Wat? Most people don't think about bloodlines or DNA or genes or mutations when engaging in warfare. I don't recall this kind of thinking cropping up during the Vietnam War, or any of the Gulf wars, etc. You're pretty much making this up. Welp.
I think Davidjay may have Germany during WWII in mind. Hitler believed the German race superior and felt that it needed "living space" (lebensraum), hence his expansionist policies. He also believed racial purity essential, and this combined with his blame of the Jews for many of the ills of German society let to the final solution once deportation on the necessary scale proved impossible.
Davidjay is wrong that evolution teaches that new species are superior to old, but that's understood by few and so has never prevented evolution's misuse to justify policies of racial hate.
This is perhaps a better point. While Hitler wasn't a creationist in the sense that we would use the term today, he rejected evolution but wasn't religious and didn't have firm views on the origin of races
Davidjay is wrong that evolution teaches that new species are superior to old ...
I dunno, you could argue for that in some circumstances.
I meant this in the context of adaptation. What I would say to Davidjay is that evolution teaches that species are either better or worse adapted to their changing environment, rather than superior or inferior. A species that replaces an old species may be better adapted to the current environment, but not to the environment as it existed when the old species was extant. Which is superior, which inferior? Wrong question.
Well he does seem to have rejected evolution in favor of God doing magic. He may not have been a full-on believer in talking snakes but I think that qualifies him as a creationist.
Hitler was a demagogue who crafted his writings (primarily Mein Kampf) and speeches by selecting among arguments for those that seemed to work. What he said before an audience mostly reflected choices of what he thought effective rather than what he actually believed. The passage you quoted in Message 9 is from a April 12, 1922, speech and has often been used to argue that Hitler was Christian, but this was merely how he courted Christian support. Most historians conclude that Hitler was areligious.
It's also important to point out that all apes are monkeys, but that not all monkeys are apes. Just as all humans are apes, but not all apes are human. It's called a nested hierarchy.
I'm not sure it's true that all apes are monkeys, but I'm finding this more confusing than I thought it would be. I read the introductions to the Wikipedia articles on monkeys, apes and Old World monkeys, and it seems that New World monkeys are in one group, while apes and Old World monkeys are in another group, the Catarrhini. Apes are in the superfamiily Hominoidea, while Old World monkeys are in the superfamily Cercopithecoidea. I don't think Old World monkeys contains apes.
But this explanation from the article on monkeys says that apes are monkeys, except that they're not, because of parphyletics. It left me gasping for air:
quote: Apes emerged within the catarrhines with the Old World monkeys as a sister group, so cladistically they are monkeys as well. However, traditionally apes are not considered monkeys, rendering this grouping paraphyletic.
This excerpt from the article on Catarrhini left me equally so:
quote:Therefore, cladistically, apes, catarrhines and related contemporary extinct groups such as Parapithecidaea are monkeys as well, for any consistent definition of "monkey". "Old World Monkey" may also legitimately be taken to be meant to include all the catarrhines, including apes and extinct species such as Aegyptopithecus, in which case the apes, Cercopithecoidea and Aegyptopithecus emerged within the Old World Monkeys.
I still don't think apes are monkeys, but this bit of reading has rendered me incapable of arguing the point.
Thanks for the reference. Porosity's diagram in Message 86 was also helpful. Let me see if I've got this straight.
Clades are the scientifically most useful classification system, but they can often conflict with traditional classification names. Traditionally humans are in their own classification unit, but cladistically they're in the same clade with apes, and at a higher classification level they're in the same clade with monkeys.
This means that when creationists bellow, "I didn't come from no monkey," we have to stop correcting them that they mean apes.
Re: .Evolutionists say one living thing did NOT evolve from another
So as far as evolution is concerned right now intelligent and educated people are less evolved.
Isn't this really measuring reproductive success, not degree of evolution? I wonder if you take infant mortality into account whether you get a different answer.
Also, the criteria of intelligence and education are perhaps not being applied accurately. It might take more intelligence and wits and (informal) education to survive and reproduce in a crowded slum than in a suburban conclave.