Posted on 05/19/2008 1:50:52 PM PDT by PurpleMountains
Looks like a bunch of ape skulls to me. And those skulls are pure conjecture, based on the discovery of a couple of indistinguishable fragments of bone. You may call it science. I call it fiction.
The facts are otherwise - Darwin IS the source of “social Darwinism” as you call it. Darwinism, Evolutionism, has at its core the notion that mutations produce survival value in some members of a species and that the ‘fittest’ members will survive. Darwin himself has expressed the racism you think came later by Spencer. But here is a quote to help you see that your belief in Darwinism and Evolutionism is inherently racist:
Darwin claimed that the “fight for survival” also applied between human races. “Favored races” emerged victorious from this struggle. According to Darwin the favored race were the European whites. As for Asian and African races, they had fallen behind in the fight for survival.
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized 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 civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. [2]
As we have seen, in his book, The Origin of Species, Darwin saw the natives of Australia and Negroes as being at the same level as gorillas and claimed that these races would disappear. As for the other races which he saw as “inferior,” he maintained that it was essential to prevent them multiplying and so for these races to be brought to extinction. So the traces of racism and discrimination which we still come across in our time were approved and lent justification by Darwin in this way.
Darwin’s racist side showed its effect in much of his writing and observations. For example, he openly set out his racist prejudices while describing the natives of Tierra del Fuego whom he saw on a long voyage he set out on in 1871. He described the natives as living creatures “wholly nude, submerged in dyes, eating what they find just like wild animals, uncontrolled, cruel to everybody out of their tribe, taking pleasure in torturing their enemies, offering bloody sacrifices, killing their children, ill-treating their wives, full of awkward superstitions”. Whereas according to the researcher W. P. Snow, the Tierra del Fuegians were “fine powerful looking fellows; they were very fond of their children; some of their artifacts were ingenious; they recognised some sort of rights over property; and they accepted the authority of several of the oldest women.” [3]
Darwin claimed that the “fight for survival” also applied between human races. “Favored races” emerged victorious from this struggle. According to Darwin the favored race were the European whites. As for Asian and African races, they had fallen behind in the fight for survival.
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized 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 civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. [2]
As we have seen, in his book, The Origin of Species, Darwin saw the natives of Australia and Negroes as being at the same level as gorillas and claimed that these races would disappear. As for the other races which he saw as “inferior,” he maintained that it was essential to prevent them multiplying and so for these races to be brought to extinction. So the traces of racism and discrimination which we still come across in our time were approved and lent justification by Darwin in this way.
Darwin’s racist side showed its effect in much of his writing and observations. For example, he openly set out his racist prejudices while describing the natives of Tierra del Fuego whom he saw on a long voyage he set out on in 1871. He described the natives as living creatures “wholly nude, submerged in dyes, eating what they find just like wild animals, uncontrolled, cruel to everybody out of their tribe, taking pleasure in torturing their enemies, offering bloody sacrifices, killing their children, ill-treating their wives, full of awkward superstitions”. Whereas according to the researcher W. P. Snow, the Tierra del Fuegians were “fine powerful looking fellows; they were very fond of their children; some of their artifacts were ingenious; they recognised some sort of rights over property; and they accepted the authority of several of the oldest women.” [3]
The assumption apriori is that the moth population did NOT HAVE the diversity in it from the get go. No way to prove it did not. There is no evidence that mutations caused the diversity so that lighter colored moths or darker colored moths survived as a consequence of a mutation. Inherent in the evolutionist’s assumption is that if there is diversity in a species that diversity came about as a result of mutations - but one could also assume that the diversity was there from the beginning of that species existence.
And in the lab what would be the so called proof to prove or disprove that mutations cause wonderful survival value? Every mutation observed in the lab is a hindrance to the creature not an advantage. It seems to me that evolutionists are the ones making the assertion that mutations are sometimes a good thing?
But NO mutation has ever been observed to happen in the lab or in nature that increased the survival value of any creature.
Do not come back at me with the idea that the diversity in a species is the result of mutations. That too is an assumption not an observation. For instance - the different light and dark colored moths example is often put forward as a demonstration that a mutation MUST have occurred to produce this diversity. But that so called mutation is not observed it is assumed.
So the same with bacteria that are resistant to drugs. The assumption is that these bacteria are the result of mutations that helped them survive the drugs. But the diversity in the bacteria population can also be assumed to have been there from the get go of that bacteria population my friend.
You show me mutations observed in the lab that have helped members of a species survive over others and then you have proven it can happen. So far no one has met that challenge on your side of the debate.
How do you think, lets just take the moth example, that this proves evolution’s main assumption that mutations cause features that result in survival value? Are you assuming that the diversity in the moth population was not there before a mutation took place? How do you know that? Was the so called mutation observed to have happened or because there were different moth colorings it is assumed that must have happened from mutations??? Not science in that case - just apriori assumptions.
When Darwin first encountered the Yahgan Indians in their homeland of Tierra del Fuego, he was thunderstruck. 'I could not have believed how wide was the difference between savage and civilised man: it is greater than between a wild and [a] domesticated animal, inasmuch as in man there is a greater power of improvement.' But in fact Darwin was mistaken about the Yahgans: indeed, just about as completely mistaken as it would have been possible to be. We know this from the testimony of a man who was born and spent most of his life among them. This was Lucas Bridges, whose parents were Christian missionaries to die Yahgans, and the first white settlers in Tierra del Fuego, only a few decades after the Beagle's visit.David Stove, Darwinian Fairytales
As early as 1910 or so, Asmuth et al published Haeckel's Frauds and Forgeries. But Haeckel was already known to be a fraud even before 1890. Virchow had not much good to say about him even as early as 1878. But Haeckel won the Darwin Medal in 1900 anyway.
There is a difference between being wrong and producing a fake.
Piltdown was a fake, a hoax. There are very few of these in the history of the evolutionary sciences.
But like any other science, there are errors and mistakes. They are corrected as soon as possible.
And as to my being an "avid supporter of evolution" -- I just happen to know something about it, particularly the fossil side. (When I was in grad school the genetics side was in its infancy.) Half my time in grad school, six years, was spent in the fields of fossil man, osteology, human races, evolution, and similar subjects.
That's part of why these "crevo" threads are so fascinating to me -- it's a target rich environment. I am particularly amused by the folks whose only expertise in the field is visiting a few creationist websites and staying in a Holiday Inn Express. They come on these threads full of religious zeal, but little learning, and start making grand pronouncements about evolution.
I think my favorite was "the second law of thermal documents" which made evolution impossible.
Does all science bore you or just evolution?
Yes, I do enjoy second-law chit chat. I think R.A Fisher may have been one of the first to blather nonsensical tripe about the second law in the context of evolution. He was an evolutionist. And a eugenist.
Haeckel's embryos have been known as fake for over one hundred years, and still appear in Biology textbooks. Remember the old "ontogeny recapitulates philogeny."
As for your quote, it is cherry-picked from his writings. But you miss the point. He did not opine that this was a good thing, only that he thought it would happen. In another work, he opined something quite different: that the third world peoples would kill each other off. When I look at the genocide in Africa, it's not hard to see why he made such an observation.
As for the other races which he saw as “inferior,” he maintained that it was essential to prevent them multiplying and so for these races to be brought to extinction.
This is false. Darwin was adamantly opposed to human intervention in the reproductive process and was an ardent abolitionist. Once, on leaving a country where slavery was practiced, he vowed that he would never again set foot in such a place.
Only "established" by creationists looking for a cheap shot at the theory of evolution.
From this source we have a more thorough look at the subject:
Although the experiments were not perfect, they were not fatally flawed. Even though Kettlewell released his moths in daylight when a night release would have been more true to nature, he used the same procedure in areas that differed only in the amount of industrial pollution, showing conclusively that industrial pollution was a factor responsible for the difference in predation between color varieties. Similar arguments can be made for all other experiments. Although no experiment is perfect (nor can be), even imperfect experiments can give supporting or disconfirming evidence. In the case of peppered moths, many experiments have been done, and they all support the traditional story (Grant 1999).Even without the experiments, the peppered moth story would be well established. Peppered moth melanism has both risen and fallen with pollution levels, and they have done so in many sites on two continents (Cook 2003; Grant 1999).
The peppered moth story is consistent with many other experiments and observations of crypsis and coloration in other species. For example, bird predation maintains the colorations of Heliconius cydno, which has different coloration in different regions, in both regions mimicking a noxious Heliconius species (Kapan 2001). Natural selection acting on the peppered moth would be the parsimonious hypothesis even if there were no evidence to support it.
The peppered moth story is not simple. The full story as it is known today fills thousands of pages of journal articles. Familiarity with the literature and with the moths in the field is needed to evaluate all the articles. But the research and the debates over its implications have all been done in the open. Charges of fraud and misconduct stem from neglect and misrepresentation of the research by the people making the charges (Grant 2000). Of those familiar with the literature, none doubt that bird predation is of primary importance in the changing frequencies of melanism in peppered moths (Majerus 1999).
In teaching any subject to beginners, simplifying complex topics is proper. The peppered moth story is a valuable tool for helping students understand how nature really works. Teachers would be right to omit the complexities from the story if they judged that their students were not yet ready for that higher level of learning (Rudge 2000).
People such as Ann Coulter have claimed the data were faked. Unfortunately, Ann did not know what she was talking about. I was sad to see her enter territory where she was clearly clueless.
FWIW evolutionists twisting the second law of thermodynamics to fit their agenda convinced me of evolution’s existential nature as a branch of philosophy.
Take a look at this and tell me what is "twisted:"
You are misunderstanding Darwin's work as applied to human society just as badly as these people did.
Darwin is not the source. People with their own agendas and ideas applying strict animal natural selection to humans is. If you want Darwin's point of view:
When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came into competition, if (other circumstances being equal) the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other. ... Selfish and contentious people will not cohere, and without coherence nothing can be effected. A tribe rich in the above qualities would spread and be victorious over other tribes ... It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another.The superior society, the one that will replace the others, is the more moral and sympathetic society. It is not the one with the genetically stronger individuals. Given that any type of forced eugenics is immoral and definitely unsympathetic, it is the opposite of Darwin's views.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.