Evolution will no longer be taught in Turkish schools

I never said macro evolution doesn't select from existing genes. Where did you get that idea from? The distinction betweenmicro and macro is that one ONLY selects from pre-existing genes/traits where the other not only selects from pre-existing genes but creates entirely new ones through "mutation".



It's not just the mutation of existing genes but mutation that leads to new and more complex features and functions. We've seen genes mutate and degrade already existing features and functions but have we ever seen genes mutate and form new ones?


Yes we have and the fossil record shows it. You're not going to see a single generation jump to something entirely new. That's not how evolution works. Small adaptations and mutations add up over extreme periods of time to show something that looks entirely new.

And this distinction you're talking about between macro and micro only exists in your head. That's not the science you're arguing against. It's something retarded you're making up so you can argue about evolution.

Evolution has been occurring for billions of years already. Most of the biological systems you see now are the result of that. Nature adapts to its environment. I'd enjoy hearing you explain the extensive fossil record and why it shows transition fossils
 
If the right-wing would realize they have a lot in common with Muslims and stopped thuer islamaphobia then the Muslims probably would vote R. But then again it's R presidents that love bombing their home lands.
Is that what you would like to see happen? I am certainly happy with letting the middle east settle its own differences instead of us getting in the middle of it.
 
Is that what you would like to see happen? I am certainly happy with letting the middle east settle its own differences instead of us getting in the middle of it.

I've said over and over I support a hands off policy with the ME. Stop with the regime change and policing.

And Muslims and the GOP are both groups bursting with conservative religious folk. At the end if the day a Muslim has more politically and philosophically in common than a Muslim and a liberal.
 
Islamism isn't mutually exclusive to the Kurdish Ethnic identity the way secular Turkish nationalism is as evidenced by the fact that the Kurds were a key part of Erdogan's base. That said Islamism also isn't mutually exclusive to Turkish nationalism but Erdogan is frequently leaning on a pan-Islamic identity that includes the Arabs in his international posture.

Yes I know but Ethnicity is a very important aspect to Kurds, and reading the news it appears Ethnicity is more important to them than Islamism. Can't recal the name: there was a famous Kurdish leader who said he was a Kurd 1st and Muslim 2nd.

Erdogan's Pan-islamism will seek to subsume Kurds under the Islamist umbrella but this will never work because Erdogan will try and downplay the Kurd's ethnic identity in favor of a Pan-Islamic identity with Turks on top. The Kurds had a falling out with Erdogan over Turkish support for Jihadis and the current Turkish government attempts to harass Kurdish politicians.


9/10 you should fear a military leadership more than a civilian one. They're in the business of killing and they do it well as the Kurds in the 90s found out. Erdogan has purged the military and police forces to a point where they're arguably at they're weakest ever, that means it's more difficult to wield them against the citizenry. All that BS about this or that law being passed doesn't matter if the guys with guns can't do their jobs to enforce it and similarly it doesn't matter what's on paper if the guys with guns want to kill Kurds.

But a civilian leadership on the path towards more Islamic cultural hegemony will harass citizens in everyday life too ; look at Pakistan and how Islamists use Blashphemy laws to persecute minorities. Turkey is not like Pakistan but slowly gradually the Islamic cultural chauvinists are gaining ground. When Mursi took power, he started to change the laws and stack government posts with Islamists. Discrimination and marginalization of Copts increased . When Sisi deposed Mursi, he was softer on the Copts, as long as they didn't oppose him.
 
Yes I know but Ethnicity is a very important aspect to Kurds, and reading the news it appears Ethnicity is more important to them than Islamism. Can't recal the name: there was a famous Kurdish leader who said he was a Kurd 1st and Muslim 2nd.
Some Kurds are like that but many are not. Thepolitician you're thinking of is of the Kurdish nationalist party but most Kurds vote AKP.
Erdogan's Pan-islamism will seek to subsume Kurds under the Islamist umbrella but this will never work because Erdogan will try and downplay the Kurd's ethnic identity in favor of a Pan-Islamic identity with Turks on top. The Kurds had a falling out with Erdogan over Turkish support for Jihadis and the current Turkish government attempts to harass Kurdish politicians.
He doesn't have to downplay their ethnicity, if anything he allowed them to express it more by relaxing restrictions on their use of the Kurdish language. His current problem stems from his concern in stemming Kurdish insurgency which he sees as emboldened by the Syrian Civil War and he's right. Its similar to Israel's worries with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
But a civilian leadership on the path towards more Islamic cultural hegemony will harass citizens in everyday life too ; look at Pakistan and how Islamists use Blashphemy laws to persecute minorities. Turkey is not like Pakistan but slowly gradually the Islamic cultural chauvinists are gaining ground. When Mursi took power, he started to change the laws and stack government posts with Islamists. Discrimination and marginalization of Copts increased . When Sisi deposed Mursi, he was softer on the Copts, as long as they didn't oppose him.
Pakistan is dominated by its army and intelligence apparatus so that's an example that proves my point, not yours. If civilian leadership was stronger it'd be less of a shit hole .

Sisi is another example that proves my point. He's killed and jailed far more than Morsi and did so in just a few months of taking office.
 
It's a war of ideas brah
graduation.gif
 
Why? Turkey was one of the more secular countries in the Muslim world. It was more secular than the US in some ways and even Iran teaches evolution and they're not secular at all.
Well, to what extent this was true in the recent past is somewhat debatable. I mean for an external observer who goes through a 'secularism & moderatism checklist', yes.
But Turkey as a moderate, modern Muslim nation par excellence always has been an illusion, one which Western politicians lend themselves to because it was what they wanted to see.
Turkey received massive development aids which were crucial for the country and enjoyed good relationships with Europe, despite ongoing violations of human rights when it comes to basic things like freedom of press/assembly/speech etc. Tourism from Europe alone was responsible for up to 8% of their jobs and 11% of Turkey's GDP. Let alone the advantages of international trade, foreign aid, or simply advice on economics etc. That's worth a lot. And if it means you have to fulfill some criteria on a checklist, it is what it is.

But even during that time, there were a lot of red flags. A good example would be Turkey sponsoring radical Muslim Organizations and Islamic schools in Europe which teach anything but secularism, liberalism or Western values. You're probably familiar with Erdogan quotes like: "Democracy is only a train which we'll use until we achieved our goals [...] The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers" but also: "Similarly, gender-equality, supremacy of law, political participation, civil society, and transparency are among the indispensable elements that are the imperatives of democratization.”
depending on what he wants others to believe. It's similar to Putin saying something in an interview in front of the international press.
We even saw this kind of behavior after the failed coup. Before his referendum, he insulted half of Europe as Nazis and was basically threatening war, pandering to his proud, somewhat-nationalist and religious supporters. After he won (and that obviously was at a point where he already fired and imprisoned thousands of policemen, soldiers, professors, teachers etc) he suddenly talked about improving and normalizing relationships to European friends, about maybe talking to Merkel and blatantly asked/begged for a continuation of development aid from Germany.
 
That's a good thing.
You don't want a nation like today's Turkey under the reign of Erdogan (and his successors which will be in alignment with his ideas) to become too powerful.
Systematically making your own people less educated is one little aspect working in favor of that.


Good the Dumber they are the better its easier to Defeat Dumb nations
 
Yeah increased religiosity and Islamism will lead to dumbing down of the population and a brain drain , which will hurt Turkey's technological ascent.

Yup No Ottoman Space Program and no Terks in Space!!
 
So I guess we're in for a 40 page TCK evolution thread again. I guess its been a while since we've had one of these...


It is actually hillarious it is out sheer morbid curiosity I still read their posts about evolusion.
 
Well, to what extent this was true in the recent past is somewhat debatable. I mean for an external observer who goes through a 'secularism & moderatism checklist', yes.
But Turkey as a moderate, modern Muslim nation par excellence always has been an illusion, one which Western politicians lend themselves to because it was what they wanted to see.
Turkey received massive development aids which were crucial for the country and enjoyed good relationships with Europe, despite ongoing violations of human rights when it comes to basic things like freedom of press/assembly/speech etc. Tourism from Europe alone was responsible for up to 8% of their jobs and 11% of Turkey's GDP. Let alone the advantages of international trade, foreign aid, or simply advice on economics etc. That's worth a lot. And if it means you have to fulfill some criteria on a checklist, it is what it is.
I didn't say moderate, I said secular and that's not the same thing. The Soviet Union was secular but not many call that a moderate regime. Turkey was not quite on that level of secularism but they were very secular. Until the AKP came to power hijabs were banned from universities, that's not a law that would even hold up in the US.
 
Until the AKP came to power
Ok, I didn't follow your discussion, I just read your isolated post.
That was 15 years ago, I was mainly talking about Turkey since then, with Erdogan signaling the willingness to respect Western values, including secularism but also working both sides of the street.
 
Ok, I didn't follow your discussion, I just read your isolated post.
That was 15 years ago, I was mainly talking about Turkey since then, with Erdogan signaling the willingness to respect Western values, including secularism but also working both sides of the street.
Political double talk is hardly unique to him. That comment on democracy is pretty troubling though. Its one thing for Hillary Clinton to pander to bankers with banker friendly private speeches but who is Erdogan pandering to when he shows his disdain of democracy? Either there's a demographic that was directed to that would appreciate that or it truly does illustrate a belief of his and neither alternative is comforting.
 
Some Kurds are like that but many are not. Thepolitician you're thinking of is of the Kurdish nationalist party but most Kurds vote AKP.

He doesn't have to downplay their ethnicity, if anything he allowed them to express it more by relaxing restrictions on their use of the Kurdish language. His current problem stems from his concern in stemming Kurdish insurgency which he sees as emboldened by the Syrian Civil War and he's right. Its similar to Israel's worries with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Pakistan is dominated by its army and intelligence apparatus so that's an example that proves my point, not yours. If civilian leadership was stronger it'd be less of a shit hole .

Sisi is another example that proves my point. He's killed and jailed far more than Morsi and did so in just a few months of taking office.
Reading current News and recalling News from the early 00s , I get the distinct impression that Kuridsh identity is the major issue for Kurds.

He (Erdogan) gave them some carrots to win their votes and ascend to power. His quote from many years ago on Democrasy being a train , shows his true colors. Now that he is in power, he doesn't need to give the Kurds as big a carrot . You can't deny that there has been a huge falling out between him and the Kurds. At the end of the day how is Turkish Pan-Islamism going to reconcile itself with Kurdish identity. Islamism sees no borders and eshews ethnic nationalism (in theory atleast). Do you think he is really going to allow the Kurds to attain more power and autonomy over their affairs? Erdogan is nostalgic for the Ottoman empire days, so how is he going to go along with Kurdish aspirations since Kurdish self-identity will clash with Turkish hegemony.

Yes Pak is run by the security appratus but the day to day life where minorities are kidnapped by Muslims and where they are accused of blasphemy is under the jurisdiction of the civilian government that is officially running the country. I am not saying the Military is opposed to Sunni extremist groups and Islamism, because it was Zia after all who really started down the path of Islamist chavinist thinking. What I am saying is that even the civilian government supports it or is indifferent. So be it Military dictatorship or Civilian, it doesn't matter. A military dictatorship that genuinely wants to protect minorities can do a better job of it than a civilian government.

Yes Sisi has killed more than Mursi but Sisi has moved against the Jihadis too . Mursi's tyranny would have been disenfranchising Copts steadly through laws and turning a blind eye to Muslim thugs bullying them. With Sisi, as long as you don't cross him, he will keep the lid on Islamists.
 
Reading current News and recalling News from the early 00s , I get the distinct impression that Kuridsh identity is the major issue for Kurds.

He (Erdogan) gave them some carrots to win their votes and ascend to power. His quote from many years ago on Democrasy being a train , shows his true colors. Now that he is in power, he doesn't need to give the Kurds as big a carrot . You can't deny that there has been a huge falling out between him and the Kurds. At the end of the day how is Turkish Pan-Islamism going to reconcile itself with Kurdish identity. Islamism sees no borders and eshews ethnic nationalism (in theory atleast). Do you think he is really going to allow the Kurds to attain more power and autonomy over their affairs? Erdogan is nostalgic for the Ottoman empire days, so how is he going to go along with Kurdish aspirations since Kurdish self-identity will clash with Turkish hegemony.
I can't deny that there has been a falling out but what I'm saying is that has more to do with the political circumstances rather than an inherent incompatibility between the Islamism of the AKP and Kurdish nationalism unlike between Turkish and Kurdish nationalism. I don't think Erdogan would accept the Kurdish nationalists because he's an authoritarian who is intolerant of his opposition but that stems more from the history of authoritarianism in Turkish politics going back to Ataturk than it does his Islamism. On paper the Islamic identity could be a far better basis for reconciliation that a Turkish one because the latter denies and erases the Kurdish identity while the former doesn't necessarily.
Yes Pak is run by the security appratus but the day to day life where minorities are kidnapped by Muslims and where they are accused of blasphemy is under the jurisdiction of the civilian government that is officially running the country. I am not saying the Military is opposed to Sunni extremist groups and Islamism, because it was Zia after all who really started down the path of Islamist chavinist thinking. What I am saying is that even the civilian government supports it or is indifferent. So be it Military dictatorship or Civilian, it doesn't matter. A military dictatorship that genuinely wants to protect minorities can do a better job of it than a civilian government.
So great, the military government in Pakistan doesn't even protect the minorities while also using violence to prevent the establishment of a strong civilian control of government. You're saying if they want to protect minorities they can do it better but in this case they don't so its not even an example proving your point. Even if a civilian government is ineffective in the short term, in the long term its ineffectiveness relative to the military can provide more space for opposition movements to start and grow.
Yes Sisi has killed more than Mursi but Sisi has moved against the Jihadis too . Mursi's tyranny would have been disenfranchising Copts steadly through laws and turning a blind eye to Muslim thugs bullying them. With Sisi, as long as you don't cross him, he will keep the lid on Islamists.
That doesn't contradict my point at all. You yourself are saying that Morsi was less likely to resort to violence against his opponents than Sisi which was my point to begin with. And yes, Sisi only visits violence upon you if you cross him but crossing him means challenging him in any way, which is why its not just the Islamists who feel his wrath but any opposition to his rule. He and Morsi are a perfect example of the dynamic I was citing earlier, about how its better to live under civilian rule than military rule because of how much more willing and effectively military governments use violence.

And its not as if Morsi didn't want to move against the jihadists, he just needed the military to do so but was highly skeptical of them at the same time which made the task much harder. And of course he was right to be skeptical of them given how things turned out in the end.
 
I can't deny that there has been a falling out but what I'm saying is that has more to do with the political circumstances rather than an inherent incompatibility between the Islamism of the AKP and Kurdish nationalism unlike between Turkish and Kurdish nationalism. I don't think Erdogan would accept the Kurdish nationalists because he's an authoritarian who is intolerant of his opposition but that stems more from the history of authoritarianism in Turkish politics going back to Ataturk than it does his Islamism. On paper the Islamic identity could be a far better basis for reconciliation that a Turkish one because the latter denies and erases the Kurdish identity while the former doesn't necessarily.

Erdogan is also a Turkish Nationalist , not like the Kemalists and the secular Military but nonetheless a Turkish nationalist. He wants to recapture as much as possible of the glory days when Turks ruled vast swaths of the region. Now infamous, is the below picture of him descending the flight of stairs flaked by men in Ottoman period warrior attire.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/abbas-erdogan-16-warriors-turkish-presidential-palace


" Turkey’s New Maps Are Reclaiming the Ottoman Empire"
"Erdogan’s aggressive nationalism is now spilling over Turkey’s borders, grabbing land in Greece and Iraq."

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/23...tionalists-want-ottoman-borders-iraq-erdogan/

One can push Pan-Islamic or Islamic hegemony and still be an ethnonationalist. The Saudis are a perfect example of this, because they use Salafism/Wahhabism to increase Saudi power and influence.

Kurds can like more Islamist hegemony and still push for Kurdish self-interest. They are going to clash with Erdogan's Turkish Islamism

So great, the military government in Pakistan doesn't even protect the minorities while also using violence to prevent the establishment of a strong civilian control of government. You're saying if they want to protect minorities they can do it better but in this case they don't so its not even an example proving your point. Even if a civilian government is ineffective in the short term, in the long term its ineffectiveness relative to the military can provide more space for opposition movements to start and grow.

I am saying that between the Civilian government and the Military/ISI junta , the later is far better positioned to safeguard minorities. Neither one cares. Whichever one shows a genuine interest in protecting minorities is the one the West should support. I do prefer a civilian government for every nation, but democrasy in the Muslim world can end up being majoritarian tyranny. With Egypt, for the short term atleast, it looks like Sisi is better for the Copts than Mursi would have been.

That doesn't contradict my point at all. You yourself are saying that Morsi was less likely to resort to violence against his opponents than Sisi which was my point to begin with. And yes, Sisi only visits violence upon you if you cross him but crossing him means challenging him in any way, which is why its not just the Islamists who feel his wrath but any opposition to his rule. He and Morsi are a perfect example of the dynamic I was citing earlier, about how its better to live under civilian rule than military rule because of how much more willing and effectively military governments use violence.

And its not as if Morsi didn't want to move against the jihadists, he just needed the military to do so but was highly skeptical of them at the same time which made the task much harder. And of course he was right to be skeptical of them given how things turned out in the end.

Mursi, if he wasn't deposed, would have kept filling government positions with Brotherhood members and Islamist thugs would have been more embolden to attack Copts. Assad is a thug but the Christian minorities support him or atleast do not oppose him. Yes Sisi will not allow any opposition and goes after non-Islamists too but between him and Mursi, my perception is that he is better for the Copts than Mursi would have been. Now having said that I think the US should not support him, and should force him to respect human rights.[/QUOTE]
 
It's amazing how he takes a beating in every evolution thread but keeps coming back for more.

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but I'm almost convinced that his ultimate goal is to help people learn about biology by posting ridiculous garbage so people will correct him.
the most incredible thing about him is that he actually thinks he wins all these arguments. He leaves these threads with a smug sense of satisfaction that he used "critical thinking" to outwit delusional science worshippers.
 
the most incredible thing about him is that he actually thinks he wins all these arguments. He leaves these threads with a smug sense of satisfaction that he used "critical thinking" to outwit delusional science worshippers.
Totally agree.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,251
Messages
55,267,663
Members
174,714
Latest member
cartoonq123
Back
Top