Robert;: And this has been countered by Oxford Professor Dr. Victor Pearce in his series "Evidence for Truth" (Available through Evidence for Truth Ministiy, Eastbourne, England).
Again, this is a religious organization with a specific agenda to try to disprove the theory of evolution. Darwin's daughter stated in her biography of the man that this "conversion" did not happen. As his daughter was actually present, and Dr. Pierce was not, I tend to defer to the eyewitness. And again, this is entirely irrelevant to the validity of the theory. The theory was developed by Darwin, but its accuracy does not rest on his assertion. That is one of the major differences between science and religion; assertions don't count for anything in science unless they are demonstrated. For example, if Henry Ford never drove an automobile, automobiles would still run. Although Einstein never traveled at the speed of light, general and special relativity are still valid. Even if Darwin changed his mind (which he didn't) evolution would still be valid. This is relatively straightforward logic, Robert. I'm sure you can grasp it, despite your prejudgement.
:He provides details which demonstrate intimate knowledge of this occurence. Are you going to also claim that Darwin was in fact not horrified by Haeckel's use of evolutionism, perhaps another myth?
No, Robert, I'm not. Now are you going to PLEASE respond to what I've actually said? Yes, Racism is disgusting, and yes, Darwin was disgusted by the things that were done using his name (as I suspect Jesus would be). BUT IT DOES NOT IMPUGN THE THEORY. I don't know how many times I'll have to say that before you actually listen. Darwinian theory DOES NOT LEAD TO eugenics, fascism, racism, or any of the other -isms that you keep trying to attach to it.
: There is a difference in Salvation and the organisationalism that you mention above with sects and cults. Your analogy here is not applicable because it is in individuals (not collective as in the eugenisist, fascist , etc. movements or in the claimed salvation through sectarianism or denomonationalism) that Christ saves and hence one becomes a Christian. Membership in a denomonation cannot save.
Sure, fine, and membership in a eugenics "movement" is NOT Darwinian theory. The analogy is perfectly apt. Misapplication of a misunderstood theory does not discredit the theory. Jim Jones and David Koresh seem to have misunderstood Christianity, and their movements resulted in tragedies. The "eugenecists," fascists, and others drastically misunderstood evolution, and their movements also led to tragedies. You believe you have a correct understanding of Christianity, and so you will not be led to tragic consequences, am I right? Well, modern biologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, anthropologists, geologists, etc. have a more correct understanding of Darwinian theory than earlier thinkers, and this understanding does not lead to the tragedies you mentioned. Is this clear? I'm doing my best to explain it to you. I'm really trying to put things in terms that are familiar to you. Please try to work with me on this and not just repeat the same arguments over and over again after I've already demonstrated their invalidity.
:Membership in evolutionary movements such as eugenicism are destructive.
Sure, and eugenicism is not an accurate understanding of evolution. Membership in crazy cults can also be destructive. So what?
: Moreover it was Farinata who first stated that races are different species,
Find me a post anywhere on this list where Farinata, I, or anyone else actually said that. I dare you. Just link your response to that post and get it over with. I know that you can not do this because none of us have ever made that assertion.
:and then a couple of posts later said that race was a genetically meaningless term. Now that's going from one end of the pitch to the other in extraordinary flippancy, wouldn't you agree? Perhaps I'm being vindicated by my counter-partners here.
Actually, what you're doing is ignoring anything that you don't want to hear and attacking straw men. Since neither of us made the claim that you're refuting, your comments are completely misdirected and do not demonstrate anything about our points. We've both explained this to you before.
: Thanks for the edification, however I thought that words meant what they were suppose to mean. After all I was roundly criticised for not reading carefully enough just the post before.
Yes, and you're being roundly criticized again for not reading the last one carefully, if at all. That is a completely trivial point and it is simply an attempt to side-step the issues that I raised about hominid evolution. By the way, it's "supposed," not "suppose" in this context.
: You and Farinata have perhaps unknowingly delivered me another great vindication here. Remember many months ago on several occassions I questioned the "Row of Stooping Ape-men". I stated that they existed in plaster, paintings, rubber and plastic but not in reality.
Uh, yes, I recall that post. I remember seeing the illustration you're talking about in a childrens book that was released in the 1960s. That illustration was an artist's rendition. "Stooping" is not part of evolution. There was no "stage" wherein human ancestors were "stooped" like that. The transition from quadrupedalism to bipedalism was an "all-or-nothing" change. Locking knees, a broad, short pelvic girdle and a basally-located foramen magnum all appear in bipeds and none of these appear in quadrupeds. The theory does not predict "stooped" hominids.
: Now both you and Farinata confirm that these chaps such as Neanderthalis are not related to us in any way.
False. I have explicitly stated that neandertals are not our direct ancestors. My cousin is also not my ancestor. This does not mean that we do not share common descent. In fact, all life on this planet appears to be related, some more distantly, some closer. This is true of extinct species as well as extant ones.
:Looking at the science book, either you are feeding me some bad information or I was correct all along in saying that this chap doesn't belong here. Perhaps its time for me to wipe out everything back to the Rampithicenes now given your new information.
"The" science book, Robert? You might be surprised to hear that there are many science books, and lots of them are more recent that the 1960s. Perhaps it's time to catch up on some recent developments.
(By the way, it's "it's," there should be a comma between "now" and "given" and Ramapithecus should not be "Ramapithicenes.")
: As always Floyd, it has indeed been a pleasure. Perhaps I'll reach America some day and we'll meet face to face over a Big Mac and a Coke. God Bless.
I'm a vegeterian and an anti-capitalist, so I avoid these products. Thanks for the offer though.
-Floyd
: Robert
