Posted on 07/23/2006 8:49:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Lamarckian biology was not "Intelligent Design."
It was a theory that acquired traits induced by changes in the environment could be inherited by the offspring of an organism, as opposed to Darwinism which states that inherited traits arise only at random.
Commies loved Lamarck because it could be used to back up their social engineering projects. Humans could be improved, in an inheritable way, simply by changing their environment.
I didn't say that he advocated extermination of inferior races. However, what he viewed as its inevitability didn't seem to bother him much either.
Perhaps you could support your claims with evidence rather than merely offering rhetoric.
He saw it happening. The Europeans were exploring the world, and the savage tribes on isolated islands were rapidly dying off. Partly from disease, partly from poachers on their lands. Partly from who knows what. But it was happening worldwide, and it was quite visible. Yet there was no organized campaign of extermination, and least of all was anything like that advocated by Darwin. He was an observer. Stridently anti-slavery too.
Either the paper published poor information or you misunderstood the article. Could you link to the article or reproduce what it says here?
Btw, no biologist claims we evolved from modern Chimps. We share a common ancestor and have both diverged from that point. Because of this it is misleading to measure the distance between humans and chimps, the differences have to be measured from the common ancestor. This minimally divides the distance between modern humans and modern chimps by two. It may be that chimps differ from the common ancestor more than we do, or the opposite may be true.
The acceptance of our common ancestor with chimps is pretty much universal among biologists. (Some claim the Gorilla and a very few the Orang. as our nearest relative)
And Henry Morris himself was a racist poopy head, with his belief that "the children of Ham" were natarul servants.
mmmm, not al of us.
God IS the universe. Darwin is merely a grain of sand.
------------------- Wile it is true that a few scientists opine in this fashion and many dishonest creationists claim that the above is actually a part of the theory of evolution, the theory itself makes no such statements on either subject.
Dimensio if main stream scientists does accepts that evolution does not "explain how life came into being"... what area of science it is looking in to what that non-evolution life creating means is and if so does it continue to operate in parallel to evolution
(it would be illogical to assume that if there was a non-evolution life creation it would happen only once and only once,,, this would seen to open the possibility to several non-evolution created species)...
That's a great idea! Let's determine what the content of 150 years of modern biology is by taking a poll of the citizenry's bumper stickers!
No where else in the world do Conservatives have the anti-science stance which a small (but rather vocal) group of American social conservatives do. It's a pity, because we are otherwise all natural allies over issues of substance.
Perhaps because evil and power hungry people camouflage themselves with trendy ideas.
Fixed it for you.
Yep, it's an early form of Intelligent Design.
Very interesting point of view.
Both Rush and Coulter, I feel, are pandering to what they construe to be our base when they make anti evolutionary statements...in fact Rush has talked, on his show, about the dinosaurs millions of years ago...so he plays both sides of the fence. as much as I love Ann for the most part, I have become disheartened with this aspect.
Well said. Ditto
Your refusal to support your claim is noted.
They aren't. At least not by science.
The only group (or group of groups) that claim the BB and Abiogenesis as 'Darwinian' are those that have a vested interest in denouncing biological evolution. The origin of the universe has nothing to do with Evolution and until Abiogenesis can show Darwinian mechanisms worked on pre/proto-life we would be jumping the gun to include it in the study of Evolution.
The 'survival of the fittest' description of natural selection was put forward by Herbert Spencer (the philosopher who is credited with Social Darwinism) as a metaphor. It is not used by biologists. The Darwinian version of the metaphor, had Darwin actually coined the phrase would have been 'survival of the reproductively fittest'. In this modified version, the cooperation within a species, even the cooperation between species has just as much an effect (or more) as the struggle between groups. Human cooperation is as much a Darwinian feature as human struggle. In fact our development of morals against Hitlerian style violence is very much Darwinian.
Since several selection pressures are active in any population, singling one out as somehow 'special', especially when it is countered by a second, is at best silly and at worst manipulative and dishonest.
That being said, science, because of the necessity to control as many variables as possible, needs to examine each selection type individually.
There is a big difference between scientifically examining one mechanism at a time and using a single mechanism to justify political action.
I spent years trying to reason with atheistic brick walls to no avail.
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.