MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
It was presented in the debate. Didn't you bother watching it?
Ham on Nye
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
Darwin did not believe or argue there were five races of man. ILA/DY, as usual, is playing the part of lying scumbag.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts#Charles_Darwin_and_Race
By the late 1860s, however, Darwin’s theory of evolution had been thought to be compatible with the polygenist thesis (Stepan 1982). Darwin thus used Descent of Man to disprove the polygenist thesis and end the debate between polygeny and monogeny once and for all. Darwin also used it to disprove other hypotheses about racial difference that had persisted since the time of ancient Greece, for example, that differences in skin color and body constitution occurred because of differences of geography and climate.
Darwin concluded, for example, that the biological similarities between the different races were “too great” for the polygenist thesis to be plausible. He also used the idea of races to argue for the continuity between humans and animals, noting that it would be highly implausible that man should, by mere accident acquire characteristics shared by many apes.
Darwin sought to demonstrate that the physical characteristics that were being used to define race for centuries (i.e. skin color and facial features) were superficial and had no utility for survival. Because, according to Darwin, any characteristic that did not have survival value could not have been naturally selected, he devised another hypothesis for the development and persistence of these characteristics. The mechanism Darwin developed is known as sexual selection.
Though the idea of sexual selection had appeared in earlier works by Darwin, it was not until the late 1860s when it received full consideration (Stepan 1982). Furthermore, it was not until 1914 that sexual selection received serious consideration as a racial theory by naturalist thinkers.
Darwin defined sexual selection as the “struggle between individuals of one sex, generally the males, for the possession of the other sex”. Sexual selection consisted of two types for Darwin: 1.) The physical struggle for a mate, and 2.) The preference for some color or another, typically by females of a given species. Darwin asserted that the differing human races (insofar as race was conceived phenotypically) had arbitrary standards of ideal beauty, and that these standards reflected important physical characteristics sought in mates.
Broadly speaking, Darwin’s attitudes of what race was and how it developed in the human species are attributable to two assertions, 1.)That all human beings, regardless of race share a single, common ancestor and 2.) Phenotypic racial differences are superficially selected, and have no survival value. Given these two beliefs, some believe Darwin to have established monogenism as the dominant paradigm for racial ancestry, and to have defeated the scientific racism practiced by Morton, Knott, Agassiz et. Al, as well as notions that there existed a natural racial hierarchy that reflected inborn differences and measures of value between the different human races. Nevertheless he stated: : “The various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other - as in the texture of hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body, the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull, and even the convolutions of the brain. But it would be an endless task to specify the numerous points of difference. The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatization and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotion, but partly in their intellectual faculties” (The Descent of Man, chapter VII).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts#Charles_Darwin_and_Race
By the late 1860s, however, Darwin’s theory of evolution had been thought to be compatible with the polygenist thesis (Stepan 1982). Darwin thus used Descent of Man to disprove the polygenist thesis and end the debate between polygeny and monogeny once and for all. Darwin also used it to disprove other hypotheses about racial difference that had persisted since the time of ancient Greece, for example, that differences in skin color and body constitution occurred because of differences of geography and climate.
Darwin concluded, for example, that the biological similarities between the different races were “too great” for the polygenist thesis to be plausible. He also used the idea of races to argue for the continuity between humans and animals, noting that it would be highly implausible that man should, by mere accident acquire characteristics shared by many apes.
Darwin sought to demonstrate that the physical characteristics that were being used to define race for centuries (i.e. skin color and facial features) were superficial and had no utility for survival. Because, according to Darwin, any characteristic that did not have survival value could not have been naturally selected, he devised another hypothesis for the development and persistence of these characteristics. The mechanism Darwin developed is known as sexual selection.
Though the idea of sexual selection had appeared in earlier works by Darwin, it was not until the late 1860s when it received full consideration (Stepan 1982). Furthermore, it was not until 1914 that sexual selection received serious consideration as a racial theory by naturalist thinkers.
Darwin defined sexual selection as the “struggle between individuals of one sex, generally the males, for the possession of the other sex”. Sexual selection consisted of two types for Darwin: 1.) The physical struggle for a mate, and 2.) The preference for some color or another, typically by females of a given species. Darwin asserted that the differing human races (insofar as race was conceived phenotypically) had arbitrary standards of ideal beauty, and that these standards reflected important physical characteristics sought in mates.
Broadly speaking, Darwin’s attitudes of what race was and how it developed in the human species are attributable to two assertions, 1.)That all human beings, regardless of race share a single, common ancestor and 2.) Phenotypic racial differences are superficially selected, and have no survival value. Given these two beliefs, some believe Darwin to have established monogenism as the dominant paradigm for racial ancestry, and to have defeated the scientific racism practiced by Morton, Knott, Agassiz et. Al, as well as notions that there existed a natural racial hierarchy that reflected inborn differences and measures of value between the different human races. Nevertheless he stated: : “The various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other - as in the texture of hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body, the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull, and even the convolutions of the brain. But it would be an endless task to specify the numerous points of difference. The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatization and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotion, but partly in their intellectual faculties” (The Descent of Man, chapter VII).
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
Funny how you liberals use wikipedia to try and rewrite history.
"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. 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 civilised 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." Darwin, Descent of Man
"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. 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 civilised 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." Darwin, Descent of Man
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
No. As I stated, I do not endorse debating young-earth creationists in a public forum. Also, I'd be skeptical of any "evidence" presented by Ken "Lying for Jesus" Ham.
Thanks, but I did not make it up.
Here is a link to the book Ham mentioned and it was also involved in the Scopes Trial.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39969
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39969
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
Well it's a long debate. You must have missed it. Regardless, post 23 gives you the words right from Darwin that prove my assertion.
signalmankenneth
Verified User
Are all faux Christians conservative?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Of all people coming from you I'm absolutely gob smacked. How can you actually give Ham any credibility at all? Many of his asertions are either asinine. Quoting two engineers and an astronomer as believing in young earth creationism? So what? They're not biologist what does their believing in young earth creationism have to do with the price of fish? Or he was just plain dishonest like his simply making up the ground rules for sciences as he goes along. Historical science vs observational science? That's complete and utter nonsense. It's something he just made up cause the facts don't fit in with his worldview. That's simply not science by any objective measure. There is no such thing as "historical science".
Some of the right wing knuckle draggers I can understand their opposition to biological evolution based on arguments from authority that appeal to them and their anti-intellectual attitudes but Ham said virtually nothing....and I mean virtually nothing that was either factually correct on intellectually honest. He simply stood up on stage and lied to people. How can you as an educator condone this?
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Any objective observer who understands what science is can only draw one conclusion. That Ham's beliefs are not science. Not even remotely.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
You're are quite correct Brent. That observation alone condemns Ham's charade as not being science.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Really? Please show me that citation.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
No it wasn't presented in the debate. Were you paying attention? Darwin never made any such claim. What Ham referenced was a biology text from the late 19th century that was factually wrong. Do your homework pal.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
so, did they make anyone change their minds?......
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
Well it's a long debate. You must have missed it. Regardless, post 23 gives you the words right from Darwin that prove my assertion.