[Time passes and internet links die, expire, or otherwise fall into the black hole of irrelevancy. Alas. Rachel Carson is still right.]
Sometimes, when people make gross errors, they get caught. They apologize, or they mumble, and they move on.
A few times, when people make gross errors, they revel in it. Rather than admit the error, they make it again. They say it wasn’t an error. They repeat it, time and again, as if two wrongs make a right, or as if 126 wrongs make a right.
We caught Caosblog repeating some bad stuff about Rachel Carson, and false, good stuff about DDT, and false claims that eagles were not endangered by DDT. We called ’em on it. [But the blogger appears to have deleted the response. It was that good.]
Whoooee! This is the result. Note the list of unquestioning links to other stuff on the web. (Yeah. “Milton Fillmore.” Probably not reading comprehension error so much as rant-blindness.)
If there is anything crazy and mean about Rachel Carson, it’s probably in that list. If there is any wild and insane claim about the safety of DDT, it’s in that list. If there were any accurate information, it would be a miracle. (Well, actually there’s some good information in the National Geographic story about malaria, but I doubt the blog writer bothered to read it.) The blog links to all the Lyndon Larouche crazies, all the tobacco lobbyist crazies, and acts as if such manure is golden.
Very little of it is accurate. Most of the material so far out to lunch, it’s not even wrong. The person who runs the blog sent me an e-mail saying my comments are no longer welcome there, because of the tone of my remarks. Too many links to too much refutation of blog’s points, I gather — too much real information!
DDT poisoning clearly is damaging, with effects far beyond anything Rachel Carson ever predicted.
This is the venal, vicious spirit that Sen. Tom Coburn defends with his hold in the U.S. Senate on honors for Mrs. Carson. This is the spirit with which the anti-Rachel Carson movement rails at environmentalists about malaria in Africa, while holding back funding for anti-malaria projects in Africa.
Woody Allen had a line in Annie Hall that may be appropriate: “There’s nothing wrong with you that couldn’t be cured with Prozac and a polo mallet.”
Reason and evidence won’t do it now. When someone starts out arguing that eagles were not threatened with extinction by the poison that a thousand studies verified was doing them in, you can’t reason them back to reality.
Below the fold: At the second outlet of that blog, conversation carried for a while, though not necessarily so for enlightenment. In 2015, I thought it a good idea to capture some of that.
Exchanges from the Cao2 blog.
(Yes, this does nothing so well as demonstrate that Alun Salt was right. It’s also a good demonstration of the Gish Gallop, if you needed one.)
Yeah, this was clearly a clue that I should have just ended the conversation; but at the time, she had a few readers who, I assumed, surely had at least nine working neurons between them . . .
50 Responses
Jackie 
Jackie 
Ray C. 
Richard 
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
Edwards surely knew better than that.
DDT was one of the pesticides used to kill bats roosting in occupied buildings. Bats are mammals. The Army had a number of buildings in the southwest where they had bat problems, and the Army appealed to keep the registration of DDT to kill the bats.
DDT was known to kill fish. There had already been several fishkills — a famous fish kill in Austin, Texas, left tons of dead fish on the banks of the Colorado River for twenty miles.
See modern story, here: http://www.kxan.com/global/story.asp?s=549825&ClientType=Printable
And here:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/watershed/town_lake_fs.htm
Confirmed kills of robins were known.
So, it’s not unfair of Carson to call it “deadly” or “agent of death” since the acute poisoning capability of the stuff was well known and well documented.
Surely, you have read Carson’s book, and you know this.
If one were to eat DDT regularly for years, how would it harm someone? They’d drop dead of a heart attack during physical exertion, probably with no previous symptoms of ill health. DDT concentrates in fat, and it comes out when the fat is burned during exertion. This is how it kills bats and migratory birds.
Do you know how Edwards died?
Links please. You can’t just say something and expect me to believe you, considering your sweeping generalizations and parroting of COUNTERPUNCH and ALTERNET and sites like that.
Give me real sources or shut the hell up.
I’ve said that time and again.
Edwards was hiking with his wife and keeled over from a heart attack at the ripe old age of 85.
He had actually had even more of a real life experience than to swallow spoonfuls of DDT – which was more than 200 times what a normal person would consume.
It’s common knowledge how Edwards died, it’s on Wikipedia if you would have bothered to check…and you can easily find it on dozens of other websites. He was, in fact, a renowned mountain climber. He is listed on Wikipedia as an entomologist and mountain climber.
Your saying proof of DDT poisoning is that he died of a heart attack? I thought it caused cancer, according to your ‘research’. So what property of DDT poisoning would have brought that on, and what studies do you have to quote from that demonstrate that DDT causes heart attacks?
It would seem to me that he was a health old man, but that he was old, and he had a heart attack just like a lot of older people do when they’re doing physically strenuous activity. Are you going to say that someone shoveling snow that has a heart attack had a heart attack from DDT poisoning? This is an empty foolish argument.
Edwards was author of the “A Climber’s Guide to Glacier National Park,” which is considered the “bible” of Glacier climbers, hikers, and those interested in the history of the park.
But back to DDT.
While on duty in Italy in 1944 (since he was born in 1919, that would have made him 25 years old at the time) , he and the other soldiers in his company had been plagued by body lice. This lice was spreading typhus among the troops, a disease that had killed 3 million people in Europe during and after the previous war. To check the developing epidemic, the chemists at Merck & Company in New Jersey produced the first 500 pounds of American-made DDT, rushed it to the airport, and flew it to Italy.
There, Edwards got the order to dust every soldier in his company with the DDT powder. For two weeks straight, he did just that, breathing the fog of white dust as he did so. Much to everyone’s relief, the DDT worked, and the epidemic was checked. The surgeon general estimated that the DDT had saved the lives of 5,000 soldiers. After the war, inspired by this experience, Edwards went on to get his Ph.D. in entomology from Ohio State University and eventually headed out to San Jose State University where he taught medical entomology courses for more than 30 years.
The depiction of DDT as a lethal poison to people is far-fetched and a lie.
See also: Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D., and Robert J. Cihak, M.D. DDT vs. Death by Malaria
In Africa, DDT Makes a Comeback to Save Lives – EIR Science and Technology
The British Medical Journal the Lancet reported no adverse effects of DDT were ever experienced by the 130,000 spraymen or the 535 million people living in sprayed houses in 1959.
It might be time to post on this again, lol
I wondered:
Cao said:
Interesting, no? He was actually mountain climbing. Severe physical exertion. No history of heart problems, he’d just been cleared for such activities by his physician.
Then, just like a migratory bird loaded from a lifetime of DDT consumption, he keeled over dead of a heart attack.
I’ve always found it interesting that Edwards supporters, most of them wholly ignorant of how DDT kills migrating critters, note that he was in the peak of health and mountain climbing when he died of a completely unexpected heart attack. At 85, it shouldn’t be unexpected, of course. There was no autopsy.
Acute death from DDT isn’t the problem in humans. Edwards tried to make hay from the study where prisoners were fed DDT daily. No ill effects after a few weeks, it was reported. No one ever did a followup study. We don’t know if there were cancers (latency for liver cancer is generally more than 10 years; other cancers can go longer).
DDT’s effects are not on large creatures that survive, however. It gets the next generation. DDT acts as estrogen overdoses. DDT is an endocrine disruptor. The study that now ties DDT to cancer in humans shows a firm correlation to exposure of the mother, and the breast cancers occurring in the daughter. DDT exposure came through both in utero exposure and through DDT-carrying breast milk (separating that effect will likely be impossible for obvious reasons). As you are aware, I’m sure, lactation depletes fat reserves, and fat is where DDT is stored in mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians.
And you found it on Wikipedia? But you didn’t notice, in the same paragraph, the links to the astroturf, crank science group ASCH? And you failed to note the link to Lyndon Larouche in the same place? No, of course you saw them. So your call for “documentation” is a hollow response.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_and_Health
You’re confusing your own arguments.
DDT is acutely toxic to humans, but only in huge doses, or slightly smaller doses osmosed, or perhaps inhaled — it’s not clear how the fatalities got the poison. No one really knows about acute poisoning from burning fat reserves. Heart attacks are how migratory creatures die, otherwise healthy creatures in stressful exertion, when the DDT comes out as they burn the fat — much as a mountain climber does.
I’m saying that anyone who studies the PubMed and other scientific publications on migrating creatures and DDT would have noted that similarity. That almost every story on Dr. Edwards mentions how he died either means someone is playing a huge joke, or most of the people who repeat the story of Edwards’ death don’t know that it parallels exactly death from acute DDT poisoning from exertion.
DDT is a suspected human carcinogen — but as I noted, that’s how it is listed with every cancer-fighting organization in the world. Is that not reference enough for you? There is no study to contradict that listing — which you would know, had you checked the footnotes Edwards offered, and tried to corroborate them.
Here’s the ATDSR listing: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts35.html
It’s the same with the American Cancer Society, and with WHO, and every other cancer-fighting group and health registry in the world.
There are a lot of 84-year-old guys who keel over from heart attacks. My husband is a heart patient; I know this from the cardiologist.
You’re really reaching if you think you can do an autopsy through telekenesis and come up with his death as a result of DDT when he’d been given heavy exposure since he was 25-years-old in Italy in WWII.
You’re honestly starting to make me laugh with how far you’re stretching to defend your religion of environmentalism.
Ed, as paranoid and determined as you are to call everyone a crank that has Lyndon LaRouche cited on the same page, that’s a departure from rational thought.
A rational person weighs the evidence instead of making attempts at character assassination and makes damning statements in a world where there’s guilt-by-association.
I suppose I could do the same thing with your linking to COUNTERPUNCH as an authoritative source; and your obvious denial of science because you’re bowing before the gods of global warming and population control.
I think you’re a nazi stormtrooper because everything you’re saying fitting fits in with the German green ideology of the nazis who worshipped the black forest, who demonized Christianity, and who advocated genocide….based on a political ideology, not because of reason or facts.
Oh, and they would have agreed with you on the tobacco lobbyists, because Hitler was a non-smoker who advocated non-smoking policies for people.
I don’t advocate government control of business and their public and private lives.
So Ed, to put this in simple terms, given a choice, which do you prefer:
A. Immediately, knowingly, and intentionally saving the lives of tens of thousands or more people.
OR
B. Allowing tens of thousands of people to die because there’s some chance or correlation that somewhere, in the next 40-50 years that one or two people, birds, or other animals might die one day.
When you’re claiming that DDT is evil and should be banned based on scientific guesses and correlations that may or may not be accurate, you’re choosing option B, condemning thousands and thousands of people in Africa to die. Hope you’re happy with that choice.
Ogre, DDT was discontinued because, as Carson warned, it became ineffective.
So what do you advocate: Spend millions spraying DDT that kills the food for the people who live there, but leaves them suffering from malaria,
Or do what WHO says, improve health care, educate on avoiding mosquitoes, and use integrated pest management?
The first path, the spray more DDT path that Cao advocates, has failed everywhere it was tried.
The second path is bringing a rollback of malaria in South Africa, Mexico, Uganda, Kenya, and other places.
Indeed, the question is, do you want to rail against environmentalists, or do you give a damn about saving children?
The children are dying while you rail at environmentalists. 3,000 a day, Cao says — she’s not swayed, but you get to decide for yourself.
Wow. You actually believe that, don’t you?
DDT works. When DDT was stopped in Africa, it wasn’t stopped because it wasn’t working! Good gosh! It was stopped because of international pressures and millions have died.
I can’t get over that you actually believe that DDT doesn’t work.
Just wow.
It’s not a question of belief, Ogre. I’ll wager that you cannot provide citations for your claims. DDT spraying was discontinued in Africa in the middle 1960s. You know how to read a calendar, right? EPA didn’t move against DDT until 1972. So, what “ban” caused Africans to stop spraying if the stuff worked? No ban. DDT stopped working. Why would they spray a poison that didn’t work?
You expect all Africans to be stupid. That’s inaccurate. You expect all governmental agencies to be evil. That’s also inaccurate.
I can’t get over how you ignore 50 years of studies showing that mosquitoes get resistant to DDT. There is a well-known mutation among many mostquitoes — two, actually — that means they digest the poison. Some mosquitoes carry 50 or 60 copies of the B1 and B2 alleles, making them virtually invulnerable to DDT or any related pesticide. You could look it up in almost any history of malaria, any history of pest control, any history of driven evolution.
Don’t ignore 99% of the information just because you wish it were not so.
In the crank literature, you’ll find lots of claims that DDT was stopped by environmentalists. But that’s a crock. Idi Amin didn’t listen to environmentalists (you do know who he was, right?). Nor did any other government in Africa. And if you press the authors of the crank literature, they may suggest that South Africa stopped using DDT due to environmentalist pressures in 1997 or 1998. Of course, that’s over a decade and a half after the claim, and the evidence is that South Africa stopped using DDT then because it wasn’t doing the trick against mosquitoes. South Africa began using DDT again a few years later, but in an integrated pest management program like Rachel Carson recommended. Used wisely, the DDT spraying helped contribute to a drop in malaria.
Great article, Cao (finally got around to checking out your blog…so sorry for the delay!). Some people you just can’t debate with. And some people read the accurate scientific literature…
Ed or Hans or whatever his name is isn’t all that bright.
Hatred of the human race is the underpinning of the environmentalists’ agenda…as numerous people besides Wurster have proclaimed, including Jacques Cousteau.
One of the first things this treehugger said in my comments section was “you don’t care about the environment!”
But Hans doesn’t care about the human race, obviously…
An August 16th article in the Wallstreet Journal pointed to a study that completely refutes the ‘ineffective’ claim.
DDT continues to work as a repellent and irritant long after it’s no longer killing mosquitoes on contact. The researchers found that three out of five DDT-resistant mosquitoes avoided homes sprayed with the insecticide and reduced the risk of disease transmission by 73%.
So how relevant is the ‘resistant’ claim? Not very.
Repeated studies have shown DDT to be safe for people and nature when sprayed indoors, yet other supposedly greener pesticides like alphacypermethrin have been touted as viable alternatives. Nevertheless, the latest research shows that DDT continues to be the most effective tool we have, as well as among the cheapest. “To date,” conclude the authors, “a truly efficacious DDT replacement has not been found.” Opponents of DDT are only ensuring more misery and death.
the ‘ddt is ineffective on mosquitos’ claim is hogwash
Yet another stupid claim of the Rachel Carson worshippers has been exposed.
In an August 16th article at the Wall Street Journal, a study published in the public health journal, PLoS ONE (which I’m assuming is the one entitled A New Classificatio…
That study says that, while DDT doesn’t kill mosquitoes anymore, it still irritates them.
Read the study. DDT advocates say we should keep using DDT as a repellent. DEET is 100 times more effective, though, and consequently much cheaper for that purpose.
Here’s an entomologist who was asked by the astro-turf organization, Africa Fighting Malaria, to review the paper:
http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/an-odd-email-campaign-by-africa-fighting-malaria/
Here’s another view of the paper:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/study_finds_that_ddt_not_the_m.php
And be sure to check out this paper at Malaria Journal, with real science on repellents:
http://www.malariajournal.com/content/6/1/38
Notice that the scientists at Malaria Journal take note of the fact that mosquitoes are resistant to DDT.
“Science” Blogs: One of the writers identifies himself thusly: “Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal.”
Sorry, I’m not interested in reading or touching liberals’ biological ejaculations…particularly on “science”.
Which is similar to the rest of the spew you’re citing.
Spit or swallow?
I prefer to spit where your stuff is concerned.
Not to mention…the lead blogger at the Science blogs was sued for libel.
Considering your approach and your sympathetic tone to their ideology, it is no wonder you would come into my comments section threatening to sue. The thing is, you really should have a handle on the legal definition of words before you start making threats like that.
This merely demonstrates that you are one of the people who believes that criticism of a scientific hypothesis must be defended by silencing its critics.
Tim Lambert’s humorous description irritates you, Cao? Why?
You’re not interested in any fact that doesn’t reinforce your biases? I thought you were for open discussion? But when we start laying out actual scientists laying out actual science, you prefer to dismiss them as somehow beneath you because of their faith or lack of it.
We Christians take what scientists say because we are also dedicated to the truth. I was unaware of any faith that does not have such a dedication somewhere in its theology. Whatever you are, truth is your friend, whether your faith says so, or not.
As with most of your stuff on DDT, your diatribe at P. Z. Myers is dated. The guy who sued him dropped the suit. Turns out P. Z. had not libeled him. But I thought you were a friend to libel anyway? You have taken it as a badge of honor in your blogs to dishonestly, unfairly and inaccurately slander a good scientist. Why are you suddenly concerned that a frivolous suit was brought against P.Z.?
I am sympathetic with the truth, wherever it is. It’s a tone I am proud to strike. Your falsifications — or grotesque misunderstandings (I never threatened you; I merely pointed out you were at risk for having libeled) — need correction. Innocent children might wander in here, and we wouldn’t want them to come away with the wrong ideas.
And, alas, you seem to revel in wrong ideas — like the idea that we can poison our way to health, with malaria or anything else, and the idea that scientists are inhuman, and the idea that Africans are too stupid to decide for themselves, and the idea that history is not what happened but what you say it is based on your prejudices.
Yeah, my “tone” is much different from that, praise God.
Your cluelessness is not funny. Your refusal to take down the libel only stands as evidence of the smallness and unjust nature of your claims. Handle on libel? I’ve got it, and you don’t have the common courtesy to fix it.
From Lumo:
An examination and comparison between the communists and the tactics of the greens (from someone who’s lived under totalitarianism):
# They try to convey the message that the opposition doesn’t exist
# If the opposition exists, it is composed of unsuccessful or dead bodies who have been defeated decades ago
# The members of the opposition are painted as being controlled by others, usually by demonized sources of power, with hints of corruption; a connection – even indirect connection – with these ultimate “sources of evil” is presented as a complete proof of wrongness
# Opposition gets badges that are meant to be derogatory – capitalist, Zionist, deniers, renegades, contrarians, reactionary, burgeoisie, oil-funded, (or in your case, the tobacco lobbyists, LaRouche crazies) etc.
# Opposition is presented as being against all the people – and all the people should agree and do agree with that; statements that everyone agrees and everyone keeps on supporting the official position are repeated all the time
# The opposition members are criticized for their very existence and for the tiniest deviations from the official ideology, to assure everyone else that one simply can’t join them if he wants to survive
# Opposition is claimed to misinterpret words and facts even though it is pretty obvious that it is the official party who is doing that
# The opposing individuals are deconstructed one by one by carefully crafted ad hominem attacks
# The propaganda openly states that a debate or a dialogue itself is unacceptable and no details of the opponents’ opinions are ever analyzed
# Whenever it’s possible, the opponents must be fired or otherwise harassed; a penetrating analysis of skeptics’ personal lives and attempts to find anything questionable – even if it is completely unrelated to the dispute – is a standard tool of the propaganda
Gee, Lumo — you hit some nail on the head.
But I’ll bet it wasn’t the one you intended.
Like the claims that Carson was wrong (she wasn’t), that her scientific references have been rebutted or withdrawn (not one has been), and the claims that we now know better than the government officials who stopped the widespread overuse of DDT in the 1970s.
Only, it ain’t the environmentalists doing that.
In the anti-Rachel Carson crowd, just calling someone “environmentalist” is derogatory enough. Cao keeps harping about liberals, atheists, and all sorts of other labels that don’t really apply (I’m a Christians, former Reagan administration appointee — the anti-Carsonites don’t care about accuracy in such things).
Even when I cite sources that support Cao’s points, she won’t go look. It’s astounding, isn’t it? Totalitarian tactics are not limited to the enemies of freedom!
The official party on this blog consists of anti-environmentalists, no matter what the environmentalists say. If environmentalists came out tomorrow and said, “We were wrong! Burn coal and oil all you want,” Cao would go off the grid and buy a hybrid car just to tick ‘em off.
No one has responded to a single source I’ve cited here. You got that one right.
That’s what I thought when I read Cao’s incredibly bizarre post about Rachel Carson’s sex life.
Does Cao go after you the same way, Lumo? You sound sadly experienced.
I don’t appreciate your ordering me around and demanding me to read things of your choosing. Who the hell do you think you are? I have repeatedly stated my position, your linking to Science blogs and other leftist places in addition to maligning my source material isn’t going to convince me otherwise or beat me into submission. I have real science on my side; you have propaganda, just as the soviets did. Again, Motl’s observations on communists and how they influenced their science is worthy of notation. Carson’s Darwinian notion of the ‘survival of the fittest’ also fits within those parameters. The “resistance” DDT argument is based on chemicals eliminating the weaker members of the pest population, and that survivors would represent the stronger cpecimens, best able to recover from attack. She claimed that variants would be hardier, combating them would lead to a process of escalation in which ever more toxic chemicals would be necessary to combat them. Given her view of stronger and stronger pest specimens evolving after chemical cdontrol, she envisioned an endless vicious circle.
Resistance is neither an expression of mutation nor of selection of the strongest specimens in a population. Resistance may arise if that population includes DNA components defining the mechanism of resistance are already present. As the compound kills all individuals that do not possess the resistant trait, those which live give rise to a new population that consists only of resistant individuals. It’s untrue that the resistant strains represent a “superbug”; they are weaker than the population which has been eliminated. No mutations produce stronger individuals; this is also true in human biology.
It’s like the 4-winged fruitflies that evolutionists point to as evidence of evolution. Mutations are never an improvement, and never increase the complexity of the organism. As in the case of the 4-winged fruitfly; the extra set of wings contribute to premature death.
Mutations in humans, just as in every other area of biology, cause birth defects: 400 diseases, hemophila, downs syndrome, etc..!
Environmentalists have been warning us about overpopulation, and Europe is below replacement level. Environmentalists warned about global starvation, and we’ve actually entered an era where farmers are paid to let their crops rot in the fields. Environmentalists warned us there was a coming Ice Age, and now they’ve made a complete turnaround, complaining about global warming.
Sorry, I don’t trust anything that Evolutionary Darwinian socialists like you have say; that’s what Hitler was, and he was an environmentalist, too, passing legislation to protect the Black Forest, and ordinances against smoking, just like today’s leftist.
Most of species listed in the Endangered Species Act are invertebrates, insects and plants.
Of the 338 animals listed as endangered, only 68 are mammals. The remaining include 62 types of clams, 24 types of snail, 36 types of insect and 74 types of fish.
When children send money to protect endangered species, we can sleep soundly knowing they are helping to save the purple bankclimber mussel, which has been listed as a federally protected endangered species since 1998.
In countries where there is little government interference, the natural environment is cleaner than in countries with controlled economies.
Liberals have been playing Chicken Little for decades. They predicted we’re running out of water. They were wrong. They said pollution levels would not fall. They were wrong. They claimed the population was growing so fast it would outstrip the world’s capacity to feed them. Wrong. They claimed that reserves of oil and fossil fuels would get used up. Wrong. Now, because temperatures aren’t living up to the global warming scare, they’ve changed it to ‘climate change’ because you can be sure the weather is going to change, and then, it’s something we have to spend government money to control.
How can anybody take you people seriously? Is it any wonder that leftists are more mentally unstable than conservatives? (actually I think the poll was Republican versus Democrat, but same difference.) Environmentalists always have this depressing doomsday scenario….it just varies slightly from decade to decade.
You know what’s bad for the environment? Policies designed to punish businesses and the economy.
There can be no clearer picture today than the idea of giving up our modern conveniences for the sake of threats that don’t exist. In Europe, where gas is over $6.00 a gallon, the taxes are still not high enough for the Greens. So the Greens here in America have little to complain about as far as the high price of oil. The oil companies make the same money whether it’s here or in Europe, yet, the European greens don’t complain about practically double the prices. That’s because they’re restricted with MORE TAXATION there. That seems to be their answer to everything; more government.
Sustained Development is an odd and twisted concept that is actually not what Greens are actually working for. Free trade promotes economic development, and CAN protect the natural environment, but the environmentalists are opposed to free trade, technology, and supposedly, globalization (except where it comes to global warming). They believe that globalization and free markets lead to exploiting our natural resources. But open markets do exactly the opposite; they help preserve resources and protect the environment. Open markets invite competition that leads to increasing peoples’ choices. This competition creates innovation, new ideas and new technologies, resulting in cleaner production. Recycling, smart residue management and disposal and increased waste management are far more visible now as a result of free markets and improved technologies. But environmentalists are not happy with this at all. They’d rather we went to live in teepees, cooked our food over open fires, and celebrated the Winter Solstice.
Globalization is a crucial instrument for economic and environmental improvement. Globalization can help developing countries with technologies they’d never dreamed of. You can see what’s happened with Afghanistan and Iraq in this area. India, for example, can use more developed technology to increase its agricultural yields. And if you can imagine an India self-sufficient in food production, I’ve made my point. Increasing their agricultural productivity could create a surplus for export. Imagine!
Sustainable development as proposed by environmentalists doesn’t allow for environmental or economic development at all. It would keep a developing country in a permanent state of limbo and hardship.
Human civilization has had “sustained development” for 3,000 years without following ‘sustainable development’ and the guidance of environmentalist planners. The result is -a world that is healthier and wealthier, despite their caterwauling. We live in a world with more natural resources at our disposal than ever before. “Sustainable development” as proposed by environmentalists, in fact, is unsustainable. In order to make the most of development, you must encourage that which increases economic growth and technological progress by means of open markets and capitalism.
The “sustainable development” advocates oppose commercial technology on the grounds that it degrades the environment. But the fact is, though, modern technologies improve the quality of the environment and economic health at the same time. There is no need to trade one for the other. Our natural resources are more abundant today because of the development of technologies, and here’s why: change, recycling, innovation and discovery of substitutes. Technology actually improves the effective supplies of our natural resources. Greater efficiency of fuel source use reduces the quantities we use of those resources. For example, the U.S. Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration says the amount of petroleum and natural gas necessary to produce a dollar’s worth of GDP has declined by 29% since 1980. Per unit of GDP, computers have reduced energy consumption by 1/3 in the last 25 years in the U.S.. Not as much steel is used to build bridges and manufacture cars because of CAD-CAM design systems. And these are just a few of the advantages that we have today because of modern technology which boosts economies.
Some people have confused the difference between rich and poor nations. They’ve missed a basic economic point: it’s not just that the rich nations have more than the poor nations, but that the rich nations produce more goods and services. The reason for that is – is they can do it because their technology is better. And so, basic economics 101 shows us that supply and demand works. Growth economies depend on increases in human knowledge, expressed through technological progress. Since the middle ages, technology has been one of the chief factors in determining economic growth and income. By the 1700’s, Europe was richer than other non-European economies, and technological progress was responsible for it.
Faster economic progress was a catalyst for encouraging the search and around the development of new technologies. Just as in the case for global warming today, things look bad when you take one section of time and don’t look at the entire picture. Technological progress has had environmental consequences, such as air and water pollution and deforestation, for the short term. But looking at the bigger picture, you can see the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Stroll down memory lane with me for a second and remember 16th century coal mining in Europe was overtaken by 19th century oil drilling. Coal mining and oil drilling saved forests that were being cut down for fuel, and whales that were being hunted for oil. The Italian academic Cesare Marchetti traced how man’s source of power has gradually moved from wood to coal to oil to gas during the last century-and-a-half. “Each of these fuels is successively richer in hydrogen and poorer in carbon than its predecessor, so we seem to be moving towards using pure hydrogen…” What an epiphany! The de-carbonization of the world economy, accompanied by a shift from dirty-to-cleaner technologies, because of improved technological developments, is occurring all by itself, without any political directives!
By the same token, giving our technologies away to socialist or communist “developing countries” that have no free markets is a prescription for failure as it is not teaching them self-reliance, or helping them to develop their own solutions, it just makes them more dependent on us, and in the end, lines the pockets of greedy dictators and bureacrats, and does nothing to improve their already starving economies.
Malaria Journal is “propaganda?” Centers for Disease Control, and the Wellcome Trust is “propaganda?”
Right. And I am Marie, the queen of Romania.
If you have the facts to refute the scientists, lay it out. The 30-year-old, misinterpreted citations from Gordon Edwards do not make current research “propaganda.”
Jonathan Weiner, The Beak of the Finch, a story of evolution in our time, Alfred A. Knopf 1994, pp. 254-255. The book won the Pulitzer Prize for general non-fiction in 1994.
Cao said:
That’s absolutely untrue. No genetics book, no genetics scientist would support such a claim. See previous post on mosquitoes — the B1 and B2 mutations both make a much stronger mosquito.
hehehe you’re a pest.
Hundreds of millions of people will soon perish in smog disasters in New York and Los Angeles…the oceans will die of DDT poisoning by 1979…the U.S. life expectancy will drop to 42 years by 1980 due to cancer epidemics.
– Paul Ehrlich, 1969 in Ramparts. (If the context at the end of the article is read very, very carefully, this one can be seen as a warning – not a flat prediction. Note the precision of the “42 years”.)
To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.
– Lamont Cole (as quoted by Elizabeth Whelan in her book Toxic Terror)
I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds.
– Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace (quoted in Access to Energy, Vol. 10, No. 4, Dec 1982)
The planet is about to break out with fever, indeed it may already have, and we [human beings] are the disease. We should be at war with ourselves and our lifestyles.
– Thomas Lovejoy, tropical biologist and assistant secretary to the Smithsonian Institution (quoted by David Brooks in The Wall Street Journal article, “Journalists and Others for Saving the Planet, 1989)
[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
– Stephen Schneider (quoted in Our Fragile Earth by Jonathan Schell)
Finch Beaks, by the way are another myth of evolutionists.
You’re getting to be quite reliable with the recycling of these lies.
Darwinism is materialist mythology.
I should now call you Trofrim Lysenko.
From Johnson’s “Darwinism is Materialist Mythology, Not Science”:
The root of the problem is that “science” has been given two contradictory definitions in modern culture. On the one hand, science refers to a method of investigation involving procedures like careful measurements and repeatable experiments. Science, by definition, requires investigators to maintain a skeptical attitude, insisting that all claims be carefully tested. That requirement of unbiased testing should extend to the central Darwinist claims that some combination of chance and physical law is sufficient to cause life to emerge spontaneously from non-living chemicals, and that the Darwinist mechanism of random genetic variation and natural selection is capable of designing complex organs such as brains and vision systems. There is no proof that natural selection-or any law/chance combination-has any of the creative power Darwinists claim for it
*snip*
The lack of proof should be enough to discredit Darwinism, except that the second definition of science comes to the theory’s rescue by dispensing the need for proof. Science has become identified with a philosophy known as materialism or naturalism. This philosophy insists that nature is all there is, and nature is made up of particles. It follows that matter had to do its own creating, and that the means of creation must not have included a role for anything outside of nature, such as a God. Scientists guided by this second definition are not permitted to approach materialism with open minds or skeptical questions, but must believe it on faith and consider no objections. If materialism is true, then something at least roughly like Darwinism must be true as a matter of logic, because materialist science has no other alternative. Scientific inquiry is limited to the details, because the fundamental points are all decided by defining “science” as applied materialist philosophy.
The reason the theory of evolution is so important to society is that it is the main scientific prop for a godless philosophy that either repudiates Christian theism or confines it to the marginal realm of subjective personal experience that has no standing as public knowledge. Students first learn to recite that “evolution is a fact” and then they gradually learn more and more about what that “fact” means. It means that all living things are the product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random variation. That means that God is out of the picture, and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe. It is futile for Christians to try to reconcile their faith with Darwinist claims by imagining that natural selection is God’s means of creating, because the claim that natural selection has creative power is derived not from the impartial testing of evidence, but from a materialist philosophy that excludes God by definition.
*snip*
Now the finch beaks story.
Here is one example of how real science is replaced by flim-flam. The standard textbook example of how natural selection involves a species of finches in the Galapagos, whose beaks have been measured over many years. In 1977 a drought killed most of the finches, and the survivors had beaks slightly larger than the previous average. The probable explanation was that the larger-beaked birds had an advantage in eating the last tough seeds that remained. A few years later, there was a flood, and after that, the average beak size went back to normal. Nothing new appeared, and there was no directional change of any kind. Nonetheless, that is the most impressive example of natural selection at work that the Darwinists have been able to find after nearly a century and a half of searching.
To make it look even better, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences removed some facts in its 1998 book on how to teach evolution. This version omits the flood year return-to-normal and encourages teachers to tell their pupils that a “new species of finch” might arise in 200 years if the initial trends towards increased beak size continued indefinitely. When our leading scientists have to resort to this sort of distortion, that would land a stock promoter in prison, you know there must be something wrong with their science.
If Darwinists wanted to teach scientific investigation rather than indoctrinate, they would encourage students to think about why, if natural selection has been continuously active in creating, the observed examples involve only very limited back-and-forth variation that doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. They also would acknowledge that the fossil record overall is difficult to reconcile with the steady process of gradual transformation as predicted by the neo-Darwinian theory. Given these problems and others, how impressive would the evidence for Darwinism look if we did not assume at the start that nature had to do its own creating, so a material creation mechanism simply has to exist regardless of the evidence? That is the kind of question that Darwinists don’t want to encourage students to ask, so they impose rules that make it effectively impossible to challenge their theory and hope the public never learns to see through the smokescreen.
The four-winged fruitflies were mutant and not able to survive. They can’t reproduce, can’t fly, and live shorter lives than regular fruit flies.
The peppered moth doesn’t even sit on tree trunks; they were placed there for a photo op.
In 1998, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne wrote: “From time to time, evolutionists re-examine a classic experimental study and find, to their horror, that it is flawed or downright wrong.” According to Coyne, the fact that peppered moths rarely rest on tree trunks “alone invalidates Kettlewell’s release-and-recapture experiments, as moths were released by placing them directly onto tree trunks.” Coyne concluded that this “prize horse in our stable of examples” of natural selection “is in bad shape, and, while not yet ready for the glue factory, needs serious attention” (Nature, Nov. 5, 1998).
The Fortes Finch beaks didn’t ‘improve’, they ‘evolved’ by staying the same. Great logic on that one.
Vestigial organs actually DO have a purpose. And so on. If there was so much scientific evidence, why do they use the same old has-been examples of what they’re talking about in textbooks to prop the myth?
That’s why I’m calling it a myth, the examples of ’science’ have all been disproven.
1. Origin of Life. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life’s building blocks may have formed on the early Earth—when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
2. Darwin’s Tree of Life. Why don’t textbooks discuss the “Cambrian explosion,” in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed, instead of branching from a common ancestor—thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
3. Homology. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry—a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?
4. Vertebrate Embryos. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry—even though biologists have known vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?
5. Archaeopteryx. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds—even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
6. Peppered Moths. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection—when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don’t normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?
7. Darwin’s Finches. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection—even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no evolution remained?
8. Mutant Fruit Flies. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution—even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
9. Human Origins. Why are artists’ drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident—when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?
10. Evolution a Fact? Why are we told that Darwin’s theory of evolution is a scientific fact—even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?
Key postulates of Darwin’s theory – universal common descent, the continuity of life, and transitions in the fossil record – have come under intense scientific scrutiny from a diverse array of fields, including molecular biology, developmental biology, genetics, biochemistry, and paleontology.
Some of Darwin’s failed predictions include:
• The failure of evolutionary biology to provide detailed evolutionary explanations for the origin of complex biochemical features
• The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution
• The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for universal common descent
• The failure of genetics and chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code
• The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development.
Source
cao said:
Fantastic! You’ve got the facts almost exactly wrong — and after chiding me for not providing you with citations that met your as-yet-undetermined criteria for satisfactory, you don’t provide a single citation there!
Johnson is not a reliable reporter on these issues.
1. Johnson has no original research — he’s summarizing the work of Rosemary and Peter Grant — the ornithologists who did the work — and their conclusions were that they had witnessed an event of profound natural selection, followed by sexual selection to seal the results. Their articles were published in several top-notch science journals. Johnson, oddly, never mentions where he gets his data. It appears he’s getting it without attribution from Jonathan Weiner’s book, The Beak of the Finch.
So all of Johnson’s claims are based on information he has at best third hand. He claims to know better than the people who were there. That’s highly unlikely.
2. It’s not exactly correct just to say that the drought killed “most” of the birds, though of course it did. The drought selectively killed birds. It was natural selection in action.
3. Survivors were the oldest in each of the three species. Not a single bird was born on the island in the year of the drought, at least none that made it out of the nest. Only one young fortis born the year before survived. The drought selected for older birds.
4. But beak shape and size seemed to be the criteria for selection. The measurements are described in detail on pages 77 and 78 of Weiner’s book (and in other research publications). It was one of the most intense episodes of natural selection ever recorded — a beak size difference of one half a millimeter was the line of demarcation.
5. There was no “flood” on Daphne Major (the island where these observations occur). Rains returned in normal amounts.
6. While 65% to 80% of the birds in each species perished, more females than males died. The sex ratios were skewed to about 6 to 1, males to females. Females had the pick of six males each. (This sets up sexual selection exactly as Darwin described it.)
7. Females did not select mates randomly, but instead picked the males most suited for getting through a drought, generally the largest of the large, the ones with the deepest beaks, the beaks most successful at getting food.
Weiner writes, in contrast to Johnsons completely unevidenced claim of a “return to previous conditions”:
(Weiner, p. 81)
As Weiner notes, the beaks were not just bigger, but bigger in specific ways — not longer, for example. A longer beak offered no advantage the multiple regression analysis showed.
8. The researchers reported a dramatic shift in bird characteristics that was cemented in place by sexual selection — there was no regression to the previous state as Johnson states.
Johnson got it exactly wrong.
But don’t take my word for it. Read the book for yourself. You’ll find yourself wondering just how Johson could have misread the book. Wishful thinking is a particularly powerful form of denial. Johnson seems to have caught that particular germ.
As to the scurrilous allegation that the National Academy of Sciences is hiding something, I challenge you to show any deleted material. I have copies of the book from 1998 onward, and except for minor typos being fixed, I can find no changes at all.
Here’s the URL of the book — be specific, tell us what parts the scientists deleted. I don’t want scurrilous allegations that are so fuzzy you don’t know what you’re talking about. Be specific: http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/
You’ll note that’s the second edition, so we’re pretty sure there were some changes. The challenge is to show that anything was removed. Since your claim is that the “flood year” was removed, and since we’ve read the passages from Weiner’s book and know there was never any “flood year,” your entire allegation appears to be based on completely misunderstood, or invented, claims.
You keep asking me to stick to the facts, Cao, just before you take off on a flight of whole cloth prevaricative fantasy. Standards are standards. Stick to ‘em, we’ll get to the bottom of these issues more easily, and probably much faster.
Have you read Weiner’s book? Have you even requested it from the library yet?
Nobody got anything wrong, but you.
But you can continue your malicious malignments, lol….
You’re not impressing me at the least.
the Darwinian theory of Evolution is a Victorian myth and people should be allowed to learn alternatives that allow scientific inquiry- since it’s a THEORY that has been disproven. They have come up with no new evidence; they keep recycling the old tired fraudulent dyed-to-match skulls, etc.
It is an antiquated theory.
Piltdown man’s skull was a fraud, just like the rest of the supposed ‘science’ they are using to back it up with. And altering the texts to take out the fact that the finches reverted back to their original state – demonstrates that the darwinist evolutionists are AFRAID.
I’m not going to read your propaganda, Lysenko.
Have you read about what happened to Lysenko? It’s going to happen to the Darwinists and the Rachel Carson followers, too, since none of that malarchy is based on scientific evidence; but materialist mythology.
Good luck with that, Lysenko!
Lysenko, of course, was opposed to evolution and Darwin. He, like modern creationists, proposed to keep Darwin out of classrooms by force of law.
Cao, your arguments are positively unholy.
Cao said:
I’m not sure what your point is on four-winged fruit flies. Fact is that a lot of insects have four wings, but most have two of them in the vestigial stage. I don’t think Jonathan Wells knows what he intended with that chapter — it’s almost totally irrelevant to evolution, even were it accurate on the genetics, which it apparently is not. See here:
http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/FourWingedFlies.html
Well, that’s wrong. Think about this hard: A tree has bark and leaves. Do the moths rest on leaves? Almost never. What’s left?
Wells’ claim is bizzarre, and contradicted by every — that’s right, every — scientist who has ever studied moths. Michael Majerus, the leading researcher on peppered moths today, released a paper this year exposing Jonathan Wells’ claims as false:
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/08/29/creationists-lose-key-texas-case/
And, that’s putting it politely. Check the references — every person Wells cites in his chapter on peppered moths has stated publicly that Wells is making the stuff up. In the most polite terms possible, they call Wells a liar.
Not a few, every one. Every single person Wells cites has publicly stated that Wells got it wrong.
Wells complains about the photographs of the moths — but the photographs were only done to show that moths look different than the bark of the tree, or that they look the same. The conditions under which the photographs were taken have absolutely no effect on the quality of the science, unless they were not peppered moths, and not trees.
Surely you could see that if you read Wells’ chapter, or any other publication on the moths, anywhere.
Coyne? Yeah, Coyne called for more research. But Coyne also called Wells a liar.
Here’s the full text of Coyne’s letter to the Pratt, Kansas, Tribune in December 2000:
In private, Coyne tends to be a little more forceful against Wells. Wells is a charlatan, in other words.
Cao, I resent your citing a known liar on this point. There is no scientist who has ever worked with moths who will support Wells, and no scientist who has ever published an article on this subject who will vouch for Wells’ bizarre, false and hoaxed views.
Refer to my previous post. You have this exactly wrong. Your source is misleading you, and as I quoted from Weiner’s book, you can see that the fortis beaks did, indeed, demonstrate natural selection in action, cemented by sexual selection — classic case of Darwinian evolution, observed in real time, in our lifetimes.
Why Phillip Johnson makes his bizarre claim against the Grants’ research, I don’t understand. The Grants are quite clear that they observed natural selection. Hundreds of scientists who have reviewed their papers in various journals agree. Dozens of scientists have reviewed their data, and they agree.
Johnson, after his stroke, from an armchair in an apartment in Berkeley, California, claims to take issue — but with no new data, no study of the old data, and nothing else to back his claims.
Stick with the truth, stick with the facts. Please.
If you have serious questions about the examples offered, why not state them? I’ve noted that the science is solid. Since the science is solid, since you can’t state any problem with the science, why not stick with it?
Stick with the truth — that’s a very good tactic. It’s the moral thing to do, as well as the scientific thing to do.
Why stick to the “same old” examples? Because anything else would be a lie.
You can’t cite any paper that disproves any of them. The best you can do is to cite a Moonie, known prevaricator, Jonathan Wells, whose writings on these topics have been repudiated by every scientist familiar with the data.
You’re calling it a myth because you don’t have any evidence to contradict it.
While complaining about my citations, not one of which you have ever questioned, we see the real problem: You don’t understand the science, and you don’t have anything accurate or honorable to support your bias.
Okay, since you don’t know how to clear your too-sensitive spam filters (they catch citations — or is that your plan?), here it is in parts:
Part I
Cao said:
I’m not sure what your point is on four-winged fruit flies. Fact is that a lot of insects have four wings, but most have two of them in the vestigial stage. I don’t think Jonathan Wells knows what he intended with that chapter — it’s almost totally irrelevant to evolution, even were it accurate on the genetics, which it apparently is not. See here:
http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/FourWingedFlies.html
See Part II
Part II
Well, that’s wrong. Think about this hard: A tree has bark and leaves. Do the moths rest on leaves? Almost never. What’s left?
Wells’ claim is bizarre, and contradicted by every — that’s right, every — scientist who has ever studied moths. Michael Majerus, the leading researcher on peppered moths today, released a paper this year exposing Jonathan Wells’ claims as false:
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/08/29/creationists-lose-key-texas-case/
(Continued in Part III)
Part III
And, that’s putting it politely. Check the references — every person Wells cites in his chapter on peppered moths has stated publicly that Wells is making the stuff up. In the most polite terms possible, they call Wells a liar.
Not a few, every one. Every single person Wells cites has publicly stated that Wells got it wrong.
Wells complains about the photographs of the moths — but the photographs were only done to show that moths look different than the bark of the tree, or that they look the same. The conditions under which the photographs were taken have absolutely no effect on the quality of the science, unless they were not peppered moths, and not trees.
Surely you could see that if you read Wells’ chapter, or any other publication on the moths, anywhere.
Coyne? Yeah, Coyne called for more research. But Coyne also called Wells a liar.
Here’s the full text of Coyne’s letter to the Pratt, Kansas, Tribune in December 2000, in which Coyne carefully explains how your citing him is in error, and how Jonathan Wells lied to you (and to everyone else):
In private, Coyne tends to be a little more forceful against Wells. Wells is a charlatan, in other words.
Cao, I resent your citing a known liar on this point. There is no scientist who has ever worked with moths who will support Wells, and no scientist who has ever published an article on this subject who will vouch for Wells’ bizarre, false and hoaxed views.
(See Part IV)
Part IV
Refer to my previous post quoting from Weiner’s book. You have this exactly wrong. Your source is misleading you, and as I quoted from Weiner’s book, you can see that the fortis beaks did, indeed, demonstrate natural selection in action, cemented by sexual selection — classic case of Darwinian evolution, observed in real time, in our lifetimes.
Why Phillip Johnson makes his bizarre claim against the Grants’ research, I don’t understand. The Grants are quite clear that they observed natural selection. Hundreds of scientists who have reviewed their papers in various journals agree. Dozens of scientists have reviewed their data, and they agree.
Johnson, after his stroke, from an armchair in an apartment in Berkeley, California, claims to take issue — but with no new data, no study of the old data, and nothing else to back his claims.
Stick with the truth, stick with the facts. Please.
If you have serious questions about the examples offered, why not state them? I’ve noted that the science is solid. Since the science is solid, since you can’t state any problem with the science, why not stick with it?
Stick with the truth — that’s a very good tactic. It’s the moral thing to do, as well as the scientific thing to do.
Why stick to the “same old” examples? Because anything else would be a lie.
You can’t cite any paper that disproves any of them. The best you can do is to cite a Moonie, known prevaricator, Jonathan Wells, whose writings on these topics have been repudiated by every scientist familiar with the data.
You’re calling it a myth because you don’t have any evidence to contradict it.
While complaining about my citations, not one of which you have ever questioned, we see the real problem: You don’t understand the science, and you don’t have anything accurate or honorable to support your bias.
May the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Christmas Yet To Be, all grace you with enlightenment, fact, and the ability to grow in your understanding.
IHS,
Wow, you are stalking me. It’s amusing to me that what I’m saying here is bothering you so much….your insistence that I pay attention to you reminds me of a child beating his spoon on his high chair.
Yet, if I’m not mistaken, you are an adult. So please. Act like one.
I am clearly not interested in your propaganda, Lysenko. I have said it numerous times, because I understand your seemingly endless spew– the tired old and antiquated ideas that fueled the regimes of Trotsky, Hitler and Stalin (among others).
Since history proved that they’re on the wrong side of history, so it follows that you are, too.
Poor Rachel Carson…no heaven and no hell. A dead woman with no soul…
And by the way, it’s almost Christmas so if you’ll excuse me, I have things to attend to…
Harmful philosophies based on evolution
1. Communism
2. Nazism
3. Racism
4. Imperialism
5. Atheism
6. Humanism
7. Materialism
8. Amoralism
9. Scientism
10. Pantheism
11. Monopolism
12. Anarchism
13. Occultism
14. Social Darwinism
15. Behaviorism
16. Freudianism
Evil practices based on evolution
1. abortion
2. drug culture
3. promiscuity
4. eugenics
5. pornography
6. genocide
7. chauvinism
8. New-Agism
9. euthanasia
10. pollution
11. bestiality
12. Satanism
13. homosexuality
14. criminality
15. cannibalism
16. witchcraft
The wags are right: It’s impossible to parody science illiteracy.
Wives and Girlfriends of the English National Football team?
Sometimes you make absolutely no sense when you talk gibberish.
That’s why it’s almost like trying to translate from a different language.
Is your first language English? It certainly doesn’t seem that way. You’re from another planet…
I know you like to poke fun at people who don’t believe as you do; it’s something the evolutionary darwinian socialists of the Lysenko’s stripe all have in common. They even killed people who disagreed. Thank God it hasn’t come to that yet, lol
You completely flatter yourself, LOL…is that because you’re not getting enough attention?
This guy is “over the top”!!! Sheesh!!!
You see, bathtub boy, she’s talking about you; although we already know you have an overinflated sense of yourself.
You see, Cao, you out yourself when you call silly names instead of making note of the information.
Just for the record, let it show that when we post the actual scientists noting the false claims of your sources, you had no response.
I can’t speak for Cao, you bleeding twit, but I can speak for myself.
Shut the hell up and stop stalking this woman.
Well, Lysenko, I think you’ve made one serious error here, and that is in thinking that I’m your bitch.
This blog doesn’t exist for your troll droppings in my comments section, and my sole purpose in life isn’t to do as you say.
Some guy once said, “There are no victims; only volunteers.”
I think you’re a badly misinformed person. Profanity never entered my mind.
Guess what? I don’t care what you think.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
The truth about Rachel Carson: Use of Pesticides, The Report of the President’s Science Advisory Council