What's up everyone. We are doing a contest with T.I. and we are giving away $1200 a day for the next 10 days. Just wanted to give you all a heads up.
https://www.allhiphop.com/ti

The Scientific Method Applied To Evolution...

alissowackalissowack Members Posts: 1,930 ✭✭✭
Just wondering about people's thoughts to this video. This guy challenges people who support evolution to name one observable instance in evolution where one kind of species becomes a different kind of species.

«13456

Comments

  • Ajackson17Ajackson17 On the shoulders of Giants and Elders in history UniverseMembers Posts: 22,501 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Of course it's not observable in one lifetime and I seen this argument a while ago. We have fossil records, dna records, observable with bacteria and viruses. The fight is weak for creationism and it's logical for evolution.
  • alissowackalissowack Members Posts: 1,930 ✭✭✭
    The guy asked as well about the observation of bacteria and viruses as well and to his dissatisfaction the response to it is that the bacteria remained as bacteria...it didn't become something different. I don't think the questions presented were to smuggle in Creationism. It is to say that even the evolutionists display faith.
  • wharwhar Members Posts: 347 ✭✭✭
    Here is a page of observed speciations

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

    Here is an other page

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

    The common person does accept evolution on 'faith' but it is much different than religious faith. It goes like this

    1. I believe in the scientific method to produce true results
    2. Evolution was produced by the scientific method
    3. Evolution is a true result.

    The difference between this type of faith and religious faith is the common person can completely eliminate. He or she can go to school and study the subject. Confront the evidence supporting evolution and reach their own conclusion.
  • alissowackalissowack Members Posts: 1,930 ✭✭✭
    From watching the video, I see that I misrepresented it...and maybe if this video was watched it could be seen that I misrepresented it badly. The guy was trying to get people to name one instance in which Darwin Evolution can be observed and tested where one kind of animal can become a totally different animal...like a dinosaur to a bird or ape to man.
  • Ajackson17Ajackson17 On the shoulders of Giants and Elders in history UniverseMembers Posts: 22,501 ✭✭✭✭✭
    alissowack wrote: »
    From watching the video, I see that I misrepresented it...and maybe if this video was watched it could be seen that I misrepresented it badly. The guy was trying to get people to name one instance in which Darwin Evolution can be observed and tested where one kind of animal can become a totally different animal...like a dinosaur to a bird or ape to man.

    Yeah that is totally impossible lol. He makes good points to the uneducated about this subject. Some scientists are gunho and there are some weaknesses that's why the scientific method needs to be employed to get the best objective truth.
  • zombiezombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    i don't have a problem with evolution.
  • luke1733luke1733 Members Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2014
    I guess I'm most likely to try and take over someone else's posts. Go ahead and give me my WTF's, I need some more but here we go. If you can't take these 1st thoughts read my last thoughts and let it be. They're in my last post titled Last thoughts. I write too much and can't really expect anyone to read this much.

    Evolution is faith based. As much as things do mutate, evolution doesn't state mutations, it tries to say new species and that is where I have a problem.....it then goes ahead and incorporates mutations when it's convenient. Humans can mutate to have 6 fingers if we allowed people with 6 fingers to have a lot of children and preferred it, but that is not evolution. A mixed race can develop as a result of two distinct races coming together. That is not evolution. Mutations are what is already in your body and isn't activated, thus lies dormant in your genes. I see evolution as something that never was in you like a human with wings and then it is in you (speciation). There are plenty of mutations and cancers inside the human body.
  • luke1733luke1733 Members Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2014
    whar wrote: »
    Here is a page of observed speciations

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

    Here is an other page

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

    The common person does accept evolution on 'faith' but it is much different than religious faith. It goes like this

    1. I believe in the scientific method to produce true results
    2. Evolution was produced by the scientific method
    3. Evolution is a true result.

    The difference between this type of faith and religious faith is the common person can completely eliminate. He or she can go to school and study the subject. Confront the evidence supporting evolution and reach their own conclusion.

    your #3. Evolution is a true result??? This is where I would like you to clarify evolution or mutation? Again, mutations are what are already in your body cells and lay dormant or inactive for thousands of years or hundreds and one day can become active; usually in the form of diseases and cancers. The original is usually if not always the most superior. My main argument here is to say a species can mutate, but is limited in his mutations to what are in his cells. Again, a human cannot mate with a chimpanzee thus there can be NO, none, not any ability for a human therefore to mutate from or into a chimpanzee. Mutations of species STOP where one species is incapable of sexing the other.

    But, to stay on point it is the "theory of the evolution of man," that is my central concern. It was a race to find out where man came from with the purpose of putting Negroes close to monkeys. This was before any evolution theory came out, and it was the purpose of the King (whose name I'll find soon cause it slips my mind now off the top of my head- I believe it was the man who Huxley was trying to impress) to award any scientist who can find any proof to showing Blacks came from monkeys. The search went on for years and many people tried to convince the king and then the king just gave up and found a monkey skull of a monkey that hadn't been seen before and said this was and would be the "PROOF" that now you and a million other people now have FAITH in. Even when the skull was found other scientists disagreed and said it was just a monkey, but because they couldn't find any evidence the committee supported this find and MADE it the evidence.
    But, because you probably don't know this fact you innocently accept faith in racism as fact. Now, that's the hard truth of where and why Evolution first came into being massively promoted and distributed around the world as a truth.
    Now let's get to your #1 and your #2. I repeat it is not mutations I have a problem with. That is fact through diseases proven. It is that from a fish comes a human being and from a chimpanzee comes a man or from wolf comes every single dog you see and all the different rules of law and orders that each species follows that another doesn't. Deer eat grass and don't hunt squirrels.
  • luke1733luke1733 Members Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2014
    Since I'm longwinded and everyone/including myself has a short attention span, my main point is this:
    You haven't seen the fossils that you have FAITH in. Very few people in the world have, like 99% hasn't. MOST likely you look at something on the internet and want to believe in what some scientist is telling you. THIS IS the very definition of FAITH-belief in evidence/something not seen.
    You HAVE FAITH in that because you haven't seen it. Now, to your #2. Scientific method???? Their methods change every 20 years due to mistakes (I'll list their mistakes). One time they say a bone is 100,000 years old then they find out it was only 200 years old. Most of the time police and forensics can't even tell the exact date a person died from 30 years ago on bone alone from 100 years ago, yet we are to believe when they calculate 2 million years ago differences from 600,000 years ago or a BILLION??? I've read how they deduce carbon and oxygen levels from bone, and use methane (I'll later discuss the problems with methane)and the 3 other methods they use.
    your #1, #2, and #3 hold no difference to truth as evidence versus anyone that has faith in elves because midget bones exist. [/i]


  • luke1733luke1733 Members Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2014
    28 problems that aren't my ideas, the 29th is, but point that I agree with are problems with your proof of the THEORY,THEORY of evolution (as it pertains to speciation/ meaning A man comes from a fish, or a chimpanzee, or the Big Bang Theory.)
    1. The contention that variations within a species due to natural selection or survival of the fittest is proof of one species turning into another species.
    2. The peppered moth hoax with peppered moths glued onto tree trunks that they don't land on, especially during the daytime when birds can see them.
    3. The Piltdown man in which the jaw of an orang-utan was attached to a human skull determined by carbon dating to be a thousand years old, after the jaw was stained with potassium dichromate to look old and the teeth were filed down to resemble human teeth.
    4. The Miller-Urey methane, ammonia and carbon dioxide experiment in which non-living amino acid (a chemical compound) was produced in a methane atmosphere that never existed on earth. Methane is the result of methanogenic bacteria feeding on dead plants and animals in an anaerobic environment.
    5. The skeletons of completely different mammals that lived at different times, even after the horse, lined up in size to look like the "evolution of the horse".
    6. Ernst Haeckel's speculation that human embryos have gills and his drawings of embryos made to look like an embryo could randomly evolve into a chicken, a human, a fish, turtle or a salamander. http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro06.html
    7. The misconception that a computer had simulated the evolution of the eye.
    8. The arrangement of fossils to make it look like one species evolved into another.
    9. A single tooth from a wild pig used to perpetrate the belief that Nebraska man was the entire missing link between monkeys and humans.
    10. The Orce man in which a skull fragment drawn to what a "17 year old man" looked like 900,000 to 1,600,000 years ago which was probably from a four month old donkey. http://www.columbia.edu/itc/anthropology/v1007/castro/tsld006.htmhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_orce.html
    11. The belief that Neanderthal, a skilled human of the past who believed in afterlife, was a skilled surgeon and hunter but who was really an ordinary human with arthritis and rickets.
    12. The Java man combined from a femur found fifty feet away from a skullcap and three teeth found a year later with two human skulls found in the same area.
    13. The denial that almost all living things appeared at once during the so-called "Cambrian" period, a period originally believed to be 530-520 million years ago, that is now scientifically proven when creation science discovered radio halo fission tracks in rocks, residual helium and residual 14C proven to have occurred during an accelerated radioactive decay period 6000 years ago.
    14. The claim that Archaeopteryx, a perfect flying bird had reptilian features. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/471
    15. The false belief that living creatures have vestigial organs such the appendix and coccyx (tail bone) that are no longer used. It is now known that the appendix excretes a lubricant into the intestines. The coccyx is now known to provide an attachment for nine muscles, such as the gluteus maximus and 🤬 sphincter, and as a shock absorber when humans sit down. The muscle attached to the coccyx is also necessary for defecation. Tonsils protect against throat infections.
    16. Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection established the false belief that mutations prove evolution even though mutants are always deformed, sterile and/or sickly, and any progeny that occur always revert back to the original species.
    17. The belief that similar organs in different species are evidence of evolution.
    18. The lie that brontosaurus, a dinosaur's skeleton combined with a skull found four miles away, actually existed. http://www.unmuseum.org/dinobront.htm
    19. The Scopes trial that resulted in separation of church and state was perpetrated by actors, including the famous lawyers William Jennings Bryan, Clarence Darrow and the ACLU with a pre-planned purpose of outlawing once and for all the teaching of creation theories in secular schools.45
    20. The order of all living things is the accidental result of punctuated equilibrium.
    21. The non-existence of eyeballs on the bottom of feet or behind skulls and skin without openings, and of cats with wings on their noses and tails is because they did not survive; and obviously, only beneficial accidents are capable of making fossils.
    22. The universe was created by a collapsing star and rotates. And like super-cooled liquids, the rotation causes random swirls which are our galaxies. This falsehood and apparent chaos explains the harmony and order in everything that we behold.
    23. The speed of light
    24. Black holes
    25. Antimatter
    26. The evolution of cells and DNA molecules.
    27. The Ice Age protected bacteria while they evolved into animals! (4,350 years ago?).
    28. The list goes on in the battle of creation vs. evolution. Just look up evolution on the Internet, and you will be entertained for a long time.
    29. Big Bang Theory is one event. Yet somehow this one event that creates one cell, somehow happens twice??Makes no sense. Why twice? Because male and female are separate so basically one cell that makes man should stop there, not big bang again and then female or for no reason self-replicate and create female although male was enough.,
    Whatever year the change/evolution/speciation change happens, that's the time it happens. Thus, when a snake gives birth to a bear (i know it doesn't state this but in essence it might as well if all species of life comes from one), it doesn't matter that it happened a billion years ago. We should see it happening by now.
    Instead every species is 100% born from its own species and none other. Thus, the evidence proves that species do not give birth to different species.EVER

  • luke1733luke1733 Members Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2014
    My last thoughts:
    1. What is the evidence for evolution? Most fossilized hominid remains are little more than scattered fragments of bone. So you base your whole faith on a few teeth or an arm bone or half of a jaw??? Basically, since you probably don't know that-that is what's been found when they try to say they found the missing link between man and ape, then I'm telling you that this is what your science is using as proof of manape. Yes it is.

    2. Why did Darwin's theory of evolution and Lamarck's theory of transmutation and Wallace at the same time-- just-so-happen to be looking for the human's missing link if the theory of evolution wasn't already being pushed?
    Ahhh……

    3. Who pushed it? Who was the Darwin before Darwin and Wallace? Thomas Henry Huxley. A racist among his X club, determined around the 1840's to prove humans were closely related to apes and that blacks were closest to apes, thus lowest on the evolutionary scale. He financed anyone who would go to find or create a believable (lie) proof that he would then take to the science committees and have it be the greatest find of the century so that he could impress the atheist Charles Kingsley and Asa Gray and have his X club exalted among all other scientists and receive more funding. It served so many racist purposes and was big for his minority brethren of atheist scientists. It would give them money and prestige to be taken seriously and promote their atheist minority agenda among the majority of other Christian racists.

    4. My problem with the theory of evolution as it pertains to speciation and entirely different species coming from a different species is the fact that the facts don't exist.
    I don't argue mutations, but I argue a human does not come from a fish, I argue against that all life on earth springs from a few molecules on a comet that crashed and from that crash of an accident sprung life, rules, and order. Let's ramble and look-- from gravity to land formation/// to language to music/// to mathematics all the way to ants and to octopus//// to deer eating grass only, to fish's diarrhea which is aka sand on the beach///// to some animals eat only the decayed////0 of life//// to each cell in your body serving a purpose, to DNA strands////// to each half of your brain controlling functions of your body yet also being while being able to do this also being removed from the state of consciousness all humans recognize///// to the ultimate of Male and Female two different beings not being one (as a big bang would suggest only has one chance to self-replicate) but able to create one of the same from two different genders and those two genders NOT, NOT, NOT ever giving birth to a different species (mule).

    5. Last point :
    People Always use indisputable, irrefutable, everyone who doesn't believe in this is an idiot, the inescapable evidence, evidence, proof, proof, science. Yet the proof is a chip of a bone about 3 inches big and then say:

    "now imagine how closely this 3 inches looks similar to this 7 inches. Isn't that interesting???" You sit there wide-eyed buying it, all the while your real brain is telling you-you can't see nothing but a bone and a bone of a fish can look like the bone of a bird if you don't see the entire body.
    They go on:
    "See how similar it is to looking like that?" 3 inches, 7 inches of 🤬 symbols f'n you up.

    Now, let me appeal to your intelligence. If you saw a skull of a rat and then a skull of a shrew would you know the damn difference??? Now when DNA proves it is a human or it is not a human--or that the DNA does not exist--and the methane and carbon testing is inconclusive in drawing out exactly what species of bone you have yet you still make an accusation or discovery that it is a home-sapien or between monkeyman and say that this is PROOF, then I say YOU ARE A LIE, A DAMN LIE for saying that.

    That's not PROOF;

    People bring presuppositions to the evidence of evolution. It is here that the lies and theory come into make up for where evidence is not evident.

    I do again believe in the ability for species within species to mutate, I don't believe one species of a fish can give birth to an elephant, no matter how slowly a fish changes its appearance to be eventually an elephant. I don't care if a trillion years pass. It won't happen, it never did happen it can't happen. Stop saying it happened.

    The universe was created by a collapsing star and rotates.
    And like super-cooled liquids, the rotation causes random swirls which are our galaxies. [insert sarcasm] This falsehood and apparent chaos explains the harmony and order in everything that we behold. Rain feeds the grass, maggots eat flesh, fish defecation makes sand, moss grows to the right of a stone, the earth rotates around the sun at a certain speed and just the right distance, the moon keeps the ocean from overflowing the earth, the wolf knows not to try and live in the ocean, deer do not hunt rats and eat them, lions do not decide to become vegetarians, a bird with wings can mutate and become flightless, electricity conducts, water is broken down into two different molecules and sustains all life along with oxygen, night and day never fail, ants are civilized, eggs hatch a being, sperm and egg must fertilize, ORDER of ALL life and rocks,atoms, planets does not come from CHAOS or accident. None of the planets, stars, frogs, humans, water even behave in chaos but yet ALL operate off cycles, patterns, rules and order.

    Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection established the false belief that mutations prove evolution even though mutants are always deformed, sterile and/or sickly, and any progeny that occur always revert back to the original species ORDER. Why? Because the first is the best and most superior. Mutations are always handicaps. THIS is LIFE/🤬 /INTELLIGENT DESIGN. YOUR proof is your DAMN eyes
  • alissowackalissowack Members Posts: 1,930 ✭✭✭
    ...just another thing to point out in the video. When the term "faith" is used, it's not as some warm and fuzzy feeling you get. It was used as to refer to trust. The believers in evolution trust that the experts knew what they were talking about...just like people in religions trust that the teachers know what they are talking about.
  • wharwhar Members Posts: 347 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2014
    Luke, you should definitely take a couple courses in Biology. Your understanding of mutation and speciation is so fundamentally flawed it is going to take a lot of work on your part to fix this deficiency.
  • luke1733luke1733 Members Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2014
    Took those courses whar. You ain't been rude so I'm a stay cordial. Just a difference of belief
    whar wrote: »
    Luke, you should definitely take a couple courses in Biology. Your understanding of mutation and speciation is so fundamentally flawed it is going to take a lot of work on your part to fix this deficiency.
    Went to college and graduated (so now the only thing left for you to ask or say is some condescending remark.)

    I won't say much more cause I already hogged to much of this post.
    But really, with what all I put up earlier you shut me up with two sentences? Really?

    Before just stating fundamentally flawed, state your claim, bring your proof and direct it to which point if you want a debate.

    School is in session.
    Here's probably a summary of information you believe:

    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/08/05/rspb.2010.1215.full

    I know it, studied it and took classes and passed the tests. Reading all that I wrote above is proof, but again I wrote a lot. I can be honest enough to say I don't know what happened to create life. I can also say without any doubt and plenty of proof that there IS a lot of order in this world. Whatever you write, I'll read it man, but I wrote too much on this blog and won't respond...so you get a chance to bring ur proof and have last word. Just don't trust in some scientists just because they showed somebody something and it sounds good tho.
  • LUClENLUClEN Absence makes the heart grow fonder of someone else Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Mutation facilitates speciation
  • LUClENLUClEN Absence makes the heart grow fonder of someone else Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Big Bang Theory is one, yet somehow male and female of the same species somehow creates different species that act and operate differently and look and survive differently??? With all these differences and no more of one species creating an entirely different species (snake gives birth to a bear) without having to use the excuse of millions of years then how can a million or billion years make any difference? Whatever year it happens, that's the time it happens when a snake gives birth to a bear, it doesn't matter that it happened a billion years ago. We should see it happening by now; instead every species is still not by the majority but by 100% is born from that species and none other. Thus, the evidence proves that species do not give birth to different species.EVER

    hawkings-lol.gif
  • wharwhar Members Posts: 347 ✭✭✭
    I try to avoid snarky comments, but I must admit I do not always live up to that ideal. However in your case I meant nothing snarky by it. Many people have misconceptions about evolution. In your case the concept of speciation is very flawed. Suggesting that a snake never giving birth to a bear show speciation is impossible shows you simply do not have a grasp on the basic concepts.

    "Thus, the evidence proves that species do not give birth to different species.EVER" - Luke1733

    This is mostly true. (Plants can given spawn a child plant that has double the number of chromosomes. This is a case where one species springs from an other however the plant would still look similar but be reproductively isolated.) Speciation does not occur rapidly but builds up in changes in a population over time. If I rolled the clock back a million years, about 50,000 human generations, my ancestors would be members of a different species. We could walk time forward and witness every couple that produced offspring that were my ancestors and you never have a moment where you could say, "Ahah! Those parent were 🤬 eructus but that child is 🤬 sapien." It simply does not work that way.
  • LUClENLUClEN Absence makes the heart grow fonder of someone else Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Bruh he said we should see speciation by now

    He's beyond saving


  • luke1733luke1733 Members Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2014
    Found the guys name who financed Darwin to find/makeup/ concoct any fossil and relate/make it the missing link of 🤬 erectus. Darwin couldn't but he did go to Australia and some other islands and find other stuff which led to other said findings of 🤬 erectus. As I said, he was a racist whose intent was to convince the world Blacks were inferior and natural selection had divinely granted whites the right to annihilate blacks and all people of color because it was the Natural Order of Speciation/Evolution for a dominant species to wipe out all traces of inferior species. This is what prompted 🤬 and the rest of racist evolution theory to tie blacks to monkeys.

    Wilhelm II or William II or Germany's last emperor.

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/01/a_german_genoci081331.html

    Look in the gallery section of the wikilink below and see from teeth how they form an entire skeleton of 🤬 erectus, and then from a monkey skull how they say it's human/ape. They just say it. It's said, so therefore it must be. Here's some bones, now believe it.....Oh, DON't Forget to scroll up and see the AFRICAN BLACK MALE/Monkey they were so eager to show with hair all over his body, even though African's have less dense hair on their bodies than Europeans and still do. Hell, I can barely grow a beard let along the Laurence Fishburne sideburns that connect.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/🤬 _erectus

    Easy to ignore and not mention the hypothesis that WHITES were first and then went to Africa because it dispels the evolution myth of speciation/racist evolutionary theory of man's origin to devolution.

    Quote: The second hypothesis is that H. erectus evolved in Eurasia and then migrated to Africa. The species occupied a Caucasus site called Dmanisi, in Georgia, from 1.85 million to 1.77 million years ago, at the same time or slightly before the earliest evidence in Africa. Excavations found 73 stone tools for cutting and chopping and 34 bone fragments from unidentified creatures.
  • Ajackson17Ajackson17 On the shoulders of Giants and Elders in history UniverseMembers Posts: 22,501 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Darwin wasn't racist, but his cousin sure as hell was and he didn't even know his theory was being used in such a way.

    http://commondescent.net/articles/darwin_on_race.htm
  • luke1733luke1733 Members Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2014
    Darwin wasn't racist, but his cousin sure as hell was and he didn't even know his theory was being used in such a way.

    http://commondescent.net/articles/darwin_on_race.htm

    Whoa, I"m a just leave it up to you to do the research on Darwin not being racist. There's a ton of people out there trying to discredit it, but now a days it's popular to wonder. Who is racist??? That's pretty easy to see his direct quotes on how he viewed Africans and negroes. He made that clear. Then I'll ask what your definition of racist is--because you might need to rethink it? Not being as racist as another is a different conversation, but the boy was straight up racist. Scientists try to present him as not being racist, but his books and quotes can't be erased. He spoke on it.
  • luke1733luke1733 Members Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2014
    I am aware of non-racist views Darwin had and spoke on (I know of his intimacy with a black woman), but this does not eliminate the racist views he also had. Simply put, if a man rapes one woman but doesn’t another and expresses true love to another, is he not still a 🤬 ?

    Quotes from Descent of Man:

    "It is impossible to see a 🤬 and not feel kindly towards him; such cheerful, open, honest expressions and such fine muscular bodies. I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese, with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Haiti; and, considering the enormous healthy-looking black population, it will be wonderful if, at some future day, it does not take place."

    I put the above passage to let you know, I am aware of Darwin's views that are not racist AS well as his racist views. Just because you have some or even majority non-racist views doesn't mean you also don't have some racist views.

    Not only is the below not true of Africans, it was known by Darwin not to be true but he said it anyway:

    "Since the dawn of history the 🤬 has owned the continent of Africa – rich beyond the dream of poet’s fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet and yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light.
    His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled.
    A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour.
    In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud.
    With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail.”
  • luke1733luke1733 Members Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2014
    Here's the RACIST parts:

    1st off, this Post (is taking away from alissowack's main point but for Oya here we go) shouldn’t be about Darwin but since this will be the last time I dispute Oya on this; (this is the 2nd time I’ve had to do it, even though this time is a different topic) here we go:

    RACIST quotes from Darwin’s Descent of Man:
    Savages are intermediate states between people and apes:

    1.

    “It has been asserted that the ear of man alone possesses a lobule; but ‘a rudiment of it is found in the gorilla’ and, as I hear from Prof. Preyer, it is not rarely absent in the 🤬 .
    “The sense of smell is of the highest importance to the greater number of mammals–to some, as the ruminants, in warning them of danger; to others, as the Carnivora, in finding their prey; to others, again, as the wild boar, for both purposes combined. But the sense of smell is of extremely slight service, if any, even to the dark coloured races of men, in whom it is much more highly developed than in the white and civilised races.”

    Charles Darwin was himself a racist, referring to native Africans and Australians, for example, as savages. This shows that evolution is inherently racist. Also his constant comparisons of only negroes to apes is racist when he does not compare whites to apes. Also his constant distinction between civilized versus savage only being white. How much does it take for you to see racism??? Just cause racism was normal and okay’d in that day doesn’t mean he wasn’t.
    Since you obviously want or need to see him talk about killing blacks in order for him to be racist…..Well, here you go: (we know who according to him the savages are NOW versus the civilized)

    2.
    This next quote is the exact reasoning/right 🤬 and Stalin felt they had on practicing genocide.
    They were doing their duty to evolution
    "At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the 🤬 or Australian and the gorilla" (1874, p. 178). –The Descent of Man

    He didn’t believe in slavery (in fact wanted to abolish it) and he was one of the first to say blacks came before whites and whites are ancestors of blacks; which in that day wasn’t popular among racists at all to say.
    Whitewashing of Darwin’s Racism: Understand the time. It was complicated. He was a perplex person to view him one way isn’t fair. He is being misportrayed as a racist.
    Maybe if you’re (don’t know if you are or aren’t; not trying to insult ya of ur a man) a woman this will appeal to you more of what he thought toward you:
    women some of whose "powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilisation."




  • luke1733luke1733 Members Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2014
    Note also: I believe that-just because you are racist doesn’t mean some of your theories aren’t true. You can be a brilliant racist with correct theories but still a racist. My point is you said he wasn’t racist and he was. Here’s my view on Darwin: Was he a racist who saw himself as a racist and spoke vehemently to promote racism directly with popular language of condescending remarks? Probably not but he kept alot of racist company (as you already noted)--but you can't control who you are around--or can you??
    He also was very well aware of the implications of his words and was careful of what he wrote and said. Basically I can say the fact to me is he looks to be a racist who simply believed whites were superior to blacks and other colored races,but-but also that blacks had intelligence and were worth existing and being loved and not enslaved. Due to the former "but", that logic is enough for some blacks and whites and people of other races to say then that he wasn't racist. That's where I do not agree with him not being a racist, but state correctly that he was a racist who had the consciousness to know that he loved humankind but believed Whites superior to all.
  • alissowackalissowack Members Posts: 1,930 ✭✭✭
    Only posting the video again because the account I used deleted it.

Sign In or Register to comment.