Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 12:37 PM
24 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, JonF, PaulK, PsychMJC, ringo, Tanypteryx, Taq (8 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,015 Year: 9,051/19,786 Month: 1,473/2,119 Week: 233/576 Day: 36/98 Hour: 0/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
16Next
Author Topic:   Evolution is antithetical to racism
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 91 of 238 (423750)
09-24-2007 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by CTD
09-24-2007 6:28 AM


Re: and Stalin outlawed evolution -NOT
So they outlawed/persecuted/etc. the new science which contradicted Lamarckism. They decided to stick with the older form of evolution 'theory'.

Nope. They decided to stick with what they wanted to happen based on their fundamentalist politics rather than fact. Similar to the way creationists keep trying to change evolution into something it isn't.

quote:
... It was fueled by the rhetoric of Trofim Lysenko (1898-1976), an agronomist with little education and no scientific training, but with grand ambitions for Soviet agriculture based on his mistaken belief in a Lamarckian mechanism of inheritance and organic change. According to Lamarckian and Lysenkoist theory, exposure of parent organisms to an environmental factor such as low temperature directly induces the development of adaptive changes that are inherited by their descendants – a theory of evolution by the inheritance of acquired characteristics, rather than by natural selection of genes.
Western geneticists and evolutionary biologists had already shown that Lamarckian inheritance does not occur.

That is not just genetics. Or by "older form of evolution 'theory'" do you mean the theories that were around before Darwin (like Lamarkism)?

That would also be totally irrelevant to the issue of deriving racism from the theory of evolution.

And their stance on religion should be even more well-known, I would hope.

And also that it is totally irrelevant to the issue. The issue is whether racism is a necessary result of evolutionary theory.

The part of the story that's received a little less attention than it deserves is the "survival of the fittest" part. As long as this is part of evolutionism, there will be plenty of compatibility with racism. This is the critical element...

Except that stating it does not make it so. Survival of the fittest deals with individuals, not populations.

You need to show how this necessarily results in racism. All you have done is show how racists can (mis)use it. People with an agenda can always misuse information. Can you demonstrate that you know how to use it properly?

In order for things to evolve, must there not be competition? Must not this competition weed out the weak before they reproduce? If not, will these weaklings not produce races of inferior offspring?

Badly stated, but no they wouldn't produce races, just as your offspring are not a new race. Because those individuals would be selected against their offspring (if any) would never get to the level of producing a race.

Rather than demonstrate that evolution necessarily results in racism, this shows how "inferior races" are not a result of evolution.

The only way you end up with "inferior races" is if you (person or persons) subjectively (based on your perceptions of reality) define "inferior" based on characteristics that are different from the characteristics that evolution selects for.

This of course means that evolution cannot of necessity result in those characteristics.

So far, all that's been offered against this & eugenics is that "fittest" is defined differently by the present-day evolutionist 'scientists' than it is/was by politicians. But "fittest" is always subjective.

Nope. There is nothing subjective about death and sex. It either happens or it doesn't. That is what defines who gets to reproduce, and that is "fittest" in a nutshell.

... but nothing in the simple fact of creation indicates that one should be racist.

Again irrelevant to the issue of whether you can derive racism necessarily from evolution. The issue of the use and misuse of religion has no bearing on whether you must necessarily derive racism from evolution.

Racists can (and have) misuse religion and science to bolster their position, but that does not mean that either religion or science necessarily results in racist views.

So far you have totally failed to demonstrate that racism is a necessary outcome of evolution.

Anyhow, I think this thread is intended to trick creationists into making pro-racist arguments.

No, it is trying to get people to demonstrate how evolution could necessarily results in racist views.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : last


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 6:28 AM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 9:35 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 95 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 9:48 AM RAZD has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6619
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 92 of 238 (423753)
09-24-2007 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by CTD
09-24-2007 6:28 AM


Reading comprehension problems?
Anyhow, I think this thread is intended to trick creationists into making pro-racist arguments.

Maybe you should read the Opening Post. It's pretty short and makes very clear what the intent of the thread is.


You can observe a lot by watching. -- Yogi Berra
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 6:28 AM CTD has not yet responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4034 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 93 of 238 (423767)
09-24-2007 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by RAZD
09-24-2007 8:02 AM


Re: and Stalin outlawed evolution -NOT
RAZD:
That is not just genetics. Or by "older form of evolution 'theory'" do you mean the theories that were around before Darwin (like Lamarkism)?

That would also be totally irrelevant to the issue of deriving racism from the theory of evolution.

Am I to understand that 'evolution' here is restricted to mean your particular brand of 'evolution' which didn't even exist at the time?

Well it matters not one bit, so long as "survival of the fittest" is the key ingredient.

Except that stating it does not make it so. Survival of the fittest deals with individuals, not populations.

You need to show how this necessarily results in racism. All you have done is show how racists can (mis)use it. People with an agenda can always misuse information. Can you demonstrate that you know how to use it properly?

Saying it isn't so won't change it either. Humans aren't generally subject to 'natural selection' the way creatures in the wilderness are. They're highly shielded, as a matter of fact. Economic selection, maybe. Tons of evolutionists have already acknowledged this. It's self-evident to anyone who gives it a moment's thought.

Oh, don't forget famine. Famine hits populations - not indiduals. Oh, and wars play a role as well. Or do the "fittest" always manage to survive somehow? Now that I think about it, the primary determining factor in average lifespan would probably be location. But I'm not going to beat a dead horse. Folks either see this by now or pretend not to.

Badly stated, but no they wouldn't produce races, just as your offspring are not a new race. Because those individuals would be selected against their offspring (if any) would never get to the level of producing a race.

How so? Among humans, where's the struggle to survive? And where does it ever exist on an individual basis? Even poor people have family and friends who'll help out in a pinch, rather than obey the call of evolution and let the weaklings die. (This is true among all social animals to one degree or another, and acknowledged by evolutionists.)

Nope. There is nothing subjective about death and sex.

Oh? And who was it came up with the term 'sexual selection'? Do you know the name of that famous creationist by chance? Or is it maybe a touch subjective? (Careful! One of those was a trick question.)

So far you have totally failed to demonstrate that racism is a necessary outcome of evolution.

Marx and Nietzsche have already done so (very thoroughly if you count their followers). I don't intend to repeat their work. I find it highly offensive in many ways, as should all civilized people. Now one can always be an atheist evolutionist and be irrational about applying it to one's own life, thereby escaping the need to be racist and heartless. Most followers of other religions aren't always so strict about applying every last thing to their own lives, and this needn't be an exception.

Am I wrong, or is not the oldest, wealthiest, most talented and popular human being in the world a failure if they die childless (according to evolutionism)? Somewhat O.T. but I want to check & see if we're talking about the same thing, y'know?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2007 8:02 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2007 9:45 AM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2007 11:11 AM CTD has responded
 Message 100 by Modulous, posted 09-24-2007 2:57 PM CTD has responded
 Message 101 by Chiroptera, posted 09-24-2007 3:47 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 103 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-24-2007 4:24 PM CTD has responded
 Message 123 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-25-2007 12:53 PM CTD has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16096
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 94 of 238 (423772)
09-24-2007 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by CTD
09-24-2007 9:35 AM


Re: and Stalin outlawed evolution -NOT
Well, I think in response to this gibble, it's only necessary to repeat RAZD's observation:

RAZD writes:

So far you have totally failed to demonstrate that racism is a necessary outcome of evolution.

Your claim that "Marx and Nietzsche have already done so" is something which you've made up in your head, which is why you cannot quote them presenting any such demonstration. And certainly you have not done so.

Now one can always be an atheist evolutionist and be irrational about applying it to one's own life, thereby escaping the need to be racist and heartless.

But it's no good you carrying on mouthing this pathetic gibberish when you cannot show any rational link between evolution and racism. Since there is none, it is not "irrational" for evolutionists to reject racism.

Am I wrong, or is not the oldest, wealthiest, most talented and popular human being in the world a failure if they die childless (according to evolutionism)?

You are, of course, wrong.

In fact, let me save you a little time. You are a creationist. All the halfwitted gibberish you make up in your head about "evolutionism" will be wrong. It would be of no use to you if it wasn't.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 9:35 AM CTD has not yet responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4034 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 95 of 238 (423773)
09-24-2007 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by RAZD
09-24-2007 8:02 AM


Thanks!
RAZD (with emphasis added)
Nope. They decided to stick with what they wanted to happen based on their fundamentalist politics rather than fact. Similar to the way creationists keep trying to change evolution into something it isn't.

Thanks for the new term. We now have fundy evolutionists! I aim to use this pup.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2007 8:02 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2007 9:57 AM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2007 10:06 AM CTD has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16096
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 96 of 238 (423775)
09-24-2007 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by CTD
09-24-2007 9:48 AM


Re: Thanks!
I wonder if there's any sentence or phrase you can't misunderstand?

Tell me, if I were to say "the cat sat on the mat", what would you understand by this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 9:48 AM CTD has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 97 of 238 (423779)
09-24-2007 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by CTD
09-24-2007 9:48 AM


Re: Thanks!
Thanks for the new term. We now have fundy evolutionists! I aim to use this pup.

It's not new, but it has nothing to do with evolutionists.

America's New Political Fundamentalism

quote:
Date: 05-05-95

Political fundamentalism is an ideology that like its religious counterpart thrives on simplifications. In the case of America's militias, gun and property rights movements, it blurs the complexities of history in its interpretation of the Constitution and the beliefs of founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson.


The Effects of Religious and/or Political Fundamentalism on the Internet

quote:
Both religious and political fundamentalism (depending on the country these are sometimes combined into one) have a profound effect on the shaping of the internet. Some western-minded political scientists will agree that an example of political fundamentalism is Castro's Cuba or Kim Jung Il's North Korea.

Same kind of dogmatic thinking, different precepts.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 9:48 AM CTD has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 98 of 238 (423797)
09-24-2007 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by CTD
09-24-2007 9:35 AM


Re: and Stalin outlawed evolution - fact
Am I to understand that 'evolution' here is restricted to mean your particular brand of 'evolution' which didn't even exist at the time?

No, just that it is restricted to the use by evolutionary scientists at that time.

Lamarkism had already been rejected by the scientists at that time as invalid and not a part of evolutionary processes, so when the Stalinist government rejected everything but Lamarkism and Lysenkoism they rejected whatever definition you care to use consistent with the times.

The fact that it also doesn't include evolution as we know it now is also relevant to the OP, as we are talking about how people must necessarily derive racism directly from the theory of evolution - in the present as well as the past.

Well it matters not one bit, so long as "survival of the fittest" is the key ingredient.

Except that survival of the fittest doesn't produce "inferior" individuals or races.

Saying it isn't so won't change it either. Humans aren't generally subject to 'natural selection' the way creatures in the wilderness are. They're highly shielded, as a matter of fact. Economic selection, maybe. Tons of evolutionists have already acknowledged this. It's self-evident to anyone who gives it a moment's thought.

But you have not shown how this - regardless of the validity of the statement - results in "inferior races" ... all you have are populations supporting (possibly) less adapted individuals within the populations, not whole sub-populations.

You have also not established any correlation between those (possibly) less adapted individuals and their being "inferior" -- a subjective evaluation you have not related to fitness. Certainly we cannot say that Steven Hawkins has "inferior" intellect though he would certainly be subject to survival\reproductive selection pressure if living in the wild.

Perhaps it's 'self evident' if you only give it a moments thought, and don't follow it to the logical conclusions?

Oh, don't forget famine. Famine hits populations - not indiduals. Oh, and wars play a role as well. Or do the "fittest" always manage to survive somehow? Now that I think about it, the primary determining factor in average lifespan would probably be location. But I'm not going to beat a dead horse. Folks either see this by now or pretend not to.

This usually results in genetic drift, being predominantly a stochastic process. Thus it wouldn't really involve evolution of populations.

And you don't say how these processes act to select populations to become "inferior" by some (usually arbitrary subjective) standard.

The task is to show how evolution necessarily results in racism.

How so? Among humans, where's the struggle to survive? And where does it ever exist on an individual basis? Even poor people have family and friends who'll help out in a pinch, rather than obey the call of evolution and let the weaklings die. (This is true among all social animals to one degree or another, and acknowledged by evolutionists.)

Are you equating being poor with being inferior? Are you equating having some poor people in a population with the whole population being inferior?

Can you show me how that is derived from evolution rather than from personal arbitrary and subjective percepts that have nothing to do with evolution?

Oh? And who was it came up with the term 'sexual selection'? Do you know the name of that famous creationist by chance? Or is it maybe a touch subjective? (Careful! One of those was a trick question.)

Irrelevant: answer the question, deal with the evidence. You have not refuted that there is nothing subjective about the effect of death and mating success on following generations. That was your claim, that natural selection was subjective.

If you can't defend your position then admit it rather than attempt to cloud the issue with red herring arguments.

Marx and Nietzsche have already done so (very thoroughly if you count their followers). I don't intend to repeat their work.

Yet that is what you need to do to make your case that they derived racism directly from evolution and not from their personal arbitrary and subjective percepts that have nothing to do with evolution.

I find it highly offensive in many ways, as should all civilized people.

Nowhere has anyone accused you of being racist. What we are asking is that you actually make the case that evolution necessarily results in racism.

Now one can always be an atheist evolutionist and be irrational about applying it to one's own life, thereby escaping the need to be racist and heartless.

But you haven't shown that evolution necessarily results in racism or being heartless (or being atheist), so this is just an off the cuff ad hominum logical fallacy.

One can conclude from the evidence of Darwin that he rejected racism due to his study of people and biology and his conclusions regarding evolution. If developing the theory of evolution would lead someone to reject racism as being valid don't you think that this rather invalidates any claim that it necessarily results in racist thinking?

Am I wrong, or is not the oldest, wealthiest, most talented and popular human being in the world a failure if they die childless (according to evolutionism)? Somewhat O.T. but I want to check & see if we're talking about the same thing, y'know?

The question that relates to the OP is whether that would necessarily make them inferior. Judging by the way you worded it that is not the case. Thus once again you have failed totally to establish that evolution necessarily results in racism.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 9:35 AM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2007 12:46 PM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 106 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 7:55 PM RAZD has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16096
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 99 of 238 (423812)
09-24-2007 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by RAZD
09-24-2007 11:11 AM


No, just that it is restricted to the use by evolutionary scientists at that time.

Lamarkism had already been rejected by the scientists at that time as invalid and not a part of evolutionary processes, so when the Stalinist government rejected everything but Lamarkism and Lysenkoism they rejected whatever definition you care to use consistent with the times.

It would be more accurate to say that Stalin suppressed the theory of evolution.

Whether what Lysenko et al promoted could be called "evolution" is really more of a semantic than a factual question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2007 11:11 AM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 100 of 238 (423837)
09-24-2007 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by CTD
09-24-2007 9:35 AM


Re: and Stalin outlawed evolution -NOT
Humans aren't generally subject to 'natural selection' the way creatures in the wilderness are. They're highly shielded, as a matter of fact. Economic selection, maybe. Tons of evolutionists have already acknowledged this. It's self-evident to anyone who gives it a moment's thought.

Right now, many humans die of old age and so do not suffer as strongly from survival selection. Many many many people still die from disease and famine, so selection still exists. Your life expectancy in classical Rome could have been as bad 28 years. A lot of that is due to infant mortality. We westerners are lucky, but there is definitely natural selection occurring to humans in other parts of the world. Such as Africa.

Oh, don't forget famine. Famine hits populations - not indiduals.

Correct. And the fittest individuals in that population will survive.

Oh, and wars play a role as well. Or do the "fittest" always manage to survive somehow?

Nope, the fittest sometimes don't survive. It is a stochastic process, there will be a tendency for any traits that aid in survival to survive more than those traits that don't.

Now that I think about it, the primary determining factor in average lifespan would probably be location.

Yep - environment is very important. The harsher the environment, the stronger the selective pressures.

How so? Among humans, where's the struggle to survive? And where does it ever exist on an individual basis? Even poor people have family and friends who'll help out in a pinch, rather than obey the call of evolution and let the weaklings die.

25,000 people die every day from malnutrition and related illnesses. I'd say there was a pretty big struggle to survive. Poor people might get help in a pinch, but destitute people don't. And there are like a billion of them. 6 billion humans, not all of them survive to reproductive age, a struggle for resources (such as food and water). I'd say we have selection going on.

Marx and Nietzsche have already done so (very thoroughly if you count their followers). I don't intend to repeat their work.

Then why are you here, debating on this thread, if you don't intend to demonstrate your argument?

Am I wrong, or is not the oldest, wealthiest, most talented and popular human being in the world a failure if they die childless (according to evolutionism)?

No. However, their genes may or may not have passed on to another generation. If they had a brother or sister, many, if not all of their genes may have still passed on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 9:35 AM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 8:19 PM Modulous has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6619
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 101 of 238 (423846)
09-24-2007 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by CTD
09-24-2007 9:35 AM


Re: and Stalin outlawed evolution -NOT
So far you have totally failed to demonstrate that racism is a necessary outcome of evolution.

Marx and Nietzsche have already done so (very thoroughly if you count their followers).

This is new to me. Why don't you explain how Marx and Nietzsche have demonstrated that racism is a necessary outcome of evolution?


You can observe a lot by watching. -- Yogi Berra
This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 9:35 AM CTD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by jar, posted 09-24-2007 3:57 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 102 of 238 (423847)
09-24-2007 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Chiroptera
09-24-2007 3:47 PM


Re: and Stalin outlawed evolution -NOT
It will be interesting. Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto in 1848 while Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Chiroptera, posted 09-24-2007 3:47 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 6:56 PM jar has responded

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1095 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 103 of 238 (423853)
09-24-2007 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by CTD
09-24-2007 9:35 AM


Sexual selection
CTD writes:

Oh? And who was it came up with the term 'sexual selection'? Do you know the name of that famous creationist by chance? Or is it maybe a touch subjective? (Careful! One of those was a trick question.)

Ummm, Charles Darwin, 1871, Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. I can see by your wording you are attempting to make us believe you have some knowledge on this subject that we do not, but you are wrong. Also, do yourself a favor and look up the word subjective in a good dictionary.

To repeat what has been said over and over in this thread, please demonstrate how the ToE is inherently racist or leads to racism as a logical conclusion, naming racists who may or may have not been evolutionists is not evidence.


"I have seen so far because I have stood on the bloated corpses of my competitors" - Dr Burgess Bowder
This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 9:35 AM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 9:46 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

    
CTD
Member (Idle past 4034 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 104 of 238 (423886)
09-24-2007 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by jar
09-24-2007 3:57 PM


Re: and Stalin outlawed evolution -NOT
jar
It will be interesting. Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto in 1848 while Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859.

Maybe this is a clue as to why the fundamentalist evolutionists preferred Larmackian evolution... maybe?

Or maybe not. The line between Lamarck and Darwin really wasn't clear, if it existed at all. In those days I think the two were generally regarded as complimentary.

Can we just say that dogmatic devotion to an evolutionary paradigm motivated the Soviet-style Communists to suppress science?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by jar, posted 09-24-2007 3:57 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by jar, posted 09-24-2007 7:18 PM CTD has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 105 of 238 (423894)
09-24-2007 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by CTD
09-24-2007 6:56 PM


Re: and Stalin outlawed evolution -NOT
Or maybe not. The line between Lamarck and Darwin really wasn't clear, if it existed at all. In those days I think the two were generally regarded as complimentary.

You might think so, but even if true (which it is not since what was proposed by Darwin has since been borne out by every new discovery while the theories of Lamark have been shown to be false and were not accepted even while he was alive) it is irrelevant. Today we know far more than at the time of either of those gentlemen and fortunately what we have learned from Evolution is that all mankind is really one species and that we are also very close kin to the chimps, gorillas, orangutans and bonobos and pretty closely related to the grass and snails.

Can we just say that dogmatic devotion to an evolutionary paradigm motivated the Soviet-style Communists to suppress science?

No, we can't, because that is not what happened.

Further, you still have not show how Evolution or the Theory of Evolution could support racism.

Nor have you shown how Marxism supports racism. One of the tenets of Marx work was the equality of the individual. There was no differentiation based on race, but only on productivity.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 6:56 PM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 8:33 PM jar has responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
16Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019