Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Astrophile]

You're making me laugh again.
You often do not put in links for your statements. But as for Haeckel and his idea of superior race of human theory, you can do a search for Haeckel and eugenics. Further search shows some say yes and some say, nah, not really. Now this is an interesting rendition of a late-nineteenth-century chart which shows the "supposed racial stages of evolution from ape to European that many scientists supported." Here's the link:
Breeding Society’s "Fittest"

Let's go back to Haeckel for a moment. He was not alone in thinking about racial superiority, one race over or below another race.

Of course you are right to condemn scientific racism, and you are also right in saying that Haeckel was not alone in thinking about racial superiority. If you want another example, you could read "The negro a beast"; or, "In the image of God"; the reasoner of the age, the revelator of the century! The Bible as it is! The negro and his relation to the human family! ... The negro not the son of Ham .. : Carroll, Charles, 1849- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive by Charles Carroll (an anti-evolutionist), published by the American Book and Bible House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1900. The book is available online. It is described - Christian Identity - Wikipedia - as 'A seminal influence on the Christian Identity movement's views on pre-Adamism'. 'People who live in glass houses ...'

 

[Astrophile]

The point about Pluto was not about the heavens -- but about so-called facts that have changed because of changing facts, and discoveries.

There are two points here. First, as long ago as February 1956, only 26 years after its discovery, the astronomer Gerard P. Kuiper argued that Pluto should be demoted from its planetary status; he pointed to 'the well-known [anomalous] features that distinguish Pluto from the rest of the nine, ending the opening paragraph with, "These deviations suggest that Pluto may not be a real planet."' (Neil deGrasse Tyson, 2009, The Pluto Files, pp.59-61). In hindsight, school-teachers and the authors of popular science books should have taken more notice of Kuiper's arguments, rather than continuing to repeat that Pluto was one of nine planets.

Second, the New Horizons mission to Pluto and Charon was launched on 19 January 2006. The IAU resolution that officially defined the word 'planet' and demoted Pluto and Eris to 'dwarf planets' was passed in August 2006. However, this did not change any of the physical properties of Pluto, and therefore it did not make it necessary to change anything about New Horizons, or to recall the spacecraft and launch a new mission. It is not the facts about Pluto that had changed, only the name of its class of object. As Juliet said, 'What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet.' (Romeo and Juliet, II, ii, 43-44).

You still haven't explained why you quoted those verses from the Epistle to the Hebrews in your reply to my previous post.

 

[Astrophile]

@SZ: further research into Haeckel's writings are interesting. "In a book called The Riddle of the Universe, he divided humankind into races and ranked each of them. In his view, “Aryans”—a mythical race from whom many northern Europeans believed they had descended—were at the top of the rankings and Jews and Africans were at the bottom." Ain't that interesting. I can only guess...Breeding Society’s "Fittest"

There is one minor point here. According to Ernst Haeckel - Wikipedia , 'Haeckel was not an anti-Semite. In the racial hierarchies he constructed Jews tended to appear closer to the top, rather than closer to the bottom as in National Socialist racial thought.' This is not to deny that Haeckel was a racist; however, he does not appear to have placed the Jews at the bottom of his rankings.

 

[Astrophile]

lol, ok. If it weren't funny, you guys would be funny. It is a planet (a dwarf) but maybe not really. OK...so now the solar system doesn't have nine planets as had been taught. It has, I believe, 8 planets and a dwarf planet. ok...

There are five known dwarf planets in the solar system - Pluto, Eris, Haumea, Makemake, and Ceres - and four candidates for dwarf planethood - Quaoar, Sedna, Orcus, and 2007 OR10 - Dwarf planet - Wikipedia . The number is likely to increase as more trans-Neptunian objects are discovered and as astronomers find out more about their properties.

 

[Polymath257]

I was wondering about that myself for several reasons. What does it mean to have life, or be alive? On the other hand for the sake of this discussion, we are talking about living forms coming from one or more than one astonishing first living cell or cells, aren't we? I say astonished because really, no one knows how it appeared, or really what it looked like.

We don't know primarily because of lack of evidence. No reason to be 'astonished' by our lack of knowledge. Any evidence for this organism (or those organisms) is around 3.8 billion years old and a *lot* has happened between then and now to destroy it.

But that said, we *do* know that single celled life existed on Earth by about 3.8 billion years ago. The examples we have are almost certainly NOT the first life on Earth, just the first we know about.

We also know that *all* life on Earth was single celled until after about 1 billion years ago. So that makes over 2.8 billion years where only single celled life existed on Earth.

We also know that modern humans have only existed for the last 1-200,000 years.

So the *vast* majority of time when life has existed, it was single celled. And even after it was multicelled, the vast amount of time was previous to humans existing.

 

[Polymath257]

↑
I would go further and say that it solves *none* of the problems.

It does. It really does.

OK, what specific question related to how life originated does it solve?

For example, does it actually describe the first life? No.

Does it give the metabolic properties of the first life? No.

Does it say *where* the first life originated? No.

Does it say what the genetics of the first life was like? No.

Does it say under what conditions the first life originated? No.

So, other than saying some unknowable being did it, what useful information does this hypothesis give us? None.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not so much Darwin. So of course you are off the rails again. And even if he did what would that matter? You do realize that David Koresh was a Christian, don't you? As was Hitler by the way.

you may say he was a Christian. I say he did not understand what he said he believed in. Meantime it is clear in their own writings that Darwin believed in racial superiority and so did Haeckel, so did Hitler.

 

[YoursTrue]

We don't know primarily because of lack of evidence. No reason to be 'astonished' by our lack of knowledge. Any evidence for this organism (or those organisms) is around 3.8 billion years old and a *lot* has happened between then and now to destroy it.

But that said, we *do* know that single celled life existed on Earth by about 3.8 billion years ago. The examples we have are almost certainly NOT the first life on Earth, just the first we know about.

We also know that *all* life on Earth was single celled until after about 1 billion years ago. So that makes over 2.8 billion years where only single celled life existed on Earth.

We also know that modern humans have only existed for the last 1-200,000 years.

So the *vast* majority of time when life has existed, it was single celled. And even after it was multicelled, the vast amount of time was previous to humans existing.

This is how you reason, by misplacing the word astonish. Sad really. You don't "know" what life emerged. What nonsense you teach.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is quite obviously simply a matter of a change to standards of classification. It's like whether a hill is big enough to be designated a mountain or not, No change of "fact" is implied whatsoever. The only person so-calling it a fact is you.

Leaving this poor example aside, I have pointed out elsewhere in this thread that the only "facts" in science are suitably confirmed observations of nature. The theories are not facts but models. The models are subject to change in light of new observations. The "facts" - the observations - are not, unless someone discovers that a whole series of observations suffers from error for some reason, which can occasionally happen.

You really do need to drop this insistence that science makes statements of definitive "truth" and the - closely related - notion that theories are claimed to be "facts". Neither is the case.

Do you understand this now?

So the postulates are not facts. The postulates can change. Therefore not facts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you may say he was a Christian. I say he did not understand what he said he believed in. Meantime it is clear in their own writings that Darwin believed in racial superiority and so did Haeckel, so did Hitler.

There are all sorts of Christians. One does not get to deny one just because one disagrees with them. And Darwin lived at a time when almost all believed in racial superiority. But if you read his works you will find that he was less racist than most. Besides that racism is not justified by evolution, in fact far less so than it is justified by the Bible. But then most Christians ignore the parts of the Bible that they disagree with.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the postulates are not facts. The postulates can change. Therefore not facts.

Looks like a bit of word salad here. Evolution is no a postulate. It is an observed event. Just as gravity is not a postulate, it is an observed event. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution just as the theory of gravity explains gravity.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are all sorts of Christians. One does not get to deny one just because one disagrees with them. And Darwin lived at a time when almost all believed in racial superiority. But if you read his works you will find that he was less racist than most. Besides that racism is not justified by evolution, in fact far less so than it is justified by the Bible. But then most Christians ignore the parts of the Bible that they disagree with.

Sorry but your calculations about professing Christians are wrong. The Bible speaks of those professing to believe, but are hypocrites. And the racial theory is in line with evolution, also leaning on intellectual ability. So the racial idea of one race by evolutionary process as superior to another is clearly and distinctly used by Darwin, Haeckel and others.

 

[YoursTrue]

Looks like a bit of word salad here. Evolution is no a postulate. It is an observed event. Just as gravity is not a postulate, it is an observed event. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution just as the theory of gravity explains gravity.

Salad or meat doesn't matter. Evolution is not a fact. It's a theory. We have already covered it is not an observed event. Nothing to show genes changing to produce or form by themselves different forms, or kinds. Or for that matter, kinds. Not then and not now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry but your calculations about professing Christians are wrong. The Bible speaks of those professing to believe, but are hypocrites. And the racial theory is in line with evolution, also leaning on intellectual ability. So the racial idea of one race by evolutionary process as superior to another is clearly and distinctly used by Darwin, Haeckel and others.

You are wrong on both counts. But then you do not understand evolution and are trying not to understand. The theory of evolution actually supports the claim that the "races" which in reality are cultural and not biological, are equally "evolved". Neither is better than the other. But as a Christian you have to ignore the fact that the Bible is pro-slavery and the those supporting slavery relied upon the flood myth to justify making black people slaves.

Where did Darwin ever make the claim that you said that he did? It looks like you broke the Ninth Commandment again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Salad or meat doesn't matter. Evolution is not a fact. It's a theory. We have already covered it is not an observed event. Nothing to show genes changing to produce or form by themselves different forms, or kinds. Or for that matter, kinds. Not then and not now.

Of course it is a fact. You merely live in denial. Just like gravity there is the fact of gravity and the explanation or theory of gravity. Evolution can be observed in many ways. Your beliefs are the ones that have not been supported by evidence and observations.

We can observe evolution in the fossil record. We can observe it in DNA, we can observe it in DNA, we can observe it in phylogeny. The list goes on and on. There is a reason that I try to get you to try to learn what is and what is not evidence. Until you understand this concept your denials are empty unsupported claims.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry but your calculations about professing Christians are wrong. The Bible speaks of those professing to believe, but are hypocrites. And the racial theory is in line with evolution, also leaning on intellectual ability. So the racial idea of one race by evolutionary process as superior to another is clearly and distinctly used by Darwin, Haeckel and others.

Nope my calculations are not wrong. I soon have to look up the theory survival of the fittest. Humans are humans. They always were and always will be. What other species can they interbreed with? Everything you have is conjecture.

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course it is a fact. You merely live in denial. Just like gravity there is the fact of gravity and the explanation or theory of gravity. Evolution can be observed in many ways. Your beliefs are the ones that have not been supported by evidence and observations.

We can observe evolution in the fossil record. We can observe it in DNA, we can observe it in DNA, we can observe it in phylogeny. The list goes on and on. There is a reason that I try to get you to try to learn what is and what is not evidence. Until you understand this concept your denials are empty unsupported claims.

Sure. It is a fact. Facts change, is that it?

 

[YoursTrue]

You are wrong on both counts. But then you do not understand evolution and are trying not to understand. The theory of evolution actually supports the claim that the "races" which in reality are cultural and not biological, are equally "evolved". Neither is better than the other. But as a Christian you have to ignore the fact that the Bible is pro-slavery and the those supporting slavery relied upon the flood myth to justify making black people slaves.

Where did Darwin ever make the claim that you said that he did? It looks like you broke the Ninth Commandment again.

Are you saying Darwin and Haeckel did not believe in what was considered to be racial superiority of one race over another?
Here's something about Darwin.
"He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy." So whether you like it or not, whether he was right or wrong, he believed that the white races were evolutionarily more advanced than black races. Sorry...
Darwin, race and gender

 

[Polymath257]

This is how you reason, by misplacing the word astonish. Sad really.

In what way did I misplace the word?

You don't "know" what life emerged. What nonsense you teach.

Why is it nonsense to teach that at one point all life was single celled? That s what the evidence we have shows. Whether or not the *first* life was cellular or not, the earliest life we know of was cellular.

 

[shunyadragon]

Are you saying Darwin and Haeckel did not believe in what was considered to be racial superiority of one race over another?

Here's something about Darwin.
"He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy." So whether you like it or not, whether he was right or wrong, he believed that the white races were evolutionarily more advanced than black races. Sorry...
Darwin, race and gender

Don't apologise, So what The contemporary science of evolution is indifferent to what Darwin thought of racial superiority. True, Darwin proposed the hypothesis for evolution based on sound objective verifiable evidence, but he was a product of the beliefs of the time concerning race.

The science of evolution as demonstrated today based on the objective verifiable evidence does not view the issue of the evolution of races how Charles Darwin may have.

It is best to consider how science demonstrates the science of evolution today and not 150+ years ago.