..is to..
..as..
..is to..
Posted on 08/28/2006 6:31:13 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Non sequitur. How long has the Theory of Evolution existed? Not centuries.
..is to....as....is to..
Good post, thanks.
That "only" seems a little disingenuous. Mendel's work didn't just provide an "added scientific sheen," it provided experimental and foundational justification for the core concepts of eugenics. Nazi geneticists implemented entire programs of "genetic cleansing" based upon notions that derive directly from Mendel.
Mendel did not, however, delve into the relative worth of this or that "race" to society. Galton did.
Surely you're not suggesting that Galton, or Darwin, invented racism.
And I trust that you aren't suggesting that all instances of ethnic cleansing and genocide post-Darwin have a "direct line" to him (or Galton, or Mendel). Somehow, I doubt you're going to find any connection between the ideas of Darwin and, for example, the genocides in Darfur, Bosnia, Cambodia, or Rwanda.
The Tutsi and the Hutu engaged in wholesale slaughter for the same, rather old-fashioned reason that Hitler targeted Jews -- ethnic and religious hatred and scapegoating -- and that "idea" has been around for a pretty long time.
..........and of course it follows: No Jesus, No Jim Jones.
Absolutely correct. Of course, sometimes ideas and inventions are created solely for evil. For example the nutjob that wanted to wipe the world of 80% ofd the population because he theorized this is the only way to save the earth.
But this is not the case for Darwin, Einstein and most others.
Non sequitur. How long has the Theory of Evolution existed? Not centuries.
You are incorrect.
It is true that Darwin's book was published in 1859, a mere century and a half ago, but the foundations date back father than that.
Darwin, like all good scientists, built upon the work of those who had come before. One of those forerunners was Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin, whose work "Zoönomia" (1976) started to lay the specific foundation of the ToE. Another was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who was publishing his work in the early 1800s, over two hundred years ago.
Heck, even Aristotle had speculated about evolution. So yes, "centuries" is appropriate.
If you are under the mistaken impression that Darwin and Darwin alone is responsible for the entirety of the Theory of Evolution, your understanding of the subject is limited indeed.
If you are furthermore under the impression that engaging in a puerile semantic debate will divert attention away from that ignorance, then you are once again mistaken.
Actually it has, although Darwin's particular version has only been around about 150 years.
Is that the standard? Relativity and quantum theory should be questioned in high schools because they are less than a hundred years old? If so, what alternate theory would make the challenge?
And What alternate theory would challenge evolution? The proposition that some unnamed entity having unspecified powers did some unspecified thing or things at unspecified times using unspecified methods for unspecified reasons, is not a theory.
Indubitably. The proof is plain to see--Darwin and Jesus both had beards.
Hitler used a lot of things to come to power and Nazism is based on many precepts and ideas. Acombination of pagan Nordic mythology with a facade of Christianity formed the NAzi religion while eugenics theory based on Social Evolution (as opposed to natural) and Germanic sense of racial superiority formed the basis of his foreign and domestic policy. With a healthy dosage of victimhood and anti-Semitism, Hitler was on his way.
Darwin's thoery is not evil, but the way Hitler used it is.
"Surely you're not suggesting that Galton, or Darwin, invented racism."
No, but they provided the scientific rationale for it, in the instance of Nazi genocide.
"No Jesus, No Jim Jones."
There are several FRevo posts on these "Darwin - Hitler" threads that have sought to make just this equation. Validate or scorn, take your pick, but you can't have it both ways.
Actually, to be a tad more complete, no --
James Watt (condenser equipped steam engines), Richard Trevithick and George Stephenson (steam locomotives), William Aspdin (portland cement), Winchester, Spencer, Gatling, and Hotchkiss (repeating rifle, machine gun, and magazine), Alfred Nobel (dynamite), Karl Benz, Gottlieb Daimler, Wilhelm Maybach, and Rudolf Diesel (motor vehicles), Dr. Gerhard Peters (Zyklon B), etc., etc., etc.
-- no Hitler.
Human beings are apes. African Great Apes, specifically.
"It is true that Darwin's book was published in 1859, a mere century and a half ago, but the foundations date back father than that."
You're engaging in the historicism that was being mocked just upthread. Darwin apparently IS omnipresent and eternal, praise be! Either that, or you're seeking to diminish the importance of Darwin in authoring the theory of evolution, for the petty reason of covering for your own historical error.
Not a missing link, a transitional.
Why do you assume there is only a single "missing link?" In actuality, there are many transitionals between ape-like critters and modern humans. Some are closer to ape-like, some closer to modern humans.
I haven't heard any scientist actually make that statement. If he is not, then he is either ape or man. Which is he?
Somewhere in between.
Wishing to fill the missing link gaps just doesn't get it. I would imagine if the "missing link" was found it would have been in my local paper.
It probably was in your local paper, but because of the odd definition you seem to have of "missing link" you missed it.
Just because those ancient apes walked upright a little straighter than some of the others does not make them a man.
No, but it does make them a transitional (sharing traits of earlier and later groups).
This is a transitional. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center):
Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)
Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)
Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)
Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)
Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)
See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33
Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
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.