Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Kind of like when idiots like you pretend to understand basic genetics.
Ham on Nye
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
Kind of like when idiots like you pretend to understand basic genetics.
It IS when stupid conservatives, like you, try to talk about science. You should talk about subjects you understand, like how to kiss ass.
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yet you were the one who denies genetics. You are the one that tries to insert a soft science like philosophy into the discussion on genetics. You ignore genetic evidence and instead insert your philosophical or legal definitions and pretend that is hard science.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
No it didn't. You either were not paying attention or your just making it up to suite your own point of view.
Where did I deny genetics? You are projecting. You are the one who insists your definition is hard science, just like Ken Ham with his "historical science" and "kinds." It seems conservatives are commonly scientifically illiterate morons.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
OK you two...enough of the pissing contest.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Answer the simple questions...
1) If a human egg cell and human sperm cell combine... can the end result be anything other than human?
2) If after the fertilization, the egg implants and it continues to grow and develop, can it be anything other than alive?
That is the base science... that is the hard science. It is black and white on both of those issues. It is simple.
Where you get confused is when you inject the philosophical or legal into the equation. Neither of which is based on hard science.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
That's hilarious. Now you're pretending that Darwin didn't write that he believed that there were several races of man, and that the darker ones were inferior.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
No, what is hillarious is your trying to use Ken Ham as a reference as opposed to providing a citation.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
The quote from post 23, and repeated in 49, is directly from Darwin's book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Zv...negro or Australian and the gorilla."&f=false
Again, Ham is not as dishonest as ILA/DY. He made no claim that "Darwin theorized that there are five different races of humans, with his own, the Caucasians, being the highest form." The claim that Ham made was an accurate statement about the textbook I linked to previously. He was alluding to the idea that evolution teaches that we are not related but that creation says we are all descendants of Adam. I am not sure Hunter (the author of the textbook) intended to say that the races evolved multi regionally or that we don't all share a relatively recent common ancestor. But, Darwin did not believe that or that there was much distinction in the supposed races. His statements that are frequently mischaracterized by scumbags like ILA/DY were about cultural differences and that seems to be the only real difference he saw between the supposed races.
Darwin was far more modern than Nova and certainly more than contemporary creationist. The creationist of that time argued that Africans were a separate species created inferior or a form of the purer race that had reached a greater state of decay. Many creationists STILL believe that blacks are the descendant of Canaan (son of Ham... grandson of Noah) and suffer the Noah's curse.
Darwin was an outspoken abolitionist. His father and grandfather were as well.
Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole structure be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.
He who will read Mr. Tylor's and Sir J. Lubbock's interesting works can hardly fail to be deeply impressed with the close similarity between the men of all races in tastes, dispositions and habits. This is shown by the pleasure which they all take in dancing, rude music, acting, painting, tattoing, and otherwise decorating themselves; in their mutual comprehension of gesture-language, by the same expression in their features, and by the same inarticulate cries, when excited by the same emotions. This similarity, or rather identity, is striking, when contrasted with the different expressions and cries made by distinct species of monkeys. There is good evidence that the art of shooting with bows and arrows has not been handed down from any common progenitor of mankind, yet as Westropp and Nilsson have remarked, the stone arrow-heads, brought from the most distant parts of the world, and manufactured at the most remote periods, are almost identical; and this fact can only be accounted for by the various races having similar inventive or mental powers. The same observation has been made by archeologists with respect to certain widely-prevalent ornaments, such as zig-zags, &c.; and with respect to various simple beliefs and customs, such as the burying of the dead under megalithic structures. I remember observing in South America, that there, as in so many other parts of the world, men have generally chosen the summits of lofty hills, to throw up piles of stones, either as a record of some remarkable event, or for burying their dead.
Now when naturalists observe a close agreement in numerous small details of habits, tastes, and dispositions between two or more domestic races, or between nearly-allied natural forms, they use this fact as an argument that they are descended from a common progenitor who was thus endowed; and consequently that all should be classed under the same species. The same argument may be applied with much force to the races of man.
As it is improbable that the numerous and unimportant points of resemblance between the several races of man in bodily structure and mental faculties (I do not here refer to similar customs) should all have been independently acquired, they must have been inherited from progenitors who had these same characters. - The Descent of Man; Charles Darwin; 1871
Darwin was far more modern than Nova and certainly more than contemporary creationist. The creationist of that time argued that Africans were a separate species created inferior or a form of the purer race that had reached a greater state of decay. Many creationists STILL believe that blacks are the descendant of Canaan (son of Ham... grandson of Noah) and suffer the Noah's curse.
Darwin was an outspoken abolitionist. His father and grandfather were as well.
Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole structure be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.
He who will read Mr. Tylor's and Sir J. Lubbock's interesting works can hardly fail to be deeply impressed with the close similarity between the men of all races in tastes, dispositions and habits. This is shown by the pleasure which they all take in dancing, rude music, acting, painting, tattoing, and otherwise decorating themselves; in their mutual comprehension of gesture-language, by the same expression in their features, and by the same inarticulate cries, when excited by the same emotions. This similarity, or rather identity, is striking, when contrasted with the different expressions and cries made by distinct species of monkeys. There is good evidence that the art of shooting with bows and arrows has not been handed down from any common progenitor of mankind, yet as Westropp and Nilsson have remarked, the stone arrow-heads, brought from the most distant parts of the world, and manufactured at the most remote periods, are almost identical; and this fact can only be accounted for by the various races having similar inventive or mental powers. The same observation has been made by archeologists with respect to certain widely-prevalent ornaments, such as zig-zags, &c.; and with respect to various simple beliefs and customs, such as the burying of the dead under megalithic structures. I remember observing in South America, that there, as in so many other parts of the world, men have generally chosen the summits of lofty hills, to throw up piles of stones, either as a record of some remarkable event, or for burying their dead.
Now when naturalists observe a close agreement in numerous small details of habits, tastes, and dispositions between two or more domestic races, or between nearly-allied natural forms, they use this fact as an argument that they are descended from a common progenitor who was thus endowed; and consequently that all should be classed under the same species. The same argument may be applied with much force to the races of man.
As it is improbable that the numerous and unimportant points of resemblance between the several races of man in bodily structure and mental faculties (I do not here refer to similar customs) should all have been independently acquired, they must have been inherited from progenitors who had these same characters. - The Descent of Man; Charles Darwin; 1871
Quit trying to hijack every one of my threads.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Then quit bringing me into each of your threads.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
and yes... we noticed that you cannot answer those basic questions yet again.
I quoted directly form the Descent of Man the same book from which ILA/DY took his quote out of context. But even in the quote mining Darwin never said what ILA/DY claims. Ham did not say that Darwin said that. ILA/DY misunderstood. ILA/DY has provided NOTHING to support his mistake and he is now simply lying to try to cover it.
What ILA/DY is quote mining was a response to creationist and even some evolutionist (e.g., Wallace) arguments that the moral character and intellect of man (especially that of Europeans) was too far removed from that of animals to be the product of evolution alone. He was making the point that extinctions and our own cultural evolution made it appear that the chasm was wide and with no intermediates. He was pointing out how future extinctions of apes and cultural hegemony might eventually make it appear wider. His reference to them as savages was based on culture not biology and again he was speaking to an audience that held these biases as factual.
What ILA/DY is quote mining was a response to creationist and even some evolutionist (e.g., Wallace) arguments that the moral character and intellect of man (especially that of Europeans) was too far removed from that of animals to be the product of evolution alone. He was making the point that extinctions and our own cultural evolution made it appear that the chasm was wide and with no intermediates. He was pointing out how future extinctions of apes and cultural hegemony might eventually make it appear wider. His reference to them as savages was based on culture not biology and again he was speaking to an audience that held these biases as factual.
Last edited:
I already created a thread once before to give you a beat down. Quit trying to hijack my threads.
Please, you appear every time someone criticizes a right winger to try to change the subject and toss salad.
Last edited:
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
Here's what I found on Pg. 23:
"But the sense of smell is of extremely slight service, if any, even to savages, in whom it is generally more highly developed than in the civilized races."
Which is basically the SOP for people in the 19th century. But nowhere does Darwin state that one race is superior to another. In fact, this would contradict his beliefs on the matter, as others have pointed out.
I couldn't find anything controversial on Pg. 49. I'm not sure what you're getting at there. In any event, even if Darwin were a racist - hell, even if he were a deviant that got jollies from sodomizing storks - it would have absolutely NO RELEVANCE to the validity of the theory of evolution.