That's not what js1138 is saying. What he is saying is that since the idea of eugenics predates Darwin and his ToE, he and it could not be directly responsible for eugenics. (Unless of course Darwin went back in time and talked to Plato - or eugenics as proposed by the Nazis is in some fundimental way (in relation to the ToE) different than previous incarnations)
Mentioning that eugenics predates the ToE also puts the two into the correct correlational relationship. Eugenics is the direct result of watching populations change due to natural selection, and more importantly human selection, as long ago as Plato and the Spartans. The theory of Evolution as proposed by Darwin was the direct result of his (and others) observations of changes in wild populations due to natural selection, and as importantly, selection of domestic animals by humans.
The upshot of this is that eugenics and evolution share a common 'cause', the observation of population changes due to external forces. This also means that the ToE could not be responsible for eugenics. (Many of the conclusions the eugenicists came to and the conclusions of Darwin are quite different).
Anti-evolutionists regularly appeal to the logical fallacy of 'ignoring the common cause' when discussing Nazi's and the ToE. They are so intent on blaming the ToE for the ills of the world that they fail to recognize that groups and individuals other than Darwin can reach conclusions (including conclusions that appalled Darwin) based on the same observations.
Another common fallacy used by anti-evolutionists is 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' where the order of Nazi eugenics and the ToE lead them to believe the one is caused by the other.
You will also note that js1138 has been trying to get people to recognize that the ideas of modern eugenics were not part of the ToE but if there is any connection whatsoever they were a bastardization of Darwin's thoughts and should be characterized as corruptions of the ToE.
Evolution happens, it is observable. The mechanisms behind those observed phenomena can be derived from the observations. Because we can observe natural selection operating in a population does not mean those same selection processes should be applied, or are acceptable, to a human population.
The tenets of the ToE, and the ideas of Darwin as a man, do not suggest the advisability or the inadvisability of applying a specific selection process. That others can take those ideas and twist them to their own application says much more about those people than it does about the theory.
That some can take those corruptions of the theory and claim the theory responsible for those corruptions says more about those people than about the theory.
"Because we can observe natural selection operating in a population does not mean those same selection processes should be applied, or are acceptable, to a human population."
Quite so, and said with the advantage of hindsight. Could you make this moral assertion with confidence, absent taboos adopted due to the hellish abyss created by scientists working for the Nazi regime?