“A fish with legs.” [excerpt]Oh come on!
You can do better than that!
Ok, maybe you can't...
Here is what a real fish with real legs looks like:
Posted on 03/15/2009 6:23:02 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Some Darwinists will say anything to try to draw attention away from the obvious. The point of my “Scientific Certitude” post was to show that evolutionary theory has been used to support racist views. Darwin was a firmly committed racist, and he was not shy about expressing his racist views:
“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, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, 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.” Charles R. Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, 2nd ed. (1871; reprint, London: John Murray, 1922), 241-42.
While Darwin was still alive his contemporaries took his racism/evolution link and ran with it. For example, Ernst Haeckl, the great popularizer of Darwin’s theories on the continent wrote:
“The Caucasian, or Mediterranean man (Homo Mediterraneus), has from time immemorial been placed at the head of all races of men, as the most highly developed and perfect . . . In bodily as well as in mental qualities, no other human species can equal the Mediterranean. This species alone (with the exception of the Mongolian) has had an actual history; it alone has attained to that degree of civilization which seems to raise man above the rest of nature.” Ernst Haeckel, The History of Creation: Or The Development of the Earth and its Inhabitants by the Action of Natural Causes. A Popular Exposition of the Doctrine of Evolution in General, and of that of Darwin, Goethe, and Lamarck in Particular, translated by E. Ray Lankester, 6th English ed., First German Publication 1868, (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1914), 2:321
and
“If one must draw a sharp boundary between them [i.e., higher mammals and man], it has to be drawn between the most highly developed and civilized man on the one hand, and the rudest savages on the other, and the latter have to be classed with the animals.” Haeckel, Ibid., Vol. II, 365.
Or how about this from Darwin’s friend Huxley:
“No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites.” T.H. Huxley, Lectures and Lay Sermons (1871; reprint, London: Everyman’s Library, J.M. Dent, 1926), 115.
The point of my earlier post was that by the turn of the 20th century the link between racism and evolution was so entrenched in orthodox thought that it made it into the Encyclopedia Britannica, which some would say is the very epitome of current conventional learning.
The link continued to be made well into the 20th Century:
“The new creed [i.e., Christianity] was thus thrown open to all mankind. Christianity makes no distinction of race or of color; it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce? May we not say, then, that Christianity is anti evolutionary in its aim?” Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (New York: Van Rees Press, 1947), 72
Evolutionists, when they are being honest, admit this link:
“We cannot understand much of the history of late 19th and early 20th century anthropology, with its plethora of taxonomic names proposed for nearly every scrap of fossil bone, unless we appreciate its obsession with the identification and ranking of races. For many schemes of classification sought to tag the various fossils as ancestors of modern races and to use their relative age and apishness as a criterion for racial superiority.” Stephen Jay Gould, “Human Equality as a Contingent Factor of History,” Natural History (November 1984): 28, 26-32.
“Since Darwin’s death, all has not been rosy in the evolutionary garden. The theories of the Great Bearded One have been hijacked by cranks, politicians, social reformers – and scientists – to support racist and bigoted views.” M. Brookes, “Ripe Old Age,” review of Of Flies, Mice and Men, by Francois Jacob, New Scientist, January 1999, 41.
The Darwinists who responded to my previous post were not honest. Instead of facing the facts, they tried to deny the undeniable connection between Darwin and racism, or they tried to change the subject by saying, “hey, some people who say they are Christians are racists too.”
This would be amusing if it were not so tragic. Someone said, “There is none so blind as he who refuses to see.”
This is the bottom line:
(1) It takes only the tiniest step to go from Darwin’s theory to the conclusion that some races are “lower” than others. Darwin took that step himself; his contemporaries took it with him, and by the turn of the 20th Century it was “conventional wisdom.” Note to Darwinists: Them’s the facts; you don’t advance your cause by denying them.
(2) Nothing Jesus said gives the slightest credence to racist views. Therefore, racists who call themselves Christians hold their views in the very teeth of the teachings of the Christ they purport to follow. So Darwinists. What is your point? That some people – even some people who call themselves “Christian” – are stupid or evil or both? No one denies that. Sadly for your position, this does notthing to blunt the force of (1) above.
I wouldn't go around saying anything in science is ever “completely proven”; but your article authors tend to view Tiktaaik as a brilliant find that sheds much light on the subject of tetrapod evolution.
Do you disagree with this view of the authors of the article you sourced?
Sorry for your fantasy, but spiny fins or other fin based structures would not last anytime at all for sustained operation supporting and locomoting the fish about on hard dry land. The fish was a bottom and shallow water feeder thats all.
This example is not to far away from Darwin’s fantasy wherein he imagined the flying (Gliding) fish to evolving into a genuine flying creature fully capable of powered flight such as a bird or bat.
The mudskipper is still a mudskipper, the crawling catfish is still limited to his spiny fins and gills, and none of the gliding creatures have ever developed more advanced capability of flight.
I dunno, the Democrat vote-stealing machine seems pretty effective to me.
More broadly, I agree: there are insurmountable ethical problems with eugenics, and near-insurmountable practical problems.
"I have not studied evolutionary theory exhaustively. It was taught to me and believed by me until I reached adulthood. That said, I thought a ‘good’ trait would be one that would enhance the survivability of a species. Diabetes, cerebral palsy, etc., do not. That is why I called them “undesireable traits.”
I'm sorry, this is simply incorrect. 'Goodness' of a trait (in evolutionary terms) is decided purely on an individual or genetic level. Rats, bats, wolves, fruitflies, roundworms and bacteria: none of these creatures have any awareness or concern for the 'survivability of [their] species', they are simply striving to pass on as much genetic material as possible. Ever wonder why Dawkins titled his famous book "The Selfish Gene"? This is why.
I think if you really believe that everyone in our species is equal before God, equally valuable, whether “defective” in some way or not, you’d be less inclined to be of a racist or eugenic mindset.
Similarly, if you believe we are the product of billions of random mutations with billions of random mutations in our future, with only the strong surviving, you might take a dimmer view of anyone who is handicapped or who you perceive to be inferior."
Argghhhh, you're still making the same mistake. No moral conclusions can be drawn from evolution. It's like trying to draw morality from the Krebs cycle, or tensor geometry. Evolution in a nutshell: in some particular environment, organisms with (heritable) trait X have more offspring than organisms without trait X. Therefore trait X will gradually spread throughout the breeding group of organisms, as long as the environment grants organisms with trait X a reproductive advantage. Do you see how crazy it is to try to use something this abstract and impersonal to justify moral decisions?
I can't say this enough: the evolutionary definition of what is a good or desirable trait is totally unlinked to the human definition of a good or desirable trait. Even using the words 'good' and 'desirable' to refer to evolutionary processes is probably unsound anthropomorphism, and if there were any evolutionary biologists posting here I'd expect a mild scolding for my phrasing.
When someone is too stupid to know how to post an active link, they would do well to shut their mouth re: ignorance.
If you want someone to follow your stupid link, make it work. (it isn’t likely to be worth the click anyway if an evo-groupie posts it)
Sorry, I should have realized that you weren't just intellectually lazy. The silver lining is that those who are too damned dumb to cut and paste the link into their browser probably couldn't understand the content of the page it leads to anyway. Besides, how can you extrapolate a well the founded position in theistic evolution into "evo-groupie"?
(Does mommy know you are playing with her computer when she is at work?P
Man, maybe I should read other replies before composing mine.
Marie, you should read Reign’s post, it says what I wanted to say, only more concisely and with better examples.
"Honest, reputable scientist" is the "true Scotsman" of the creationist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman Summary: The "No true Scotsman" fallacy is a tautology; No true Scotsman would do x, therefore someone who does x is not a true Scotsman.
Erm, substitute “well into the 20th century” instead of “well into this century.” I was apparently a decade or so behind ...
Those on a crusade against the truth have to try everything. Apparently, GGG thinks posting frequency helps too.
GGG apparently also believes that name calling and ad hominem attacks will work where poor logic and unsubstantiated assertions facts fail.
“So, using your phraseology, “do you think there is a danger in someone who embraces creationism to, as a result, have racist tendencies?”
Dr. Morris in your quoted section seems to be lauding the inventions and abilities of the descendants of Ham. I don’t think he is insulting them. Of course I don’t know anything about his personal opinions, beyond this, anyway.
Yes, I do think that if a person believes that a descendant of Ham is necessarily a black man, and that God’s curse of Ham is to be applied by us, not by Him, to all his descendants forever, I could see where that could lend itself to racism.
Scripture is adamant that all men are free in Christ “. . . there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.” (Col 3:11) and countless other passages prohibiting stealing life, property or labor from our fellow men, and commanding the preaching of the gospel to all men. The campaigns against human slavery - Wilberforce comes to mind - have come from a Christian mindset. So I don’t think a racist attitude is supported by the Bible. If someone just wants to sit on the curse of Ham, though, and ride it without any other Biblical input, it could be done.
“Both, because I think anything that is immoral ultimately does not work.”
“I dunno, the Democrat vote-stealing machine seems pretty effective to me.”
Short term, sure. Long term, no. Evil never gets the ultimate win.
“The sin that Eve, then Adam, committed did not bring evil, death and disease, into the world.”
Romans 5:12:
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned. . .”
“Actually I regard it as neither literal nor allegory, but simplification. When I was four of five years old, I asked my mother where babies came from. My mother said it was the result of a “special hug” between a husband and wife.”
I understand the illustration, but, God’s detailing of His act of creation is quite specific and literal. It is not given in an allegorical, prophetic, or poetic form. It is given as literal history, and it is referred to as literal history by the prophets and by Jesus.
“A fish with legs.” [excerpt]Oh come on!
=====
=====
Clearly in the absence of soft anatomy data in support of structural transitions, evolutionary biologists are free to let their imaginations wonder where they wish and to assert what they like about what evolved from what and how natural selection played its role.
After 29 years, I would have given up trying to graduate.
Hope springs eternal...
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.