Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
79 online now:
Admin (Percy), candle2, dwise1, PaulK, Tanypteryx (5 members, 74 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,126 Year: 4,238/6,534 Month: 452/900 Week: 158/150 Day: 4/8 Hour: 0/3

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Evolution is antithetical to racism
Inactive Member

Message 25 of 238 (422794)
09-18-2007 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
09-16-2007 10:19 PM

A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
Several posters over the years have implied that Evolution and Racism are related or that racism is supported by evolution. The fact is that the Theory of Evolution is antithetical to the concept of racism.

That's because it has been a topic of discussion among eminent evolutionists since its inception. As you will see, the theory of evolution itself seems to deliberately evolve with the spirit of the times. In other words, if racism is an acceptable belief by today's standards, then evolution explains why it is justified in coming to that rationale. If racism is looked upon negatively, then evolution has an explanation for that too-- so that no matter what comes about, the theory will always be protected-- even by the very arguments it once used to counter the positions they now defend.

From the chief himself:

    “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.

    “Man in his wild condition seems to be in this respect almost as susceptible as his nearest allies, the anthropoid apes, which have never yet survived long, when removed from their native country.” -Charles Darwin; from his book The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex

And then from Thomas Huxley, the enormous early supported of Darwin's work, known candidly as "Darwmin's Bulldog, said,

    "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. "

Then we have John Tyndall:

    "The human brain is the organized register of infinitely numerous experiences received during the evolution of life, or rather during the evolution of that series of organisms through which the human organism has been reached. … Thus it happens that the European inherits from twenty to thirty cubic inches more of brain than the Papuan. Thus it happens that faculties, as of music, which scarcely exist in some inferior races, become congenital in superior ones. Thus it happens that out of savages unable to count up to the number of their fingers, and speaking a language containing only nouns and verbs, arise at length our Newtons and Shakespeares.”


You can read the rest of them on your own. The point being, there is sufficient reason to at least think critically about the socioethical concerns that are directly attached to the theory of evolution.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that the assertions you've heard over the years aren't fabrications, nor is racism the antithesis of evolution. The theory has proven to be so flexible that a view defended in the beginning can now be vehemently denied.

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : fixed italics

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 09-16-2007 10:19 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 09-18-2007 11:44 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 27 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-18-2007 12:11 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action
 Message 29 by Modulous, posted 09-18-2007 12:18 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2007 2:15 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Inactive Member

Message 28 of 238 (422810)
09-18-2007 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by jar
09-18-2007 11:44 AM

Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
The topic, in case you missed it is "Evolution is antithetical to racism" not as you misstated it, "racism the antithesis of evolution".

I understood your premise just fine. I simply misspoke. Excuse me all over the place.

The point is, "What is there in Evolution or the Theory of Evolution that can be used to support racism?"

There is more evidence of the malleability of the theory. In its early years, there is, without question, a sense of general direction within the theory-- from lower to higher, less evolved to more evolved, less suitably adapted to more highly adapted, less autonomy to more autonomy, etc.

"Seen in retrospect, evolution as a whole doubtless had a general direction, from simple to complex, from dependence on to relative independence of the environment, to greater and greater autonomy of individuals, greater and greater development of sense organs and nervous systems conveying and processing information about the state of the organism's surroundings, and finally greater and greater consciousness. You can call this direction progress or by some other name." -Theodosius Dobzhansky

This is more than evident reading the early writers of evolutionary theory. Approximately 30-40 years ago this belief began to, itself, evolve. Spearheaded by certain eminent figures like Margulis, Gould, Dawkins, etc, there was a new belief that life was not more evolved or less evolved-- just, evolved. And this bait and switch exists over its social and moral implications.

"Life is organization. From prokaryotic cells, eukaryotic cells, tissues, and organs, to plants and animals, families, communities, ecosystems, and living planets, life is organization, at every scale. The evolution of life is the increase of biological organization, if it is anything. Clearly, if life originates and makes evolutionary progress without organizing input from outside, then something has organized itself. Logical entropy in a closed system has decreased. This is the violation that people are getting at, when they say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. This violation, the decrease of logical entropy in a closed system, must happen continually in the darwinian account of evolutionary progress.Most darwinists just ignore this staggering problem." -Brig Klyce

For your support you pull on some quote mined comments from people living over 100 years ago.

To be quote mining, I have to be using quotes taken out of context. I notice that you only charge non-evolutionists with the charge of quote mining, usually as a non-sequitur to detract from the argument.

Using the fact that the quotes are over 100 years old is a strawman, since I very clearly made the argument that evolutionists once asserted it.

I could respond by posting quotes from recent Biblical Christians that show support of racism discussion.

Then do so. See, you think that when I bring in to question evolutionary theory, that I'm bringing you, personally, in to that same disrepute. I assume that you have your own mind and don't blindly follow every single aspect that some evolutionist purported.

Therefore, bringing up some creationist which misrepresented an issue means nothing to me, because I'm not that person, nor is that person me.

Deal with the issue. There is a legitimate basis for questioning the bait and switch of evolutionary theory, as science is now pandering to political correctness, rather than simply following the evidence wherever it may lead.

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 09-18-2007 11:44 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 09-18-2007 12:24 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action
 Message 31 by Modulous, posted 09-18-2007 12:30 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2007 2:39 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Inactive Member

Message 32 of 238 (422828)
09-18-2007 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Modulous
09-18-2007 12:18 PM

Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
The theory hasn't changed with the spirit of the times, the implications that people manage to draw from the theory might change though.

Thus the theory will always be protected, just as I said. Lets think about it objectively. If one race of mankind existed before another, and natural selection works to improve upon the whole of nature, then surely one race really would be less evolved than another.

Heck, Darwin used terms like "descending and ascending" all the time as a basis for proving that life has a general direction.

I really see no way of getting around that, if the ToE were true as it is defined currently. Therefore, I see the argument that racism has evolutionary ties to at least be suspect, if nothing else. But then again, if it were true, you can't very well blame nature for developing something as malicious. Since you can't view nature as malicious, why defend it in such a way that removes its social implications? Clearly there are deeper motives than mere science at work, in which case, we have leapt from science right in to personal interest.

the trait 'civilisation' was something Darwin believed would be positively selected for. His prediction is pretty much coming true right now, though as a memetic concept rather than a genetic one. We do have the luxury of evidence over Darwin here though - we have seen individuals from the so-called savage races become civilized.

If a theologian referred to any man as a "savage," I doubt very much that you would be defending him in the same manner that you glibly defend Mr. Darwin here. You'd likely be more inclined to skewer , tar, and feather him, then hang him out to dry as irrefutable proof that theology is inherently racist.

Another point to consider is that, unlike most of the creationists of his time, Darwin saw the other races as being equally human and deserving of the same respect and dignity as his own race.


"The evolution of man is not only a guess, but a very wild one; and it is totally unsupported by any convincing arguments. It can be mathematically demonstrated to be an impossible theory. Every proof of the unity of the human race in the days of Adam or Noah shatters the theory of the evolution of man. If the evolution of the human race be true, there must have been, hundreds of thousands of years ago, a great multitude of heads of the race, in many parts of the earth, without one common language or religion. The present population of the globe proves that mankind must have descended from one pair who lived not earlier than the time of Noah. The unity of languages also proves one common head about the same time. Certain beliefs and customs, common to various religions, point to one original God-given religion in historic time, in contrast to the evolution idea of many religions invented by ape-men in millions of years. The history of the world and the migration of nations point to one locality where the human race began in times not more remote, and show that man was created in a civilized state, and, therefore, never was a brute. If evolution were true, there would have been many billion times as many human beings as now exist, a great multitude of invented languages with little or no similarity, a vast number of invented religions with little, if anything, in common. Even the sciences invented and exploited by evolutionists, the Mendelian Inheritance Law and Biometry, also prove evolution impossible. The unity of mankind is also conclusively shown by the fact that all races interbreed, the most certain test of every species." -William Williams, circa 1928

I guess his beliefs were uncommon. It would do more to advance your assertion by providing unequivocal evidence as I have been doing.

More than that, attempting to turn the argument around creation is a grasping at straws, because whether or not early creationists were racists wouldn't detract from the argument that many, if not most, evolutionists undeniably were.

And apparently you have now given creationists a get-out-of-jail-free card in the event that some were. All they have to do is invoke the same exonerating message you gave for Darwinists.

Darwin was discussing the evidence as was known at the time. He considered it more interesting to discuss the fertility problems some races had when transported. Are you suggesting he should ignore the evidence?

Your premise doesn't follow. Darwin refers to other human beings as less evolved, and thus engendering some kind of clear of progress. The tacit assertion is that he is more highly evolved than they.

You seem to agree that this is an antiquated portion of the theory. But I don't see how it could be, since, if evolution is true, there really is a clear sense of advancement. Do you really disagree with that? Isn't the goal of man to progress? (Towards what is anybody's guess) But the point is that whether they outwardly deny progress is the unintended goal of life, the underlying message is easily read beween the lines.

Of course we should consider the socioethical concerns. That doesn't mean evolution is tied to any dogma of racism or anti-racism. Sociologists can study the effects that ideas have on people, and they do.

I'm not asserting that evolution is a malicious theory propagated to point out character flaws in lesser beings. Some creationists do that. I'm not one of them. I'm simply stating that I agree that, at the very least, a legitimate concern is not unfounded. I think evolutionists need to think carefully about the theory as it relates to socioethical questions.

You'll have to show where theory has flexed. You have only shown that the Victorian era was a time when racists were common (a matter of ignorance) and that racists might draw racist conclusions from a scientific theory about biology.

Certainly the theory has flexed. Darwin believed that features developed by exercise are inherited. Such as, my father working out before I was born would make me more inclined to be just as strong when I came of age-- which would also mean that if he got his arms chopped off before I was born, I ran the risk of being limbless too. Of course, that's preposterous.

But, really, all of this is off topic. I would like to focus on why the theory can justifiably be brought into question as far as it relates to racist ideologies.

Racists draw racist conclusions from the bible, and from just about any source they can.

Yes, but evolutionists directly received their information about such racist tendencies from Darwin himself. No one can such a thing about Jesus.

The fact is that people draw conclusions, warranted or otherwise, based on culture and the 'zeitgeist' - but that doesn't mean the explanation for biological change has changed.

I understand the zeitgeist if the time. I'm not saying that if you are an evolutionist that you automatically become a racist by virtue of association. I'm simply in agreement that questioning the theory on the pretense that it will invariably lead to racist sentiments is something to consider.

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Edit to add tidbit of info

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Modulous, posted 09-18-2007 12:18 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 09-18-2007 1:31 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 35 by Chiroptera, posted 09-18-2007 1:37 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 09-18-2007 5:14 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-19-2007 2:26 AM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

Inactive Member

Message 42 of 238 (422907)
09-18-2007 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Modulous
09-18-2007 12:30 PM

Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
I'm having difficulty with the source, the only place I find this goes back to your other quote - the panspermist, Brig Klyce.

Klyce listed his reference sources, and I believe it was Lithodid-Man that posted it.

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Modulous, posted 09-18-2007 12:30 PM Modulous has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2007 6:18 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Inactive Member

Message 46 of 238 (422913)
09-18-2007 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Chiroptera
09-18-2007 1:31 PM

Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
Protected from what? We aren't discussing evidence for or against the theory of evolution in this thread; we're discussing whether it is or is not logically valid to use the theory of evolution to justify certain cultural beliefs.

Right. I then posted sources, coming straight form the top, that pointed out how eminent evolutionists justified racism in their own minds. Modulous then countered with justifying how and why it is all ineffectual. Thus, whatever happens, the theory will always have some perennial scapegoat to rescue it.

If Darwin wrongly concluded what he did then, then what is saying that the current paradigm will not be proven demonstrably wrong in the near future?

I don't know what it means to be more or less evolved.

Sure you do. Everyone does. Calling someone a simian is not some endearing term for them. The allusion is, you're stupid. If they say that you have the intelligence of an amoeba, you aren't very well going to assume that its a compliment, are you?

There is a general progression if you look at a cladistic tree. There most certainly is a general direction within the theory. Increased intelligence is generally a qualifier.

Early Darwinists asserted that negros, south pacific islanders, and aborigines were lesser men precariously in limbo between simian and man.

If you mean that one race (assuming, I suppose, like the Victorians and people of the early 20th century, that races are biologically distinct categories) is closer morphologically to the common ancestor, then I suppose that you are correct.

I'm sure you know very well that they were saying was something far more pernicious than just noticing the differences. Tyndall stated that these aboriginal men could barely count to five and had no real concept of music, whereas he, being a European, was more highly developed than his halfling counterparts.

Assuming that races are biologically distinct, it could be that both branches (and their subbranches when they branch) have each "evolved an equal amount" from their common ancestor. Then we no longer have the case of "more" or "less" evolved, just differently evolved.

If the oldest known human bones are said to be found in Ethiopia, and latter fossilizations of man places them in Europe, you make the deduction. Is that not indicative of a European developing after the African?

I'm not saying everyone agrees with this. I would say that the majority most likely do not. What I am saying is, of those that do, isn't that the logical deduction they made in order to justify it?

And even if one race has gone through more morphological change than anther, so what? All this means is the members of the "newer" race is better adapted to the environment in which it is found than the "older" race would be if its members were in that same area. If this does happen, it isn't racism it acknowledge this, no more than saying dachsunds were bred to be better badger hunters than retrievers are is somehow "breedist".

Well, I certainly agree. And you and I are probably in agreement that different races come by way of mutation, isolation, and selective breeding that end up fixing specific traits to a certain population. There is nothing wrong with that because its completely a natural occurrence.

Darwinists, though, certainly didn't see it that way. And I'd be curious to know how many of their modern contemporaries secretly harbor these taboo thoughts.

Now the racists go beyond what is scientifically and objectively justifiable by attributing moral qualities, or aesthetic qualities, or somehow judging the various characteristics that distinguish the races (assuming that the races can even be distinguished). Not only does evolution not make judgements about morals, aesthetics, or what should or should not be considered "preferable", but racists often attribute these qualities without any regard to whether there is a correlation between characteristics and the values.

Well, supposing that the ToE were entirely true, of course you can't blame nature for being nature. That's like blaming a tree for growing in an awkward direction from the rest in the forest, or a baboon being considered bad for having been born with a congenital heart defect.

I'm not even entertaining those notions. I'm simply saying that many people have interpreted Darwin's notions in linear terms. I don't think its accidental. Hitler, Marx, Stalin, etc all used Darwinism as a basis for believing that their race was the most advanced. You wouldn't believe that's purely coincidental that mass confusion effected the lot of them, do you? It seems they got their ideologies right out of the scientific annals of Darwin.

You may say in defense, "yeah, but you can't blame Darwin for coming to that conclusion anymore than you could blame Jesus for someone coming to wrong-headed conclusions from a bizarre interpretation of the Bible. The difference is, Darwin himself believed in that. Darwin wrote about it. And moreover, he spoke of evolution always in these linear terms that, today, no longer apply.

Instead, the general fascination is not say someone is bad or good-- just different.

No one is more evolved or less evolved-- just evolved.

No one is smarter or less smart-- just different.

Well, that's all a little to PC to be accurate. I suspect they changed their tune because they understood quite well the social implications of maintaining a totally Darwinistic framework. Now its a feau pax

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 09-18-2007 1:31 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2007 6:52 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action
 Message 48 by Doddy, posted 09-18-2007 7:31 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 49 by Chiroptera, posted 09-18-2007 8:19 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action
 Message 50 by jar, posted 09-18-2007 8:30 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action
 Message 52 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-18-2007 9:06 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-19-2007 2:55 AM Hyroglyphx has taken no action
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-19-2007 3:24 AM Hyroglyphx has taken no action
 Message 63 by bluegenes, posted 09-19-2007 7:07 AM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

Inactive Member

Message 53 of 238 (422944)
09-18-2007 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by PaulK
09-18-2007 2:15 PM

Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the creation of a smear
Your quotes do NOT demonstrate changes in the theory to accomodate changes in generally accepted belief. None of them even mention or suggest a change in the theory. All you see are changes in generally accepted belief. Racist views were (wrongly) believed to be fact when these people wrote.

What on earth are you talking about? All of the quotes are taken as excerpts from books or publications. I assume you would agree that Darwin wrote at length about how such things come about. You aren't seriously going to deny that Darwin talked about descent and ascent as it relates to the progress of organisms, are you? That much is transparently obvious.

Indeed the real issue is not the malleability of the theory, but the difficulty of applying it to such problems, without detailed knowledge of the conditions.

You can call a steaming pile of dung pumpkin pie if you want to, and then call everyone else crazy for not understanding that pumpkin pie and dung are the same thing, but you won't make any allies in the process.

However evolution does tend to oppose racist assumptions. For instance, given the fact that human populations do interbreed, any strongly advantageous trait would be expected to spread through the entire human population rather than being confined within a single race. Only locally advantageous traits would be expected to be so confined

Then consider this quote as well:

    "The essential point is that there are 10,000,000 Negroes here now and that the proportion of mulattos to a thousand blacks has increased with alarming rapidity since 1850.

    According to all evidence available, then, American intelligence is declining, and will proceed with an accelerating rate as the racial admixture becomes more and more extensive. The decline of American intelligence will be more rapid than the decline of intelligence of European national groups, owing to the presence here of the Negro. These are the plain, if somewhat ugly, facts that our study shows. The deterioration of the American intelligence is not inevitable, however, if public action can be aroused to prevent it.

    There is no reason why legal steps should not be taken which would insure a continuously progressive upward evolution. The steps that should be taken to preserve or increase our present intellectual capacity must of course be dictated by science and not by political expediency." -National Research Council: A Study of American Intelligence - Princeton University Press; 1923

I guess the argument can go both ways, eh?

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2007 2:15 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 09-18-2007 9:28 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2007 9:32 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action
 Message 56 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-18-2007 10:17 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-19-2007 2:10 AM Hyroglyphx has taken no action
 Message 58 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2007 2:25 AM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

Inactive Member

Message 66 of 238 (423342)
09-21-2007 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by PaulK
09-18-2007 2:39 PM

Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
The Dobzhansky quote doesn't quite say what you think it says. I have bolded relevant points to make it more clear:

What you have emboldened further supports what I have been saying. Early proponents of evolution have viewed the process in linear terms. The surely was this sense of less evolved/more evolved as it relates to organisms. Where is the objection? Are you honestly going to deny that?

Let us note that nowhere does Dobzhansky hint that his idea applies within the human species.

He wouldn't have to since ALL organisms, human and non-human, are products of evolution according to the theory. Why would humans be exempt?

Nor does he suggest that this trend is more than a general historical idea, one that only applies over the whole of evolutionary history - not at the small scale of within-species evolution.

You can call your description anything you'd like, but you just described was progress. Its very simple-- unicellular to multicellular. Prokaryotes to eukaryotes. Less adapted to more adapted. Less intelligent to more intelligent. The list goes on, and yet, you deny "progress." Surely you must only being doing so because you understand the underlying implication if you don't-- namely, that it explains some justification on the part of racist ideologies, whether you agree with their premise or not.

(The Brig Klyce quote you produce is just silly. It's not even clear what he means by "logical entropy" - the Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to thermodynamic entropy. Not to the entropy of information theory or some other "entropy" that Klyce has made up. There is no real problem - which is why it is ignored.)

Its not made up at all. There are different kinds of entropy. Read his page on it and it will explain what he is talking about in great detail. For however nutty panspermia might be considered by both creo's and evo's alike, his understandings are well articulated.

For instance, I have long been an advocate for the specific naming of an immutable natural law. That I am aware of, there is no law of death or disorder that has a specific name, and yet, its as simplistic and true as gravity. Its a cornerstone law that goes on nameless. Klyce here is speaking about this law and how the term "entropy" is often confused. He goes on explaining why the confusion exists, but probably shouldn't.

Of course, this is now drifting off topic, as the 2LoT is a subject unto itself.

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2007 2:39 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-21-2007 12:14 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2007 12:15 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 09-21-2007 1:35 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

Inactive Member

Message 70 of 238 (423360)
09-21-2007 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Modulous
09-18-2007 5:14 PM

Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
It will always be protected against the claims you are making, but it is not an insurmountable theory.

What claims have I made that are unreasonable? Quite a few people are saying that I am claiming that evolution will inherently lead to racism. I've made no such claim. What I have said is that based on the teachings, it is reasonable for racists to have come to their pitiable deductions.

And what was natural selection doing with the ancestors of the latter race? Here's the thing: either all current races broke off from the 'first' race of man and are thus equally evolved OR some races broke off earlier, and the latter races evolved from one the earlier races - in which case they would be equally evolved.

Of course I believe all humans are equally evolved, as no doubt, a measure of evolution has occurred in all humans. But could Darwinian macroevolution say the same thing? Well, lets find out.

All human beings can mate with one another, which is the surest way of knowing that they are related. We cannot mate with our supposed current ancestors, the chimpanzee. But what of the various simian kind? Isn't there a difference between homo habilis and homo erectus? Was one considered more or less evolved than the other? Is it possible that one race is more closely related to habilis, while the other is more closely related to erectus?

Are not these images telling of a progression?

Yet, the denial that progress is paramount, all the while showing stepwise progressions.

Who said anything about removing social implications? I said sociologists study social implications, biologists study life. Some biologists might dabble in sociology (or be full blow sociologists). I am having difficult following what you are talking about. What deep motives are you talking about?

The zeitgeist in Darwin's time, all the way up to Hitler's, was to show that some men are more highly evolved than others. This changed as people's personal views began to change the science behind it. Now, we're all equally evolved, no better or worse. Why a shift in thought? Is it because racism is now unpopular? Does that erase what the theory is saying?

Sure, Darwin is racist - by unfortunate ignorance not willfull ignorance.

Well, sure, I agree with that. Its the same with racism and slavery. The new belief concerning slavery was that they enslaved people because they looked different than they. What a silly notion. Racism never factored in to slavery until the latter years.

I told you of Victorian creationists (ie., almost all Victorians before Darwin's ideas became accepted), and that they were more racist than Darwin who was rather liberal for his time, and you respond with a non-Victorian bishop as a retort? You want evidence of this? Have you tried looking at the slave trade?

The slave trade was ended by numerous pioneers, Modulous. You can't just say all Vicotrians, or all liberals, or all conservatives. I could point to you William Wilberforce, as almost single-handedly abolishing slavery. But that wouldn't do justice to the myriad of others that helped him during his crusade to free the slaves.

what does demonstrating that some early evolutionists were racists?

I'm not. What I've been arguing, from the beginning, is that the question of if evolution reasonably has ties to racism, I believe the question to be a legitimate one. My use of quotes is only to show that it isn't far-fetched at all. I'm not trying to demonize evolution as being inherently racist at all. I'm simply saying that if some people come their "Master race" ideology after having read about evolution, don't be surprised by their conclusion. Its reasonable.

I state unequivocally that racist conclusions have never been a part of the explanation for the change of life on earth

Not intentionally, but inadvertently. What else did you expect would come of it?

One has to misrepresent or misunderstand what the theory is (an explanation) and try to convince others that it justifies whatever vile thing they happen to want to justify. People do that, with lots of things. Vile people lie and twist things. It's called propaganda and we should fight it, no?

Sure, people manipulate all sorts of things for their own ends. No sense in anyone ever denying that. But what else should they deduce after reading the theory in its context? Has there ever been a regression within evolution? Has anything gotten worse as a result of evolution? Probably not. Why? Because of natural selection. It removes the aberrant and retains the strong. So clearly, there really, truly is a sense of advancement in evolution. How can you say otherwise?

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 09-18-2007 5:14 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by DrJones*, posted 09-21-2007 2:32 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 73 by Modulous, posted 09-21-2007 2:43 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2007 2:51 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action
 Message 76 by molbiogirl, posted 09-21-2007 4:08 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action
 Message 77 by Chiroptera, posted 09-21-2007 4:11 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action
 Message 78 by PaulK, posted 09-21-2007 4:36 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2007 2:48 AM Hyroglyphx has taken no action
 Message 80 by nator, posted 09-22-2007 7:59 AM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

Inactive Member

Message 72 of 238 (423366)
09-21-2007 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by DrJones*
09-21-2007 2:32 PM

Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
We cannot mate with our supposed current ancestors, the chimpanzee.

Chimps are not our ancestors.

We cannot mate with our closest relative who shares a common ancestor. Is that better, Doc?

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by DrJones*, posted 09-21-2007 2:32 PM DrJones* has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2007 2:53 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

Inactive Member

Message 81 of 238 (423478)
09-22-2007 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Doddy
09-18-2007 7:31 PM

Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
There is a general progression if you look at a cladistic tree. There most certainly is a general direction within the theory. Increased intelligence is generally a qualifier.

I'm not going to comment on the biological nature of your point, because the study of biology doesn't dictate ethics. (Plus, it's nonsense)

I certainly agree with you that it is nonsense, but the point I'm trying to make is that it happens-- less frequently than it did 50 years ago, and even far less than it did 150 years ago. But it happens. And the only reason people came to such a faulty conclusion is the way evolution has been interpretated.

On the other hand, I can certainly see a progression in what organisms we consider moral to kill. Nobody cares if I kill a bacteria. Nobody cares if I kill a fungus or a plant (not because of the intrinsic nature of the plant, anyway. If they care, it is because of its effect on people). Very few care if I kill a worm or a sea urchin. But once we reach fish, some more people start to care. Even more care about lizards. Quite a few care about killing cats or parrots. Even more care about killing chimps. And nearly everyone cares about killing humans.

An outstanding point you make here that probably better summarizes what I've been talking about as far as progression is concerned. Would it be coincidental that all of the creatures that people don't seem to care about are viewed in evolutionary terms as being ancient? I don't think so. It seems the more intelligence an animal has, the more assured they are that it came after one of lesser intellect.

Again, if you look at any cladogram, now or from 150 years ago, there still is seen a general progression within the ToE. And if the theory says that humans descend from primates, and Ethiopians are the oldest known humans, then I don't think anyone should be surprised that some misguided racists made the deduction they have.

Yes, its messed up that they say it. And yes, I am aware that it cuts a lot of corners in the theory to come to such a pithy conclusion, but it isn't completed unfounded either. That's all I'm saying.

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Doddy, posted 09-18-2007 7:31 PM Doddy has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2007 2:41 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2007 3:37 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

Inactive Member

Message 139 of 238 (424993)
09-29-2007 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by RAZD
09-18-2007 6:18 PM

Re: References and Quote-Miners
Klyce listed his reference sources, and I believe it was Lithodid-Man that posted it.

In other words you just parroted a quote-mine from a questionable source and didn't check your facts. Why not read the source and learn what Dobzhansky actually says about evolution and "progress"?

Why is he questionable? Because you say so? As far as Dobshansky is concerned, I'm already aware of what he says. He agrees that life shouldn't be characterized in linear terms, but simply states the obvious that, deny it or not, its there.

He actually said "closed system" and you didn't twig that this makes him ... how do I put it kindly ... wrong?


That make him a questionable source ... whether on entropy or on the validity of the Dobzhansky quote or on any other question.

He was speaking about logical entropy, which was the entire purpose of his thesis. To quote you: Why not read the source and learn what [Klyce] actually says?

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2007 6:18 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2007 11:19 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action
 Message 141 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2007 5:15 AM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022