Charles Darwin was a racist

[Gojira]

During his day i suppose there was no such thing as racism as they didnt know any better so you cant really blame him that much.

anyway tunney, you cant exactly say much can you?

[squealpiggy]

Darwin also said that as a scientist he believed that Eugenics was the proper way to further the evolution of mankind, but that he couldn't ever support it.

No he didn't. Natural selection is not the same as the artificial selection he used to introduce his theory. He did suppose that natural selection would eventually lead to the destruction of less fit societies in favour of more fit societies but group selection is pretty much out of favour as a serious evolutionary contention.

I've read the Origin of Man front to back numerous times but never Origin of Species. Darwin was brilliant beyond measure and a man of high morals.

Descent of Man? Darwin was a troubled and ill individual who was deeply worried about the effects of his work and desperately tried to avoid controversy. He was incredibly progressive in his attitude to people that were termed "savages" by all of his contemporaries and advocated they be treated as what they are: Human beings.

His hypothesis has never been properly verified

I see. So what do you make of morphological, geographical, geological and molecular evidence for evolution? Even better, what exactly is his "hypothesis" (it was a theory when he wrote Origin..." and remains a working theory today) and in what way does it fall short?

Or maybe you can name some modern evolution theories (Darwin's theory is no longer recognized in scientific society, you know)?

Darwinian natural selection is alive and well and is the main theory of common descent in use in the scientific community today. There are a couple of other ways of approaching the evidence which may place greater or lesser importance on the influence of ***ual selection and genetic drift than Darwin proposed (Darwin knowing nothing of Mendelian genetics and dying 100 years before the discover of DNA naturally had no concept of genetic drift), but the principal of nonrandom selective influences acting on descent with modification is the basis of all modern biology.

There is debate on the unit of selection (Dawkins argues it is the gene, other biologists such as Miller suggest it is at the level of the organism) but even the biggest serious attempt at toppling Darwinism, Gould and Eldredges's Punctuated Equilibrium, really only differed from Darwinism in arguing a nonsteady rate of change.

Darwin's descent with modification acted upon by nonrandom selection is the basis for all modern evolutionary theory.

Did that answer your question?

I think he is wrong.

Let's start with what you think he is saying and then you can say why you think it is wrong.

[krispy kreme]

Let's start with what you think he is saying and then you can say why you think it is wrong.

I just don't agree with

"Darwin was convinced that the more “civilised races” (e.g., Caucasian) would one day exterminate the more savage races, which he considered to be less evolved (and thus more ape-like) than Caucasians. Darwin believed that “the negro” and “Australian” are like sub-species, somewhere between Caucasians and apes.

[T]he average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.... [M]an has ultimately become superior to woman”


I skimmed through it, maybe I am reading through it well enough. His views seem pro-white, which is understandable for his generation.

[Norton]

I see. So what do you make of morphological, geographical, geological and molecular evidence for evolution? Even better, what exactly is his "hypothesis" (it was a theory when he wrote Origin..." and remains a working theory today) and in what way does it fall short?

Darwinian natural selection is alive and well and is the main theory of common descent in use in the scientific community today. There are a couple of other ways of approaching the evidence which may place greater or lesser importance on the influence of ***ual selection and genetic drift than Darwin proposed (Darwin knowing nothing of Mendelian genetics and dying 100 years before the discover of DNA naturally had no concept of genetic drift), but the principal of nonrandom selective influences acting on descent with modification is the basis of all modern biology.

There is debate on the unit of selection (Dawkins argues it is the gene, other biologists such as Miller suggest it is at the level of the organism) but even the biggest serious attempt at toppling Darwinism, Gould and Eldredges's Punctuated Equilibrium, really only differed from Darwinism in arguing a nonsteady rate of change.

Darwin's descent with modification acted upon by nonrandom selection is the basis for all modern evolutionary theory.

Did that answer your question?

Well, at least somebody with arguments. It is good to see that not all of atheists are uneducated and lazy to think for themselves

Darwin's own theory of natural selection nowadays supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism. However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as "industrial melanism", we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry. The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like "All tables are tables" is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that 'Natural selection... turns out... to be a tautology". However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an "enormous power... of explanation". Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here. Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.

Darwin's "theory" is metaphysical because it is not testable. For assume that we find life on Mars consisting of exactly three species of bacteria with a genetic outfit similar to that of terrestrial species. Is Darwinism refuted? By no means. We shall say that these three species were the only forms among the many mutants which were sufficiently well adjusted to survive. And we shall say the same if there is only one species (or none). Thus Darwinism does not really predict the evolution of variety. It therefore cannot really explain it. At best, it can predict the evolution of variety under "favorable conditions". But it is hardly possible to describe in general terms what favorable conditions are - except that, in their presence, a variety of forms will emerge.

Take "adaptation". At first sight natural selection appears to explain it, and in a way it does, but it is hardly a scientific way. To say that a species now living is adapted to its environment is, in fact, almost tautological. Indeed we use the terms "adaptation" and "selection" in such a way that we can say that, if the species were not adapted, it would have been eliminated by natural selection. Similarly, if a species has been eliminated it must have been ill adapted to the conditions. Adaptation or fitness is defined by modern evolutionists as survival value, and can be measured by actual success in survival: there is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this.

Ah, and there is "missing link", you know, link between human and ape, one that was never really found

So, as you can see Darwin's "theory" is pure metaphysic - tautological logic system, which can not be experimentally verified and which can only be believed or not believed. And it's good when the choice to believe in God or in "evolution" is made consciously. But mostly it comes from bad education and intellectual laziness - you were told to believe in St. Darwin and Holy Evolution, and so you believe

[The Beatles]

Darwin was a racist piece of ****....i've read enough to know he was a ****

[Spartacus Sully]

So, as you can see Darwin's "theory" is pure metaphysic - tautological logic system, which can not be experimentally verified and which can only be believed or not believed. And it's good when the choice to believe in God or in "evolution" is made consciously. But mostly it comes from bad education and intellectual laziness - you were told to believe in St. Darwin and Holy Evolution, and so you believe

I like the tautological logic with in darwins statements. it creates certain truths that must be followed or explained regardless of the theory. perhaps his attempts to explain these truths arnt the best but he he was able to find these truths and recognize them as truths.

[Spartacus Sully]

[Boxin']

charles darwin is now dead so it dosnt matter...

You are a ******

[squealpiggy]

Darwin's own theory of natural selection nowadays supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established.

Incorrect, evolution is very well established and is universally accepted by virtually every serious biologist.

All scientific theories are conjectures

I see. Let's hope that the conjecture of gravity continues to hold us on the planet then.

Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as "industrial melanism", we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by

That's not true, the tests are everywhere. It is considerably easier to test evolution than it is to test, for example, gravity. I suspect that the issue here is that you don't know what a scientific test entails.

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology.

But it isn't a tautology.

Darwin's "theory" is metaphysical because it is not testable.

Darwin's theory makes testable predictions, and has passed the tests. You don't know what "testable predictions" means though, hence the confusion.

You've wasted a lot of words here when just a few would have made your ignorance of the subject clear. Now if you think that matters of science can be settled by playing semantic games then you are sadly mistaken.

[Norton]

Incorrect, evolution is very well established and is universally accepted by virtually every serious biologist.

I see. Let's hope that the conjecture of gravity continues to hold us on the planet then.

That's not true, the tests are everywhere. It is considerably easier to test evolution than it is to test, for example, gravity. I suspect that the issue here is that you don't know what a scientific test entails.

But it isn't a tautology.

Darwin's theory makes testable predictions, and has passed the tests. You don't know what "testable predictions" means though, hence the confusion.

You've wasted a lot of words here when just a few would have made your ignorance of the subject clear. Now if you think that matters of science can be settled by playing semantic games then you are sadly mistaken.

Huh, and I was just start thinking that not all of atheists are intellectually lazy and uneducated

You know, you just accused Karl Popper, one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, of being ignorant Because it's his words you so arrogantly and ignorantly criticized. I was just wonder of your level of education. And your reaction perfectly shows your acknowledgement with the topic and your real level of education and intelligence.

You can not even admit obvious. Gravity? I think you a little bit mixing theories with natural phenomena. So, tell me, what is gravity, what it's nature? Cause if you can tell me this, you would certainly receive Nobel Prize in Physics.

Method, my dear friend, that's what makes science what it is. And you don't have the slightest idea of what method is. Watching TV-programs doesn't make one educated, rather contrary

P.S. Besides, unlike you, I know how scientific researches verified, because I successfully conducted them