If Darwin or the FBI had less than 15% of the data for a case

[LuisDantas]

Factually correct too

I find it quite entertaining how people who prize rationality are so adverse to the idea that scientific perspectives from centuries ago don't always match either modern science or contemporary PC norms.

The fact of the matter is that evolution is a biology matter.

Whether some mindset saw fit to make undue (and, it is probably not too much to underscore it, totally unsupported) parallels with social expectations of a certain time and place is another matter entirely.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Factually correct too

I find it quite entertaining how people who prize rationality are so adverse to the idea that scientific perspectives from centuries ago don't always match either modern science or contemporary PC norms.

I think part of the problem is you're not really defining your argument or terms particularly well. For example, when you say that Darwinism and eugenics were "intertwined", what does that mean to you exactly, and what implication are you trying to make?

Are you, for example, trying to say "Darwinism is responsible for eugenics"? Or that eugenics somehow reflects negatively or poorly on Darwinism? Or are you simply making the observation that, without Darwinism, the eugenicists of the time either wouldn't have existed or wouldn't have found what it considered to be a scientific rationale?

 

[Augustus]

I think part of the problem is you're not really defining your argument or terms particularly well. For example, when you say that Darwinism and eugenics were "intertwined", what does that mean to you exactly, and what implication are you trying to make?

I made one narrow point: saying that Social Darwinism had 'nothing to do with Darwin or the ToE' is false.

My original post:

"While it is fallacious to invoke Social Darwinism as an argument that the ToE is incorrect, saying it has 'nothing to do' with Darwin or the ToE is also wrong.

SD does predate Darwin, and while he seems to have accepted some aspects of SD, he was not a significant figure in the creation or promotion of its ideas. The ToE, and Darwin's work, had a significant influence on other Social Darwinists though, particularly his cousin Francis Galton.

SD was generally considered to be a part of the same phenomenon, rather than this separate thing it is viewed as today."

There was no argument or implication beyond 'SD has something to do with ToE and Darwin'.

Going beyond that starts to get complicated quickly, even defining Social Darwinism precisely is difficult, especially now it carries very heavy negative connotations that were not present at the time.

Are you, for example, trying to say "Darwinism is responsible for eugenics"?

Yes. The term was created by Darwin's cousin who was strongly influenced by Darwin. Had he not been so influenced then we might have had a different word for 'eugenics' coined by someone else

Seriously though, Darwinism was probably partially responsible for the popularity of eugenics (which has both positive and negative forms) due to its influence on intellectual culture and the perceived links between the issues.

Had Darwin never lived though such ideas would still have been promoted and popularised as they don't owe their intellectual genesis to any single figure and Darwin was hardly the only person proposing theories of evolution.

Let's say it offered (perceived) additional support to existing ideas and was used as an intellectual foundation for additional ideas in this area.

 

[LuisDantas]

You are calling "intellectual foundation" what would far more accurately be described as a pretext.

 

[Jose Fly]

For example Dawin himself was a social darwinist as his book put down other races like the Irish, Blacks and Chinese but be actually ordered some australean aborigines to be captured and brought back to England live for taxidermy later.... everyone agrees that was both a consequence of his theories and seriously flawed

genetic information can run down which has been seen in the simulation engine Mendel's Accountant

the missing link was and in fact still is missing

Look no further than the peppered moths.... you start with black and white moths... you end with black and white moths

no new genetic information

Lusy was a tree dweller

Lucy was a guy monkey

Steven Gould's punctuated equilibrium set classic Darwinism aside and a concession the fossil evidence didn't materialize as hoped

I have to ask.....do you honestly think any of this is new material?

 

[Augustus]

You are calling "intellectual foundation" what would far more accurately be described as a pretext.

What would make that 'far more accurate'? Are you suggesting it was only used disingenuously?

You might be underestimating the degree to which such views were established in mainstream science, and also applying modern negative associations to the term that didn't exist in the past (I'm not sure though as you don't make any arguments, so might be misinterpreting your point).

 

[LuisDantas]

What would make that 'far more accurate'? Are you suggesting it was only used disingenuously?

It sure wasn't used seriously, and that is assuming that your perception is somewhat accurate.

You might be underestimating the degree to which such views were established in mainstream science,

What on Earth are you calling "mainstream science" here? It sure isn't Darwinism, which, as pointed out already, is a biology subject matter.

and also applying modern negative associations to the term that didn't exist in the past (I'm not sure though as you don't make any arguments, so might be misinterpreting your point).

Far as I can tell, you are confusing sociology and anthropology with biology somehow.

 

[LuisDantas]

Never?

Interestingly Darwin himself in his original edition spoke of virtually all eminent scientists disagreeing with him and so Darwin would be the first to say you should not make the current scientific consensus the bar of truth

and yes there are myriad problems with Darwin. Animals symbiosis together being just one of many which he admitted another being social Darwinism which he was a proponent and most people recognize as flawed

In the end, survival of the fittest doesn't explain the arrival of the fittest. It just doesn't

Sorry, but all that you have managed to do was show a crippling ignorance of the very basics of science and of biology.

The way you talk, one would think we did not have the last 150 years or so of research and findings.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Sorry, but all that you have managed to do was show a crippling ignorance of the very basics of science and of biology.

The way you talk, one would think we did not have the last 150 years or so of research and findings.

Do you count Hakel's embryo diagrams in the mix?

 

[whirlingmerc]

I have to ask.....do you honestly think any of this is new material?

No, just old old mistakes on Darwin's part... and even with him it wasn't new.... started with his grandfather Erasmus who believed in transmigration of animal souls lower types to upper to human and had it on the family crest

 

[shunyadragon]

I made one narrow point: saying that Social Darwinism had 'nothing to do with Darwin or the ToE' is false.

My original post:

"While it is fallacious to invoke Social Darwinism as an argument that the ToE is incorrect, saying it has 'nothing to do' with Darwin or the ToE is also wrong.

There is a parallel association, and 'nothing to in substance with science of evolution.

SD does predate Darwin, and while he seems to have accepted some aspects of SD, he was not a significant figure in the creation or promotion of its ideas. The ToE, and Darwin's work, had a significant influence on other Social Darwinists though, particularly his cousin Francis Galton.

SD was generally considered to be a part of the same phenomenon, rather than this separate thing it is viewed as today."

There was no argument or implication beyond 'SD has something to do with ToE and Darwin'.

Going beyond that starts to get complicated quickly, even defining Social Darwinism precisely is difficult, especially now it carries very heavy negative connotations that were not present at the time.



Yes. The term was created by Darwin's cousin who was strongly influenced by Darwin. Had he not been so influenced then we might have had a different word for 'eugenics' coined by someone else

Seriously though, Darwinism was probably partially responsible for the popularity of eugenics (which has both positive and negative forms) due to its influence on intellectual culture and the perceived links between the issues.

Had Darwin never lived though such ideas would still have been promoted and popularised as they don't owe their intellectual genesis to any single figure and Darwin was hardly the only person proposing theories of evolution.

Let's say it offered (perceived) additional support to existing ideas and was used as an intellectual foundation for additional ideas in this area.

The only association I will agree with is the corruption of Darwinism and evolution as a 'false appeal' for name tag coat tail support. Genetic selection for to create a superior human is far older than 'Darwin's' proposed Theory of Evolution , and it probably first was recorded was in Greece, used in Germany in the 17th-18th century to develop and army o giants. Eugenics originated in an and organized 'science' in the late 19th and early 20th century.

 

[shunyadragon]

Do you count Hakel's embryo diagrams in the mix?

Only anecdotally.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Sorry, but all that you have managed to do was show a crippling ignorance of the very basics of science and of biology.

The way you talk, one would think we did not have the last 150 years or so of research and findings.

Piltdown man? chimp teeth stained to look old? ground down to look human? put under lock and key for 40 years to escape scrutiny? I can help you with that.... its not science.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Only anecdotally.

How about Nebraska man... on a smaller scale?... a tooth of an extinct pig used as evidence in the Scopes trial that apes became human.... and that would be rather poor science also

 

[shunyadragon]

How about Nebraska man... on a smaller scale?... a tooth of an extinct pig used as evidence in the Scopes trial that apes became human.... and that would be rather poor science also

Fraud and misinformation does occur, it is only human, and it is scientists through sound research corrected and rejected false and corrupt research, and not the detractors against the science of evolution. This is ancient history and nothing to do with the contemporary science of evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

Piltdown man? chimp teeth stained to look old? ground down to look human? put under lock and key for 40 years to escape scrutiny? I can help you with that.... its not science.

Again it was scientists who uncovered the fraud and bad science. As far as the contemporary science of evolution this is ancient history. The constant reexamination of the science of evolution over the past 160 years + is what uncovered fraud and bad science. That is how science works in all the ields of science.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, just old old mistakes on Darwin's part... and even with him it wasn't new.... started with his grandfather Erasmus who believed in transmigration of animal souls lower types to upper to human and had it on the family crest

You missed the point.

All you've posted are decades old rehashed creationist arguments that have never gone anywhere, had any impact at all on science, or accomplished a single thing. So why do you think re-stating them in a religious internet forum is going to change that?

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you count Hakel's embryo diagrams in the mix?

Seeing how they have been investigated and found lacking, of course not.

Piltdown man? chimp teeth stained to look old? ground down to look human? put under lock and key for 40 years to escape scrutiny? I can help you with that.... its not science.

Indeed, it is not science.

So?

 

[Augustus]

It sure wasn't used seriously, and that is assuming that your perception is somewhat accurate.

That's simply revisionist fantasy.

Even a brief glance at Wikipedia will confirm this.

What on Earth are you calling "mainstream science" here? It sure isn't Darwinism, which, as pointed out already, is a biology subject matter.

Eugenics is biology subject matter and was certainly based on mainstream science.

Far as I can tell, you are confusing sociology and anthropology with biology somehow.

Eugenics isn't sociology or anthropology.

Regarding broader SD, you are creating anachronistic, reified distinctions that were not present at the time. Just read Galton's wiki bio if you don't want to take my word for it.

For many the social in social Darwinism was tautological.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's simply revisionist fantasy.

Even a brief glance at Wikipedia will confirm this.

Surely you jest.