I don't have it available, but Mayr talks about this too, in a way that is likely similar to Dobzhansky:
quote:Evolutionary Progress
Evolution means directional change. Since the beginning of life on Earth and the rise of the prokaryotes (bacteria) 3,500 million years ago, organisms have become far more diversified and complex. A whale, a chimpanzee, and a giant sequoia are surely very different from a bacterium. How can this change be characterized?
The answer most frequently given is that current life is simply more complex. On the whole this is indeed true, but it is not universally true. Many phyletic lineages demonstrate simplifying trends, and this is particularly true for various kinds of specialists such as cave animals and parasites. But surely, it will be said, evolution shows progress. Are not vertebrates and angiosperms (flowering plants) more highly evolved, more progressive, than "lower" animals and plants, and bacteria? We have already analyzed this claim and shown how difficult it is to apply designations "higher" and "lower." In fact, the prokaryotes, as a whole, seem to be as successful as the eukaryotes. Yet, every step in evolution, generation after generation, that eventually led to rodents, whales, grasses, and sequoias took place, so to speak, under the control of natural selection. Does this not lead by necessity to a steady improvement, generation after generation, of every phyletic lineage? The answer is "No," because most evolutionary changes are dictated by the need to cope with current temporary changes of the physical and biotic environment. Hence, considering also the enormous frequency of extinction and the occurrence of regressive evolution, it is inevitable that one must reject the notion of universal progress in evolution. However, a different answer can perhaps be given when one looks at single lineages at particular moments of their evolution. There are a considerable number of phyletic lines that one could well call progressive during the period of their greatest flowering. -- p.212
Doesn't the series from bacterium to man indeed document progress? If so, how can such seemingly progressive change be explained? In recent years a number of books were published debating the existence or validity of evolutionary progress. There is great dissension on this question because the word "progress" has so many different meanings. For instance, those who adopt teleological thinking will argue that progress is due to a built-in drive or striving toward perfection. Darwin rejected such a causation and so do modern Darwinians, and indeed no genetic mechanism was ever found that would control such a drive. However, one can also define progress purely empirically as the achievement of something that is somehow better, more efficient, and more successful than what preceded it. The terms "higher" and "lower" have also been criticized. For the modern Darwinian it is not a value judgment, but "higher" means more recent in geological time or higher up on the phylogenic tree. But is any organism "better" by being higher up on the phylogenic tree? Progress, it is claimed, is indicated by greater complexity, more advanced division of labor among organs, better utilization of the resources of the environment, and better all-around adaptation. This may be true to some extent, but the skull of a mammal or bird is not nearly as complex as that of their fish ancestors.
Critics of the concept of progress have pointed out that in some ways bacteria are at least as successful as vertebrates or insects, and therefore why should vertebrates be considered progressive over prokaryotes? The decision of who is right depends largely on what one considers to be progress. -- p.214
Many definitions of evolutionary progress have been offered. I particularly like one that emphasizes its adaptationist nature: Progress is "a tendency of lineages to improve cumulatively their adaptive fit to their particular way of life, by increasing the number of features which combine together in adaptive complexes" (Richard Dawkins, Evolution 51(1997): 1016). For other definitions and descriptions of progress, see Nitecki (1988). -- p.215
Ernst Mayr (2001) What Evolution Is, Basic Books, New York
Nem may not be quotemining so much as just plain misunderstanding the (nuanced) meanings that were used in the context.
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"?
Message 28 " ... 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. ... " -Brig Klyce
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.
The theory of evolution is correct, and that blacks are a lower form of human. The theory of evolution is correct, and that blacks are not a lower form of human. The theory of evolution is not correct, and that blacks are a lower form of human. The theory of evoltution is not correct, and that blacks are not a lower form of human.
quote:... The Soviet policy against genetics and evolution had disastrous consequences for the Soviet people. ...
... Although they debate details, all scholars agree that the reign of Lysenkoism was an especially grim period in the history of science. It is the classic example of the negative consequences of misguided anti-science policies and ideological control of science. The lesson learned is that free inquiry, informed government support of basic and applied sciences, and open debates on scientific subjects - especially those declared threatening or dangerous by special interest groups - are essential for the health and prosperity of nations.
That last part should give people like nem pause. It won't but it should.
Nemesis misunderstanding ... and missing the argument?
Then consider this quote as well:
The question is, do you understand the difference between racist people (mis)using evolution (and racist assumptions) to support their racism versus the truth of what evolution says? The evidence is no.
Apparently you think every quote of one racist or another is a statement of the theory of evolution. It isn't.
Darwin's theory was "descent with modification" -- please tell me how that statement is inherently racist. Forget everything else: this is the issue.
Note, I expect you to dodge the rational answer and go for emotional appeals and arguments from incredulity and non sequiturs (again).
For extra credit you can show how changing from "descent with modification" (original) to "change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" (modern) is some kind of twisted major change. Note that "generation to generation" is descent and that "change in hereditary traits in populations" is modification. Thus the only difference I can see is greater definition.
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?
You still absolutely FAIL to make the distinction between what people say and what the theory of evolution says.
This topic is about what the theory of evolution says in regard to racism, and all quotes of what people say are totally irrelevant to that issue.
Once you have established what the theory of evolution says about racism, then you can go back to see how that is reflected in what people said (and how what they said reflects on their biases).
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.
So tell me, nem, after 3.5 billion years of evolution how are the modern cyanobacteria "more" evolved, "higher" or show "progress" from their ancestors 3.5 billion years ago?
If "more" evolved, "higher" or "progress" is such an integral necessary part of evolution and the theory of evolution, then why do we still have cyanobacteria? Surely they have evolved over the last 3.5 billion years eh? Or do we still have them because the concepts ("more" evolved, "higher" or show "progress") are false and invalid?
Please restrict you reply to just the evolution of cyanobacteria. Take you time.
I suggest you do this before you demonstrate how the theory of evolution results in racism so you don't confuse yourself with repetition of false thoughts and ideas.
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.
And being well articulated is your standard for accurate and correct? That explains a lot imho. I suggest that if you want to discuss this one further that you start a new post: [forum=-25].
In the meantime please:
(1) show how the theory of evolution necessarily results in racism, and
(2) show how the cyanobacteria has "progressed" through evolution over the last 3.5 billion years.
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.
Ah, so all your posts are about a different topic than the OP. Glad you clarified that. (let's play which topic has the pea ...)
Are not these images telling of a progression?
Yes they are a progression, but they are not necessarily "progress" (as normally used or as used by evolution scientists - which are different). A progression goes from point A to point B by intermediate steps that proceed, show development, in each step to B from A. Or are you equivocating on the definition of progression?
Yet, the denial that progress is paramount, all the while showing stepwise progressions.
Yep you are equivocating.
You are confusing definition (1) with definition (2), typical.
The progression from A to B in a series does not involve any necessary values of A relative to B
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.
Your use of quotes does not show that, it just shows that some people were racist. Not one of those quotes showed how such racist views were necessary developments of the theory.
Not intentionally, but inadvertently. What else did you expect would come of it?
You mean inadvertently through ignorance and misunderstanding, such as you have displayed? Or inadvertently through accepting false representations (such as racist ones) as fact, as you have also done? Or do you mean that it can dishonestly be portrayed in this manner even when you know better?
All you have shown is that racists can misrepresent evolution to support their racist agenda, not that evolution does necessarily support racism.
For your information and edification (though it will likely be ignored) there is this definition of "progress" as used in evolution:
quote:Progress is "a tendency of lineages to improve cumulatively their adaptive fit to their particular way of life, by increasing the number of features which combine together in adaptive complexes" (Richard Dawkins, Evolution 51(1997): 1016).
Where does that result in racism nem? Inadvertently or otherwise?
Since this topic denies the racist foundation of evolutionary theory the same is quite conducive with lying.
Rather than posting irrelevant innuendo and historical tidbits about people (like nem), how about actually showing how the theory of evolution necessarily results in racism?
We are not interested in racists that use the theory of evolution to bolster their racism, but in actual derivation of racist concepts from the theory of evolution.
For clarity the "theory of evolution" is that evolution (the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation) explains the observed diversity of life and its observed natural history in the fossil record.
You can also define evolution as "descent with modification" to use Darwin's formulation.
How does this necessarily result in racism?
Extra points if you stay on topic and refrain from ad hominum assertions.
"In 1933 Karl Pearson retired as Galton Professor of eugenics at University College and Fisher was appointed to the chair as his successor."
Darwin's cousin invented eugenics theory based on the Origin thesis and implications. Leonard Darwin (Darwin's son) addressed a eugenics meeting in London and told the delegates that his Father would have approved of their beliefs and goals.
For the record eugenics is not inherently racist either (although racists are likely to favor eugenics):
This is not about improving races or about one race being better than another, but about improving humans through the application of science. Breeding dogs is not necessarily "breedist" (belief one breed is superior to all other breeds). There are ethical concerns about breeding people the way we breed animals, but that has nothing necessarily to do with racism -- although racist people would be likely to favor it (provided thier concepts of "improving" were included).
Again the distinction is between people that are racist (mis)using science, and what the science actually says.
The question here concerns what science actually says.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Huh? There aren't a lot of choices. If it produces equal offspring, there's no point in selection. Clearly there must be superior offspring, and they have to be 'superior' to something. I submit that there cannot exist 'superior' anything without an 'inferior' counterpart.
Correct. But all the offspring of the next generation are the ones that are from fit parents -- the unfit parents don't pass on their hereditary traits. This is all natural selection does: select the fittest members to pass on their hereditary traits, and virtually by definition all hereditary traits that get passed to the next generation are fit.
However this does not mean that there is any selection for "superior" vs "inferior" because those have to be hereditary traits subject to selection for fitness to the ecology, and not just some arbitray subjective evaluations of the relative worth of individuals or groups of individuals by other individuals or groups of individuals. There may be some sexual selection in choosing mates by individuals or groups of individuals that make such arbitrary subjective evaluations of other individuals or groups of individuals but that won't necessarily select for (or against) the arbitrary subjective evaluations if they are not a hereditary trait.
So you have a three-fold problem:
(1) showing that any criteria to be used to evaluate "superior" and "inferior" has a hereditary basis,
(2) showing that it is specific to certain sub-populations of humans and not to others,
and
(3) showing that this criteria is necessarily derived from the theory of evolution and is not an arbitrary subjective evaluations of the relative worth of individuals or groups of individuals by other individuals or groups of individuals.
You have not done one of those yet.
Are you equating being poor with being inferior? Are you equating having some poor people in a population with the whole population being inferior?
Darwinists do so right now. It's a favorite pro-abortion argument of theirs: the unwanted babies would result in unbearable economic hardship for the parents and for society at large.
This makes them inferior? You are now off on a rant about abortion, and have completely missed making the connection between poor and inferior. That there are lots of topics that discuss abortion still has no bearing on the equation of poor with inferior.
I repeat: are you equating being poor with being inferior? Are you equating having some poor people in a population with the whole population being inferior?
And I'll add: are you equating having an abortion with being inferior? Are you equating having some people in a population having an abortion with the whole population being inferior?
I personally am unable to define the term 'race'. For anyone who can, there are ample motives to practice racism under atheist evolution. It is precisely because evolution requires selective pressure, and humans do not undergo any consistent, discernable selective pressure that they need to implement other forms of pressure.
Under evolution, it is a proper course of action to see to it that one's offspring survive to produce more offspring. As Modulous pointed out this applies to the offspring of siblings as well, since they'll have much in common, genetically.
It logically extends to give preference to all other creatures on the basis of how 'closely related' one is to them. So anyone who sees another 'race' as more distantly related than one's own has a motive to prefer the survival of some over others because one shares more genetically with them. The manifestation of this preference is properly called 'racism', is it not?
But "under evolution" once your offspring are protected within your social environment there is no need for anything beyond that, and it can be counterproductive if going beyond your social environment results in confrontations that cause injury or death to those who are 'closely related', so "under evolution" there is a check on the mechanism.
And "under evolution" once you reach the point of "unrelatedness" within your social environment where other less 'closely related' people can cause injury or death to 'closely related' members, then it does not matter\need to be extended further. Thus you are in as much "danger" from someone of your own "race" as you are of someone from a distant "race" and they can be the person next door.
You cite abortion, I'll cite child abuse: children are more likely to be abused by a relative or someone they know than someone they don't know. That abuse can (and frequently does) end in sexual dysfunction, injury or death.
Finally, "under evolution" concern for one's offspring to survive to produce more offspring also means having mates for those offspring that we do know genetically are better if they are not 'closely related' and so there is a mechanism to bring in people from other groups to keep your group from becoming unfit.
You have not made a case for extending offspring welfare concerns to necessarily perceiving whole populations of people as inferior.
BTW, is there a topic yet which discusses the problems for evolutionism which exist because social species are often well-shielded from selection on an individual basis? I'd be interested to see what manner of stories have been invented to cope with this. Some of them might very well apply to humans, and probably would be highly compatible with eugenics and racism.
Spam away with denials. Misstate whatever you will.
So where exactly did you show that racism is a necessary result of the theory of evolution? If you haven't show it how can it be denied or misstated?
The information is out & the facts have been set free. Your cause is lost. Nobody will be fooled who wasn't fooled before, and it's possible you could even lose a few souls.
Again, where exactly did you show that racism is a necessary result of the theory of evolution?
I agree that nobody should be fooled by your posts that lack substantiation for your position or by your tactics of avoiding the issue.
Again, where exactly did you show that racism is a necessary result of the theory of evolution?
Where exactly in the OP is this mentioned?
The OP states that evolution theory does not result in racism. You are arguing against this position, therefore it is incumbent on you to demonstrate that the theory of evolution necessarily results in racism. The way you support your argument is to actually show that evolution theory necessarily results in racism. If your argument is true it should be easy to do.
Not that I couldn't do it. It may be that I already have. I'm a little drowsy. But the point is: why should I?
You haven't - otherwise nobody would be asking you to. And if you don't feel you need to support your argument with anything other than your bald assertion, then you should withdraw it.
If it is impossible for you to support your argument with a demonstration that racism necessarily results from evolution theory then your statement must be false.
It's that simple.
The history is clear. Racists have ...
... misused science, history, philosophy, and religion to support their racist views, but that doesn't mean any of their arguments are valid.
What makes an argument valid is a demonstration, such as the one requested here, that evolution theory necessarily results in racism.
Quoting racists doesn't do this, that just shows that people were racist. DUH. The way you support your argument is to show that evolution theory necessarily results in racism. If your argument is true it should be easy to do.
*RAZD, I clearly see that you intend to move the goalposts in order to obtain your "victory".
What goalposts this is about you substantiating the argument against the OP stating that evolution does not result in racism.
What victory? Actually getting you to substantiate your position would be a victory for me?
Others seem to be reaching that point, as disgusting as it is.
What point? That you failed to substantiate your argument with an actual demonstration of how racism necessarily results from evolution theory?
That's pretty clear to anyone who reads this thread.
Message 129 Playing the card? What are you talking about? Abortion is supposed to have popular support, so by bringing it up I'd be risking turning most of the "audience" against me. In order to "play cards", one has to play politically correct cards in case you never noticed.
Abortion has nothing to do with what evolution theory says about racism. Introducing it is a red herring designed to deflect the argument in a different direction due to your stellar inability to actually demonstrate that evolution theory necessarily results in racism. If your argument is true it should be easy to do.
And I ranted about nothing. I pointed out that several of the evolutionist arguments currently used to support abortion work equally well to support racism. What further did I say about abortion that would qualify my remarks as a rant?
You made an argument based on things people use to support abortion in individual instances, but you absolutely failed to show that those arguments were derived from evolution theory or that the application of abortion in those instances resulted in inferior subpopulations of people with distinct hereditary traits. Equating abortion arguments with evolutionists and hence to evolution theory is compounding several logical fallacies into one irrelevant line.
So your argument was hogwash from start to finish.
Pointing out that piece of information does not make me one of them, and never will. Neither will you ever convince anyone that it does beyond a couple of our little spammers.
Nobody is trying to make you out to be a racist. However we do want you to substantiate your position. Pointing out that piece of "information" and demonstrating that it is true are two different things.
And since you don't seem to understand, it is the Darwinists, the racists, and the supporters of abortion who equate poverty with inferiority.
To demonstrate it is true for Darwinists means you need to demonstrate that equating poor with inferior is a logical result of the theory of evolution.
But you have not demonstrated that either (add it to the ever growing list of totally unsubstantiated claims). This is just another bald assertion, one that says a lot about your personal biases and bigotry about poor people, but nothing about how evolution theory necessarily resulting in racism.
OR in other words, no I do not understand that evolution theory necessarily equates being poor with being inferior: please demonstrate how evolution theory necessarily results in poor being inferior.
Again for your edification, and to assist you in making such demonstrations as have been multitudinously requested of you, the theory of evolution can be stated conveniently in one of two ways:
briefly -- that evolution (see Message 184) is the change in hereditary traits from generation to generation and that this is sufficient to explain the diversity of life we see on this planet and in the fossil record,
OR
more explicitly (see Message 215) -- The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes theories on how change is enabled, due to the available variations (diversity) within populations from the formation and accumulation of different mutations in hereditary traits, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected, due to the differential response of organisms under prevailing ecological pressures to their individual development, their ability to pass on hereditary traits to the next generation, and their opportunities to disperse into other ecological habitats.
Use whichever version you think is more appropriate.
(let's play which topic has the pea ...)
™ Version 4.2
