The Human Animal - Page 4 - Political Forum

Ygorl · #31 (**permalink**) 01-11-2007, 05:45 PM

Let me guess. What was my source ? Even though I showed it to you.

Yeah, ok you win this debate because you want to know about what my "source" was. I don't think for myself at all.

No.

Everything that comes from me comes from a "source".

I'm just a bot

Ygorl · #32 (**permalink**) 01-11-2007, 06:41 PM

I know you don't want to address any of this from # 24. I can't say I blame you.

Obliterating Politically Correct Orthodoxies pgs. 113-116

The full title of Darwins most famous book IS:

On the Origin of Species by means of natural Selection or the presevation of Favoured Races in the struggle for life

Darwin was a racist. It's been shown in his writings:

In, The Descent of Man he wrote:

"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."

He doesn't say the races of animals. He says the races of MAN.

On July 3, 1881 he wrote a letter to W. Graham (life and letters of Charles Darwin, Volume 1, 316, cited in Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, 1959, p.343). He wrote the following:

"The more civilized so-called caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."

Darwins friend Ernst Haeckel served Adolf Hitler. Hitler loved Darwins writings. He borrowed his title Mein Kampf (my struggle) from Darwins subtitle the preservation of Favoured Races in the struggle for life.

Stalin, who murdered millions loved Darwins writings. The book Landmarks in the life of Stalin by Emelian Yaroslavsky, documents a conversation between Stalin and one of his ecclesiastical school classmates, wherein Stalin says, "I'll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense."

His classmate said:

"What book is that ?"

Stalin replied:

"Darwin. You must read it."

Like Stalin and Hitler, you'll dismiss anything with any connotation of religion. But, you'll accept a theory spawned by an early racist.

Fascinating.

FRYandBENDER · #33 (**permalink**) 01-11-2007, 07:02 PM

Wow, that was pretty interesting.

Ygorl · #34 (**permalink**) 01-11-2007, 07:29 PM

Oh, I wouldn't say that :-)

She said it would be FUN. I had fun :-)

We had a REAL debate. The kind where each ignores 90 % of the others writings. Or something like that LOL

Otter · #35 (**permalink**) 01-12-2007, 01:39 PM

Just glancing through. I said I'll get back to you, and I will, but not at the expense of reading the surgical biopsies. Expect a full respone this weekend.

Thane, are you claiming that you wrote the bit in red? It isn't from 'The Scientist', which is the source you posted.

Otter · #36 (**permalink**) 01-13-2007, 03:50 PM

[quote=Thane;14467]It's very simple. We ARE "fundamentally different" than animals.[?QUOTE]
in what way?

Quote:

I wasn't quoting from that internet writing actually. Now, let us argue and discuss who we're quoting and citing and what we can "dismiss"

Oh? Maybe it was this one, then:
WEBCommentary(tm) - THE PROBLEM WITH EVOLUTION
or this:
Videos - THE PROBLEM WITH EVOLUTION morphology
There are several sites that quote Mr. Edward Daley, who is the author of those words.

Quote:

Thats always a good way to ignore shortcomings of your own argument. Find a way, ANY way to dismiss items that expose the weaknesses of your argument.

You have not addressed any aspect of my argument for evolution, only made snide comments and ad hominem attacks on Darwin.

Quote:

Ah. They're shouting from the fringes of "biology" are they ?

Here's the truth.

That is your opinion. It's not fact. There is not, and never WILL be a consensus about evolutionary theory among academics.

There's not even a consensus among academics about the meaning of the TERM "evolution".

Maybe- I’ve truthfully never seen a consensus among more than five people, outside of a Quaker meeting. However, no one is publishing scientific articles on creationism. If you search the literature, the only debate involving creationism is philosophical, not scientific. There are thousands of papers in peer reviewed journals investigating, expanding and debating the specifics, mechanisms, and details of evolution, but none that do this with creationism. Creationism is a sterile field, scientifically.

The difficulty with the term evolution (as the article you posted earlier eloquently pointed out), is that it can mean many different things in common usage. In biological terms, it means ‘descent with modification’, in modern terms ‘the change in gene frequency over generations’ it can be debated whether evolution refers only to changes brought about due to natural selection (another often misunderstood concept) or includes those due to nonselective forces, like gene flow and genetic drift. It does not address the origin of life itself, that is a separate field of investigation altogether.

Quote:

I'm not sure what your point is in pointing this out. That you seem focussed on getting rid of any ideas of "creationism" I find interesting. In a perverse way :-) What is your fascination with making sure nobody beleives in "creationism" ?

I really don’t care what you believe- I just enjoy engaging in the whole evolution debate, occasionally. What is your fascination with making sure no one believes in evolution?

Quote:

And yes, whether you like it, beleive it or accept it or not, academics ARE still debating this concept.

Academics may be, but biologists aren’t.

Quote:

There are too many to name. Obviously your religious faith in science and the theory of evolution will blind you to any honesty in discussing them. My interest in this is waning.

If there are so many, it should be easy to name one- pick the one you know the most about, and feel you can defend.

Quote:

What might be FUN is exposing your hero Charlie boy for what he really WAS.
(…)

Darwin very likely was racist- western culture was quite racist at that time; just read most anything written in the Victorian era for an example. That, however, does not invalidate his scientific work, not does any subsequent misuse of the theory.
If you really want to discredit evolution, you need to show the flaws in the idea itself. If you can’t attempt that, then the ‘debate’ becomes boring.

Pavando · #37 (**permalink**) 01-16-2007, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Izzibeth

I think there is a lot about the brains of many animals that we simply don't know. I watched this one program about a cheetah mother years ago. At one point she came across this newborn lion. The mother of the newborn had become hurt very badly just before she gave birth and so left the group, gave birth out in the middle of nowhere and then was killed by hyenas. The mother cheetah came across the newborn and picked it up... and stood there for some time. She would put it down... then pick it up.. then put it down. Lions and cheetahs are pretty much sworn enemies and it was as if this mother cheetah was debating in her head whether or not she should take the baby. The newborn was crying and crying and crying (as babies do) and the mommy cheetah stood with it for probably a good 10-15 minutes... not sure what to do (she had just had babies herself pretty much so she was in that "mother" state-of-mind). Eventually.. but very slowly.. she left the newborn lion cub where it was where it was almost immediately eaten by the hyenas. But it was sad to watch and it is the type of thing that makes you KNOW that many animals (even wild ones) work on much more than just instinct.

In terms of beliefs... I can almost guarantee they have no need for it. Much less the time. The majority of wild animals' entire lives are made up of staying alive each day and keeping their babies alive.

Humans lives are made up of staying alive and keeping there babies alive the same way animals are. All domestic and international issues are directly involved with staying alive.

Pavando · #38 (**permalink**) 01-16-2007, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thane

Is that all your gonna give us ?

You started this, get over here and add more :-)

Everyones probably tired of reading me and Otters views

If evolution was put to rest and some god was proven to exsist then we would all be asking were God came from. Would we not? Would god know? would we trust his answer?

emptypepsi · #39 (**permalink**) 01-16-2007, 09:16 PM

Yeesh, Thane! I forgot about this thread, LOL!

I think there's a bit of right in both yours and Otter's arguments. Of course there is a 'kinship' among all animals, humans included. We humans definitley have a kinship with apes in a way. There is much we can learn from the behavior of other animals. In fact, I believe that paying attention to their behavior is something that can help (though not be in itself) be a key to understanding some of our own problems with each other. Sometimes answers come from the oddest places.

However, it would be wrong to say there is nothing special about us that sets us apart. We truly are a magnificent group of creatures. Sure, an ape can learn sign language. Can that ape make the conscious choice to teach that to other apes and to it's offspring, such as humans do? I've never heard of such things, which leads me to speculate that there is some divine spark in the human brain. This is maybe where the discussion goes to "why is that spark there?" (that is if you believe it is there).