previously there was none, constitutes an increase in complexity by any reasonable measure? Particularly as the instance in the above paper arose from a previously noncoding DNA sequence?

END

Word count: 287.

Posted by: DaveH_of_Lahhhhndaan_Taowwwn | November 26, 2009 5:32 PM

#350 is almost as misleading as an AIG answer!

Posted by: Suck Poppet | November 26, 2009 5:52 PM

Hello pretentious Latin name con job:

I cannot speak for all atheists, we are a disparate and rambunctious mob, but I suspect many would agree it would be intellectually dishonest to completely exclude the possibility of the deist concept.

It is not impossible some “being” initiated the processes that formed the Universe we find ourselves in, but that deity would be completely disconnected and apathetic towards some trivial life forms on a remote rock in the Milky Way.

The theist notion of an interventionist god would by necessity leave evidence .
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be stated as The measurement of position necessarily disturbs a particle's momentum, and vice versa (source Wikipedia).
To put it simply you cannot interfere with, or even observe, a system without changing the system. Such changes would be measurable and would constitute evidence of said interference. No such evidence exists. None.

So I grant you the (very) remote possibility of the deist progenitor that plays no part in the physics of the Universe today. Such a deity is completely meaningless in our lives (and deaths).

Your “evidence” is just emotional self-deluded wishful thinking.
You will really have to try harder here … F

Posted by: jason hootman | November 26, 2009 6:07 PM

While a case can be made that the Nazi leadership was influenced by Darwin's theory of evolution, it is a historical fact that the Spanish inquisition was a product of the church, which drew all of it's inspiration from the bible. Throw in 2000 years of witch burnings, crusades,etc Then add modern day abuses ( think Catholic priest and children) and the accompanying cover up and a true picture of religion starts to form.
Didn't your Jesus have something to say about throwing stones?

Posted by: Iris | November 26, 2009 6:49 PM

NerdofRedhead and Isis are spouting off emotive behaviour but not really saying much.

Well technically no one here is saying much, probably because it's all been said so many, many times before. Seems to me people are simply saying that you are yet another typical, delusional, arrogant little narcissist who can back up none of your grandiose assertions with a single shred of evidence. None. And none of the commentary directed your way is in any way ad hominem either, merely the simple, obvious and logical conclusions deduced from the drivel you spewed. Yep, that's pretty much all anyone's saying; and you're right, it's not much.

To borrow from Nerd, "Yawn."

P.S. Now, who the hell is "Isis"? Another one of your imaginary friends? Maybe a friend of your imaginary friend "Mr Meyers?"

Posted by: John Sandlin | November 26, 2009 7:48 PM

In #351 by Con Sumatum on November 26, 2009 at 3:43 PM, thus was spoken:

My logic is still sound; NOW if you can disprove my Claim, please produce it. You can't and you fail.
Typical wannabe atheists. You are not even good skeptics.

I'm sorry, Con Sumatum, I missed the cogent argument you made. Please point me to the message number so I can go back and read that one and be amazed by your brilliance.

So far, I haven't seen anything from you I'd consider logically sound.

Posted by: Con Sumatum | November 26, 2009 9:10 PM

Please, you people aren't even trying to prove me wrong, ergo, you wannabe atheists have failed yet again.

You Failed miserably to Try To at least comprehend my point. I concisely said that behind those finite men was an infinite being, so says the bible. The God of Jesus by definition is infinite, again, since you are a FINITE BEING, your data base is limited and NOT omnscient. But you have NOT proven the bible to be a book of lies and myths, so PROVE IT

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 26, 2009 9:17 PM

Please, you people aren't even trying to prove me wrong,

You Failed miserably to Try

The God of Jesus

TBut you have NOT

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 26, 2009 9:21 PM

Con Sumatum's getting annoying. He demands we "disprove" the Bible. We've shown it's unhistorical, contradictory, fallacious, and its main protagonists are unpleasant beings. He's refusing to accept any of these examples and keeps up his demand. He's also insulting and quite stupid.

Killfile.

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 26, 2009 9:57 PM

Please, you people aren't even trying to prove me wrong, ergo, you wannabe atheists have failed yet again.

Posted by: mackennzie | November 26, 2009 10:01 PM

1) SELECTIVE BREEDING. Why does no one else bring this up? It was around since the beginning of agriculture, for the love of Sagan. It's not a huge leap if you place no more value in human life than you would in that of livestock. You know. If you were a sociopath.

2) In Richard Lenski's lab, there is a frozen strain of e. coli that is able to metabolize citrate in an oxygenated environment. This was done with zero human intervention, save for moving a few of the bacteria into fresh grazing once there were too many. How is this not new information being created?

Posted by: Norman Doering | November 26, 2009 10:32 PM

Can we include links to youtube videos?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvmsieqUyOo

Posted by: nigelTheBold | November 26, 2009 10:57 PM

Okay, it looks like code and pre tags don't work. Neither does in-line style. So this is gonna look uglier than it really is.

Here's a program that proves that randomness can generate information, with selection pressure. It's not that good of a program; I could've made it shorter if I'd made it less obvious; I could've structured better if I made it longer.

I'm not sure how to count words with it, though. It might be over the limit.

In any case, here's how it works: save the program, and run it with a Perl interpreter. Pass it the name of a text file on the command line. The text file shouldn't have too much text (say, no more than a few hundred characters) because this isn't a very efficient program, and takes a while even with simple files.

Example:

perl random-information.pl some-short-textfile.txt

That assumes you saved the text below as 'random-information.pl'.

-----[ Program follows ]------------

#!/usr/bin/perl
$| = 1;

my $SELECTION_TARGET; # The target string, read from the file specified on the command line
my @POPULATION; # The current population

my $TARGET_POPULATION = 1000; # The number of individuals per generation
my $TARGET_SCORE; # The "best" possible score
my $SELECTION_PRESSURE = 100; # The greater the number, the greater the pressure
my $MUTATION_RATE = 5; # The greater the number, the greater the likelihood of mutations

# People try to put us down
my $GENERATION = 0;

# Verify command line
die "Please supply a target file on the command line\n" if ( $ARGV[0] eq '' );
die "$ARGV[0] does not exist, or is not a regular file\n" if ( ! -f $ARGV[0] );

open TARGET, "

# Read the file
while ( my $line = )
{
$SELECTION_TARGET .= $line;
}

# The "best" score is the one in which every character matches the target.
# This is equal to the character length of the target string.
$TARGET_SCORE = length $SELECTION_TARGET;

# Acybergensis (not evolution)
$POPULATION[0][0] = ' ';

while ( 1 )
{
my $total_offspring = 0;
my $possible_offspring = $TARGET_POPULATION;
my @scores;
my @characters_matched;
my $max_score = 0;
my $min_score = $TARGET_SCORE * 10;
my $total_score = 0;

my $best_match = 0;
my $best_length = 0;

# Calculate the scores for each potential parent. Each score is based on the number
# of character "matches" to the target string.
for ( my $parent = 0; $parent {
my $length = length $POPULATION[$GENERATION][$parent];
for ( my $char = 0; $char {
if ( substr( $POPULATION[$GENERATION][$parent], $char, 1 ) eq substr( $SELECTION_TARGET, $char, 1 ) )
{
$scores[$parent] += 10;
$characters_matched[$parent]++;
}
$scores[$parent]++;
}

# Provide some additional pressure against over-long strings. We could let
# the strings grow long, but that affects performance profoundly. That's a limitation
# of computing, and would not affect biological reproduction.
if ( $TARGET_SCORE {
$scores[$parent] -= $characters_matched[$parent] * 10;
$scores[$parent] -= length $POPULATION[$GENERATION][$parent] - $TARGET_SCORE;
$characters_matched[$parent] -= length $POPULATION[$GENERATION][$parent] - $TARGET_SCORE;
}

if ( $TARGET_SCORE == $characters_matched[$parent] && $POPULATION[$GENERATION][$parent] eq $SELECTION_TARGET )
{
######################################################
# This is the end -- SUCCESS!
######################################################

# Yes, this is not good programming. But I had to structure the
# program such that it fell within PZ's word count limitaton.

print "\n$POPULATION[$GENERATION][$parent]\n\n";
print "Best individual found at generation $GENERATION\n";
exit;
}

if ( $characters_matched[$parent] > $best_match )
{
$best_match = $characters_matched[$parent];
$best_length = length $POPULATION[$GENERATION][$parent];
}

$min_score = $scores[$parent] if $min_score > $scores[$parent];
$max_score = $scores[$parent] if $max_score }

# Normalize the scores so that those better suited are more likely to reproduce.
for ( my $parent = 0; $parent {
$scores[$parent] -= $min_score + ( $max_score - $min_score ) * ( 1 - ( 1 / $SELECTION_PRESSURE ));
$scores[$parent] = 0 if ( $scores[$parent] $total_score += $scores[$parent];
}

my $parent = 0;

my $max_offspring = 0;

# Reproduce asexually.
while ( $total_offspring {
$parent = 0 if ( $parent == $TARGET_POPULATION );

my $num_offspring = int (( $scores[$parent] / $total_score ) * $TARGET_POPULATION );
$max_offspring = $num_offspring if ( $num_offspring > $max_offspring );

for ( my $offspring = 0; $offspring {
my $length = length $POPULATION[$GENERATION][$parent];
my $number_of_mutations = int(rand( $length * ( 1 - ( 1 / $MUTATION_RATE ))));

$length += int(rand(4)) - 2;
$length = 1 if ( $length $POPULATION[$GENERATION+1][$total_offspring] = substr( $POPULATION[$GENERATION][$parent], 0, $length );

my $start_length = length $POPULATION[$GENERATION+1][$total_offspring];

for ( my $add_char = $start_length; $add_char {
$POPULATION[$GENERATION+1][$total_offspring] .= ' ';
}

for ( my $mutations = 0; $mutations {
my $location = int(rand($length));
my $new_char = chr(int(rand(255)));
substr($POPULATION[$GENERATION+1 ][$total_offspring], $location, 1, $new_char );
}
$total_offspring++;
}

$parent++;
}

# Bury the dead.
undef @{$POPULATION[$GENERATION]};
$GENERATION++;

print "\rGeneration $GENERATION Length: $best_length Offspring: $max_offspring Score: $best_match / $TARGET_SCORE ";
}

Posted by: Punxatawny Phil | November 27, 2009 12:06 AM

The only right answer to Nazism/Darwinism is "so what"? Mass murdering dipshits since the dawn of civilisation have been using twisted variants of ideas good or bad to justify murderous regimes.

Evolution could only be a “gateway theory” to eugenics and the final solution in the mind of a deranged ignoramus who should at the very least be barred from positions of public influence, if not strapped to a chair Clockwork Orange style and subjected to hours upon hours of saucy interracial porn.

Once upon a time it was easy to accuse someone of being a witch, possessed by demons or the devil in disguise, but those brands have lost their cut-through in the mainstream spiritual marketplace, ergo, Hitler steps up as the new Satan for fundies and whackoloons. A real world human evil that people can point to, read about, misinterpret and smear onto every idea they want to discredit- taxes for the uber-rich, evolution, black presidents, universal health care, etc. Trying to argue the differences between Nazism and evolution is pointless if those making the charge aren’t being intellectually honesty.

At the end of the day, their argument adds up to little more than: “1. I hate broccoli. 2. Hitler ate broccoli. 3. Therefore broccoli is a Nazi vegetable and must be destroyed”. What happens if you insert Hitler’s religious views into this algorithm?

Posted by: THand | November 27, 2009 2:31 AM

1) Not exactly. If you accept the idea that all previous ideas effect all future ideas then: "Yes." Otherwise: No, not really. There were racists and bigots before the Nazis. All of them try to justify their ideas that they are "superior". Don't be gullible: Think.

2) Yes. Take for instance a natural process like Conception. A full developed human has ideas, lots of cells and other "science-y bits", all of which amounts to much more information than was present when that person was still a separate spermatozoon and an ovum. Even if you require the existence of a nebulous, yet immortal, "soul". When the natural process of reproduction occurs, and the magic invisible thing in the sky shoots the newly conceived thing with a holy load of soul-stuffing, there is now more information than there was before. This gets even more obvious if you believe really moronic crap like virgin-births, where there wasn't even sperm but then there was JESUS. Don't be stupid: Learn.

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | November 27, 2009 4:17 AM

I would like to lend a vote to JRM's beautiful argumentum ad Beavisum .
Oh, and to all the haikus Kel and SEF wrote.
And also very much to Kobra's answer at #255.

Damn it, why are there so many of you brilliant people?

Posted by: SEF | November 27, 2009 4:39 AM

This is a test of : style="font-family:'Courier New',monospace; white-space:pre"

in a p tag paragraph
with extra spaces and lines.

Posted by: Goldenmane | November 27, 2009 7:17 AM

I'm voting for Calilasseia's entries. #355 and #357.

Rather than arguing with trolls.

Posted by: SEF | November 27, 2009 7:48 AM

PS I didn't actually address nigelTheBold's pre tag complaint fully. The pre tag certainly used to work here (ie it did in the last round of tests I made!).

Another pre test:   ...

Posted by: DuckPhup | November 27, 2009 9:47 AM

Knockgoats @ 394...

You would be correct IF our purpose was to change the minds of the creotards... but that should not even enter our minds. They are EITHER...

1) completely immune to logic, reason, and critical-thinking...

OR

2) not REALLY creotards; rather, they are despicable liars, pretending that their assertions and proclamations are 'true'.

The way I see it, creotards should be regarded as a valuable resource... a shining example to Christ-cult virtues, which I perceive to be gullibility, self-deception, self-delusion, irrationality, willful ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, lies, hypocrisy, and toxic, drooling stupidity.

It is my experience that in on-line forums, there are between 10- and 20-times the number of readers as there are participants/contributers... and I have no reason to suspect that blogs such as this are any different, in that regard. It is reasonable to suspect that some percentage of those silent readers (lurkers?) have NOT had their brains completely turned to mush by religious nonsense, and are genuinely seeking answers. So... the creotards provide a steady and entertaining stream of pseudo-science, religious lies, and general nonsense, and it is the job of sane, rational, intelligent, knowledgeable people to refute and/or debunk it... for the benefit of those whose minds are still intact, or on the road to recovery from religious indoctrination.

The main disadvantage that we face is that refutation and debunking requires a word ratio from about 20:1 to 50:1... reason - to - bullshit... truth - to - lies... to expose the dishonest blather which we have to overcome. It is insufficient to say "That's bullshit"... we must explain WHY it's bullshit. Unfortunately, we are addressing an audience of which about 80% is scientifically ignorant, and who thinks that 'logic' means something like "That makes sense to me" or "I thunk that up all by myself, right up there in my own pointed little head; therefore, it is 'logical'." It also does not even occur to them that their trusted religious puppet-masters might actually LIE to them, or have any reason to do so. Oh, yeah... and they think that 'faith' (wishful, magical thinking) is essentially equivalent to facts, evidence, reason and logic... and that the ILLUSION of knowledge (belief... justified by 'faith') is the equivalent of ACTUAL knowledge.

Also... they have been made to believe that their 'beliefs' are under attack by 'militant atheists', when in fact what they are seeing is SANE PEOPLE mounting a defense against a religious assault on science, education, human rights and reason.

Posted by: CE | November 27, 2009 11:09 AM

You know, you aren't obliged to provide an entry to post in the comments. Most of these are terrible, or at least terribly lazy entries. Even if producing a well-constructed response is much like casting pearls before swine.

You don't have to (re)read Mein Kampf and so on, but don't bother if you can't make the minimal effort to sound intelligent.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 27, 2009 11:57 AM

My logic is still sound; NOW if you can disprove my Claim, please produce it.

Obviously you didn't follow a single of the links I provided in comment 335.

You know what that makes you?

also asserted that fertile, viable hybrids were inpossible, which is manifestly refuted by this scientific paper (among many others):

That depends entirely on your definition of "species". There are 147 out there (as of February 2009). Depending on the definition, there are from 101 to 249 endemic bird species in Mexico…

#350 is almost as misleading as an AIG answer!

How?

Posted by: DaveH_of_London_Town | November 27, 2009 1:57 PM

#350 is almost as misleading as an AIG answer!

How?

Posted by: Tony Lloyd | November 26, 2009 3:42 PM

Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?
No. The Nazis were inheritors of the Hegelian/Marxist philosophy and its central concept of an "urge" driving history.

-

So what I object to here is the misleading "inheritors" (of any philosophy, in fact), the misleading "the", and the implication that Marx and/or Hegel were "essential factors in guiding Nazi thought".

Apart from that, it's a brilliant answer.

The sprawl of Nazi "thought" cannot be encapsulated or even approximately characterized in this simplistic way.

I didn't need to say this, as I'm sure you already realized that the form the question took was fucking stupid. So I'm not sure why you are asking.

Posted by: DaveH_of_London_Town | November 27, 2009 2:21 PM

Yes, which is a stupid question, because of the first bit you quoted.

That's not a criticism of Prof Myers - the original assertion is stupid.

Posted by: Con Sumatum | November 27, 2009 5:06 PM

God is not subject to any physics or laws, and empirical evidence cannot measure a being that is not physical

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 27, 2009 5:14 PM

empirical evidence cannot measure a being that is not physical - Con Artist

i.e., doesn't exist. I have to concede, he's got a point there.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 27, 2009 5:20 PM

God is not subject to any physics or laws, and empirical evidence cannot measure a being that is not physical

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 27, 2009 5:22 PM

God is not subject to any physics or laws, and empirical evidence cannot measure a being that is not physical

The claim that God is immeasurable is tantamount to the claim that God is unobservable. That any alleged case of God interacting cannot be distinguished from there being nothing there at all. In effect, you're eliminating God from the universe.

Watch out, he's turning into Karen Armstrong...

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 27, 2009 6:14 PM

The invisible and the inexistent look very similar.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 27, 2009 6:50 PM

the girlfriend "I met at summer camp who lives in Saskatchewan" I had in Grade 7.

The concept of having a girlfriend from Saskatchewan is falsifiable.* Now if you were claiming to have a Newfie girlfriend we'd know that was groundless.

*Strap you to a table, put a few volts to your testicles, and we'll have all sorts of empirical data on Saskatchewanian girlfriends.

Posted by: jaywalkker | November 27, 2009 8:34 PM

Its been mentioned before with regards to Darwin on banned book/burn lists, but its also good to point out that any book derogatory to christian faith was also burned.
-----
c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.

Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279
Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm
-----
Christianity was exalted by the Nazis.

Posted by: Dentroman | November 27, 2009 11:02 PM

By the way, how do people do that handy little quote thing? HTML tag? If so, which one?
Dentroman

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 27, 2009 11:22 PM

Let me remind you that after many thousands of years of pure speculation, not only does not everyone know all about God-- no one knows anything about Him, Her or It.

Posted by: God | November 27, 2009 11:49 PM

God is not subject to any laws, including the laws of logic, which means that you cannot possibly PROVE that God exists by the laws of logic.

I think You were a little too subtle for him, there.

And You're making Me nervous. You know I get existential crises now and then.

Do I exist or not?

Posted by: Dentroman | November 28, 2009 12:09 AM

Dentroman: [blockquote]quoted text [/blockquote]. Replace brackets with less than and greater than brackets.

Posted by: Thomas Galvin | November 28, 2009 12:41 AM

1. While looking around the site you linked, I stumbled onto this article: A Righteous Lie, where the author argues, from Scripture, that it would have been a Christian duty to support the Nazis in their effort to exterminate the Jews. So, before I address Darwin's influence on the Nazi party, could you address why Jesus seems to have influenced this particular follower to side with Hitler?

Posted by: Yubal | November 28, 2009 12:57 AM

In my opinion, Calilasseia answered both questions perfectly.

Although I doubt her(?) answer on question 2 will make it inside the brain of a standard creationist. Therefore, she(?) should be awarded with a prize for question 1 and someone else for question 2.

btw:

In the email, question 2 reads differently from the version in the contest. PZ asks "Can..?" and the olson writes "your claim that evolution increases complexity needs evidence."

The question, if it can, can simply be answered with Yes, as a result from the theories predictions and the findings in nature (cite whatever you see fit, the examples are all good). I would have chosen Ilya Prigorine's dissipative structure argument, but that is way too high for a nice answer. We need to keep in mind that creationists think in terms of whole animals instead of systems-biology, molecular biology or whatever. We need to educate them in simple terms. Hence, Wasps could make an example here. Some wasps do form states, most wasps do not, although they are evolutionary closely related. Living in a state is a massive increase in complexity and evolutionary beneficial. Just another niche to be filled, yeah, yeah, I know.

My point is, that creationists are probably not satisfied with the most cited answer on question 2 I read here, gene duplication. Give them something they can imagine :)

Posted by: Goldenmane | November 28, 2009 11:17 AM

Yubal (#431):

Cali's a bloke.

Posted by: nick.t. | November 28, 2009 8:19 PM

1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought? And 2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?

In regard to 1): even if true (which is not what the evidence suggests), this claim is irrelevant to your real question, i.e. the status of evolution as a scientifically based way of understanding how human beings came to be the way they are. Simply put, the fact that some idiot mis-appropriates a good idea does not make the idea less true or valid. I presume you don't want to reject the idea of mass-production - but you might remember that Hitler kept an enormous picture of Henry Ford next to his desk and told an American reporter that he regarded Ford as his inspiration.

In regard to 2): this has been documented by numerous scientists in peer-reviewed articles and books. You could work your way through E.O. Wilson's "The Diversity of Life", for example. If you want a more immediate response, go to the window, look out and reflect on how cities and human societies have .. dare I say it... evolved over time. If you want something slightly more abstract consider the following concepts: increased genetic variety, increased genetic material, new genetic material, new genetically-regulated abilities. I hope you will admit that these phenomena have been well-documented, and that they represent an increase in complexity. Now, would you care to specify the mechanism by which they arose?

Posted by: JG | November 29, 2009 10:53 AM

Con Sumatum:

" The Bible can be corroborated and or tested to see if it is a book of lies, and it has passed all tests."

Care to provide evidence of this claim?

Someone has scientific evidence that an all knowing, all powerful, all good, schizophrenic zombie god/demi-god exists?

You can provide evidence that dipping in a river can cure leprosy? Or that god sits above the earth enjoying the smell of burnt animal flesh?

Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | November 29, 2009 1:57 PM

Can you guess why a proposition or theory becomes popular? ANS~ Because it's been proven!

That's where you go wrong.

The book that comes to my mind is Broca's Brain by Carl Sagan. Or Connections by James Burke. The second may be out of print though. Any book on the history of ideas or the history of science.

Other beliefs worth researching in the meanwhile include Phrenology (false popular belief in C19), Alien abduction, crop circles, the Bermuda Triangle, why the sea is blue, Homeopathy, Astrology, and Christianity (very popular).

A prime example of true but not popular is the biological theory of evolution by natural selection (unpopular in USA, Turkey, and less industrialized nations).

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 29, 2009 8:16 PM

Phrenology

In one of Terry Pratchett's Discworld books is the practice of retro-phrenology, altering someone's character by giving them bumps on the head with a hammer.

Posted by: Ross Olson | November 30, 2009 1:13 PM

Dr. Myers,

I have an alternative to your contest idea. Dr. Borrello has published on Hitler and Darwin. Dr. Bergman has published on Hitler and Darwin.

Let's post both papers on your site and TCCSA with each author critiquing the other for as many rounds as they are willing to go.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 30, 2009 1:23 PM

What on Earth for? Any putative influence of Darwin on Hitler is a meaningless red herring. At best it's a fallacious argument from consequences; more likely it's a fundamentally dishonest and weaselly rhetorical tactic.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 30, 2009 1:46 PM

Not that there's anything much lower than the University of Minnesota at Morris, but if all those Jewish people hadn't been killed, PZ Myers would be teaching at Anchorage Community College -JRM

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 30, 2009 2:09 PM

Atheists like Myers don't care about other people at all; there's no motivation to do so without an afterlife.

You are a dangerous madman.

You lack empathy. You are capable of not reacting when a baby cries. You don't feel good when you do good, and you don't feel bad when you do bad. You have no conscience – instead you tally your "treasure in heaven".

(At least that's a logical prerequisite for the bullshit you wrote.)

Seek professional help right now, though I doubt any such help has yet been developed.

Posted by: JRM | November 30, 2009 3:22 PM

I was too subtle, I see.

Edward Current gets dozens of responses like this, too. (I guess my first shot at it was sufficiently unsubtle.)

--JRM

Posted by: Lans Ellion | November 30, 2009 5:09 PM

1) Is there evidence that Evolution influenced Hitler? There is evidence from his speeches that he incorporated evolutionary ideas such as the “survival of the fittest.” This could be taken as evidence that evolution influenced Hitler. However, looking closely at his statements and beliefs demonstrates that he was not influenced by evolution but rather stole concepts from evolution and misapplied them in order to further his own political beliefs. For example, the idea of survival of the fittest is simply a factually statement regarding the probability of survival, specifically that stronger individuals are more likely to survive and have children. From this, factual probabilistic statement Hitler created his own idea that he should try to kill those who he thought were weaker. This new thought was purely Hitler’s and had nothing to do with the way evolution actually works.

In addition, the idea of a eugenics program was based not on evolution but on selective breeding principals that had been known to work long before evolution was discovered. For example, horse breeders had long known that breeding stronger horses together would end up with stronger offspring. This fact, is what Hitler based his eugenics program on. Of course, this program was misguided since it wrongly assumed race was a factor in human strength.

Now the real issue here, is whether Hitler was significantly influenced by evolution. More important is whether the rest of Germany that supported Hitler was significantly influenced by evolution (because Hitler didn’t act on his own). If evolution was a significant influence, there should be plenty of evidence for such a claim and the burden of proving such a claim is on the party claiming it. In reading your linked article, I noted that it had a number of sources claiming that Hitler was influenced by evolution but a severe lack of quotations from Hitler (or his followers) regarding evolution. As noted above, there were some statements that might be distantly linked to evolution but none that directly demonstrated that evolution was an influencing factor. If evolution was so significant there should be much greater evidence in the writings of Hitler, and his followers. If you have such evidence feel free to present it.

I however, doubt that such evidence will be available because the claim that Hitler decided to commit his atrocities because he believed that in nature the fittest individuals are more likely to survive is patently absurd. A large portion of the world believes in evolution and the vast majority of these individuals do not believe that killing others is acceptable behavior. This empirically demonstrates that believing in evolution does not necessarily lead to committing atrocities. More importantly it makes us ask “why if so many people can live peaceful moral lives believing in evolution did Hitler commit so many atrocities?” The answer: motivations outside evolution lead to Hitler’s atrocities.

2) Can a natural process such as evolution create an increase in complexity? The question is a highly ambiguous with respect to the phrase “increase complexity.” First, we would have to define what makes something “complex” and then we would have to define how something could be more complex. Luckily, the issue of complexity is really irrelevant to evolution and so I won’t dive into the tangent of defining complexity. What evolution actually does is produce change over a period of time by the process of genetic mutation.

The basics are rather simple. I will outline them in a three points.

Point 1: Natural processes can convert an object from an original appearance and function to a complete new appearance and function.
I am sure you understand that an object in our world can be changed from its current state into something new and different by completely natural processes. Take for example erosion, where the process of running water can change the shape and layout of land. Or, as another example fire, which can create massive changes of form such as turning a tree into ash and smoke, etc. In a sense, you could say that these processes are “increasing complexity” by changing the form of the objects.

Point 2: Random mutations in genes make a child genetically unique from both its parents.
I doubt you will disagree with this point either. It is simple: every animal obtains genes from both parents, however, there are mutations which cause a child to be different from both parents. What this means is that a child is a unique being that has new characteristics distinct from its parents. In a sense, we could say that “complexity has been increased” with respect to the child’s DNA by this change because the child’s DNA is new and unique.
This point is merely a subset of the first point. Natural processes can cause change and in this case of a child being born the natural processes have created something new and different from the original just as erosion creates new and different landscapes.

Point 3: Evolution can select for specific genetic traits that lead to an increased chance of survival.
Evolution in a sense creates complexity by selecting for individuals with beneficial traits. Again, I assume you would agree that stronger individuals in nature are more likely to reproduce and therefore pass on the traits that make them strong. Over time, this process can clearly lead to more individuals in later generations possessing these traits which made their parents strong. Take for example one of Darwin’s finches: a finch living on an island with strong seeds will be more likely to survive if it has a strong enough beak to crack the seed. The individuals with stronger beaks will be more likely to reproduce and subsequent generations will have stronger beaks. This demonstrates how the process of evolution and natural selection can cause change and if you wish to call it such, can “increase complexity.”

Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | December 1, 2009 10:36 AM

@440 fritzwilliam,

No. Not even universality.

Posted by: nigelTheBold | December 1, 2009 11:47 AM

Okay, in case anyone's interested, I've updated the program a little. It's a touch cleaner, and I've removed a couple of kludges (which I attribute to too much Great Lakes Christmas Ale when I wrote the first one).

It's right here.

I may have to modify the output to be suitable for graphing. I'm finding the results to be very interesting when modifying the independent variables TARGET_POPULATION, SELECTION_PRESSURE, and MUTATION_RATE.

Posted by: Chad Brown | December 2, 2009 11:53 AM

1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?

Evolution is significant in every aspect of life. Prolific organisms (as well as ideas) will outlast and reproduce more effectively than those who are less competent at surviving. It's a very simple and eloquent concept that can be applied positively or negatively in many ways. As with Hitler and his motivation, one with a negative outlook on evolution could say that he was motivated by evolution because he wanted the Aryan race to rise, become the “fittest” and that they deserved to outlast all races. This is no justification whatsoever because this is artificial selection, not evolutionary thought. Evolution is blind and unguided, Hitler was lured by control and leadership. Christians contradict themselves when they reference evolution theory as a motivation for Hitler when clearly his actions reflect the kind of imperialistic bigotry found in the bible. Joshua's massacre at Jericho (because they believed in a different god), Moses' order to kill all who didn't follow his god, all of these stories are the cut from the same cloth. The Stories are about a person, or group of people who kill those who do not agree with them. Moses' ordered that the calf worshipers drink the melted gold the calf was made of (exodus 32:20) because they didn't follow Yahweh, Hitler killed Jews, gypsies and homosexuals because they were different from him and didn't do what he wanted. Both of these men thought that they were right, and that they were doing the right thing. Both of these men were deluded and unreasonable. Moses had a similar policy with the Midianites: "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:17 and 18). A manipulation of who lives and who dies is not evolution, it's playing god, which clearly had an influence on Hitler (as we all are aware of the Catholic church's involvement and support of the Nazi party). All this information aside, it is still how a creationist would argue against the morality of atheists. Based on the assumption that religion is the only source of good morals in the universe and that atheists that do bad things because they're atheists, which is a complete and utter lie. Morality comes from humanity, not from ones level of religiousness. A true atheist has a greater appreciation for life than a theist because an atheist has no heaven to look forward too when he/she dies. Our lives on Earth are more meaningful and shouldn't be taken for granted, rushed, or expended serving the wishes of mortal men, deluded into believing that supernatural entities control our every move. Life is beautiful, and those who seek to understand, those who seek to learn will reap the benefits.

2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity? I throw them down into the alligator-infested pit of churning chaos, and I leave it to you to produce an answer.

Those who believe evolution is true (those who think rationally), believe that complicated things come from simple things over a long period of time through the process of natural selection. A living thing can incidentally adapt in very small steps to make its life easier, through the blind process of natural selection. The organism would have no idea that it's random mutation has any impact on it's decedents but that is because natural selection is an immensely slow process. The first step towards being a winged animal probably consisted of a minute skin flap grown abnormally on the arm of an arboreal creature. If this flap would somehow break it's fall at all it has a chance to mature to an age in which it would reproduce and pass on the gene for that flap, and in time the flap may get bigger and more beneficial. If a gazelle is more likely to survive if it's ability to flee a predator is improved, even slightly, any gazelle with stronger hind legs will be more likely to survive than it's brother who has normal legs and doesn't run quite as fast. This hypothetical, strong legged gazelle will be more likely to mature to mating age, and will pass on the gene coding for strong hind legs. Even if this mutation is as minute as one muscle fiber, or just 1/4 of a pound of pushing force, it will still be an improvement on it's ability to run. The same goes for whatever predator is running after the said gazelle, evolution is a constantly fluctuating process of ebbs and flows with no direction, intention or goal in mind. A living thing’s only purpose is to pass on it's genes (whether they know it or not) and any tool or trait that can aid in that goal will become a permanent fixation on its genetic code, so that the helpful adaptation will be passed down. These mutations are so slight that we would never notice them in our human lifespan. The slow process of natural selection is hard for humans to understand because the effects are all around us, yet we don't see animals mutating before our eyes. Creationists believe that it takes a complicated thing (god) to make simpler things (humans). Not only is this untestable it is also HIGHLY unlikely. It seems as though the human race in it's infancy resorted to super natural explanations to life’s big questions when the fear of our universe’s loneliness set in. But we know now, and we know that supernatural explanations are no longer needed when we have the ability and wherewithal to ponder, if not comprehend life's big mysteries.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 4, 2009 8:45 PM

Ross Olson, still no evidence that ID is anything other than a religious idea, which means it in now way will effect any scientific argument like evolution. All you blather is to no effect. Since no peer reviewed literature was cited, that is only your opinion, which is worthless. Science is only refuted/displaced by more science. Until you produce the science, and show you ID is science, you have nothing but your delusions. We are getting tired of your evidenceless delusions. Time to put up or shut the fuck up.

Posted by: AJ Milne | December 4, 2009 9:00 PM

Oh my. The lyin' sack o' shit is still bleating on?

What, Rosso? No one visiting your site?

Poor guy.

Anyway... Kids, this is a public service message from your local public health council: Reading Ross Olson's BS is not to be taken as a valid substitute for reading your bio textbook...

Nor your history textbook... nor any textbook for that matter...

(/But if you'd like to cook your brains into a nonfunctioning clot of mangled nervous tissue, and don't actually enjoy sniffing glue, reading him probably will get you to roughly the same place, and may even get it done faster.)

Posted by: SEF | December 4, 2009 10:23 PM

@ Ross Olson #460 (or rather at anyone reading who is more honest and curious than he is):

In response to the question of where information comes from in evolution, Dr. Myers stated that evolution produces information!

Evolution is the new information. If there was nothing new, then nothing would have changed. The fact of things changing, for which the scientific term is "evolution", is just the evidence that new information exists. Then it's a matter of reading what that information happens to be and where it came from.

Sometimes it's a single point mutation occuring in that individual, giving a more effective enzyme or whatever. Sometimes it's a duplication of a gene which then means the product is less limited in its availability - and this can affect subsequent development all on its own. Sometimes it's a change to a previously unimportant duplicate which then gives it a new use while the original copy still carries on fulfilling the old function.

The source of such new information can be a copying error during reproduction (the normal vertical transmission of information), a swapping over mistake, or (more recently noticed as significant) a lateral transfer in from some infection.

What refines it as "information" rather than mere "noise" is the environment, ie natural selection, quite unintentionally filtering for the things which work - because the things which don't work don't work!

The inevitable mutations are not his friends but are producing the dreaded "aging process."

You are failing to distinguish between what happens to the cells within an individual (from development to eventual decay) and what happens between individuals (reproduction from ancestors to descendants). That's a pretty massive biology fail on your part. Can you really not tell the difference between yourself and your parents (and any children you might have)?

Posted by: bobscience | February 4, 2010 9:55 AM

Whether or not Hitler was influenced by evolution, gravity or the germ theory of disease has nothing to do