T
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
So far, we have:
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian observes:
Hitler used the word “justice” in Mein Kampf many times, too. But it turns out that his idea of “justice” was almost as messed up as his idea of evolution." If you and Stein and Hitler agree on what evolution means, that doesn’t mean that Darwin agrees with the you. Are you now claiming that we should turn our back on justice, because Hitler turned that one inside out, too?
(Repeats the argument that Darwin’s non-scientist relatives were favorable to eugenics)
Sorry. What matters is what Darwin himself thought.
Hitler used the word “justice” in Mein Kampf many times, too. But it turns out that his idea of “justice” was almost as messed up as his idea of evolution." If you and Stein and Hitler agree on what evolution means, that doesn’t mean that Darwin agrees with the you. Are you now claiming that we should turn our back on justice, because Hitler turned that one inside out, too?
Any word can mean many different things if one’s “belief system” demands it. The problem is, you think you like justice, so you are willing to agree that Hitler misused that. But you hate science, so you don’t mind accepting Hitler’s definition of evolution.Justice can mean many different things according to the belief system behind it.
Sorry, relativism isn’t very convincing to me, Mary. This probably isn’t a very good place to be trying that argument.That does not mean I don’t think there is a true definition for justice, but people can come from different value systems.
No, that’s not what evolution is. No wonder you hate it.Evolution, however, refers to a specific way of seing humans develop.
Horsefeathers. For example, you have a rather bizarre idea of what it means. Just as Hitler did.it has a definition with a narrow range so therefore,your parallel here doesn’t hold up.
(Repeats the argument that Darwin’s non-scientist relatives were favorable to eugenics)
Sorry. What matters is what Darwin himself thought.
Your people. Not Darwin’s. As you learned, he thought such things were evil. I was impressed that some churches have apologized for what they did, but I’m not impressed that they tried to excuse it somewhat by blaming Darwin. As you learned, he denounced that sort of thinking.Plus you left out all the evidence concerning present day policies in our own society and across the globe that continue eugenics: abortion, euthanasia, population control using forced sterilization and artifical birth control as well as selection of the ‘inferior’ (darwin word) for abortions and euthanasia.
Sorry. If you want to show that Haeckel was a eugenist, have at it. But quit libeling Darwin, who denounced such ideas.Plus you left out all the scientists such as Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel,…
Darwin’s own statement is the only convincing evidence of his opinions. And of course, we have the statements of later Darwinians denouncing eugenics. The truth matters, Mary. It should matter to you.You are all smoke and mirrors and no real evidence.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
That’s because the word wasn’t yet in common usage. And of course, you don’t want him to have denounced eugenics as he did. You want desperately to tie him to the things your people did. But it won’t work. Not only did Darwin call eugenic ideas “evil,”, Darwinists later showed that the ideas wouldn’t even work.We have no quote from Darwin that eugenics was evil.
The posted quoted never mentioned the eugenics movment
and that is an important ommission (that he didn’t specifically
mention it)
Telling me that his nonscientist son later endorsed eugenics is just grasping at straws. Stein blamed the very people who denounced Hitler’s program (which he borrowed from Martin Luther’s The Jews and Their Lies, not Darwin) and makes excuses for those who supported eugenics.
He thought it was possible. But he said it was evil to do. You know this. Why pretend otherwise? And you also know that later Darwinists showed that it wouldn’t work. Your people should apologize for their support of eugenics, but they shouldn’t pretend that Darwin or Darwinists gave them any support.You have not done so. I repeatedly showed quotes from Darwin in which he refes to animal husbandry techniques and relates them to human beings, population control and ways they
point to bringing about a civilization of superior beings…
By calling it “evil?” C’mon, Mary. As you learned, Martin Luther “broke ground” for the Holocaust. Most of the Wannsee Protocol can be found in his rant against the Jews.Now, did he specifically advocate the extreme techniques of the Nazis, no I don’t believe he did, but he broke the ground
that led to that.
You’re not helping yourself, here, Mary. There’s no point in denying this. Stein denied the real cause of the Holocaust, and blamed the very people who denounced it. This is why decent people think he’s despicable.You are completely blind to truth if that point is not glaringly obvious to you. Perhaps that public school
education just helped you learn the skills to critically think
past the obvious truth!.
2.An admission (recently removed) from an ID site that the only involvement Darwin had with eugenics was to denounce it
Sad that they didn’t take full personal responsibility. “We did it, but Darwin made us.” Horsefeathers. He called it “evil”, and later Darwinists showed it wouldn’t work.Yes and it was replaced with a long statement
of apology by the Methodist church tracing the history of the
eugenics movement back to the roots of Darwin!
Do I think Darwin’s description of eugenic ideas as “evil” means more than what some self-serving excuse from someone else says about his ideas? Yes. He gets to say what he thinks. You only make it worse for yourself by denying it.But that would just be an opinion to you, right.
mean everything is
just an opinion to you relativists. But that would mean you
own statement are just opinions! Heavens, what will we do
now! We can’t tell what is true anymore!
from Dembski’s website:
Darwin wasn’t arguing FOR eugenics. He was arguing that while eugenics would theoretically work it would require that we degrade the noblest part of our natures to do it, that part which DOES distinguish us from our non-human mammalian relatives.
Again? OK.Where, when and how!
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly
an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man
And a very clear denunciation of eugenic ideas as “evil.” That should be enough for any honest person. You won’t accept the fact, for reasons that have become obvious to everyone here.A one paragraph, no maybe three sentences, is all you have.
At the beginning of this discussion you said it was the statician, not Darwin, that provided the main argument against the Nazi form of eugenics…]/quote]
That’s not what I said, is it, Mary. I said that Martin Luther provided the main argument for the Holocaust. He did. Would you like to see it again?
You should. But at the moment, that would require you drop your prejudices and admit something very unpleasant for you.Be honest!
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
Just to add anothyer boulder on the mountain against the idea that eugenics died at the end of WWII and that the Darwinists argued against it, defeating it as a theory, here is a bit of Margret Sangar and her wonderful ideas:
This is a description of her book:
listverse.com/literature/10-books-that-screwed-up-the-world/
6 The Pivot of CivilizationMargaret Sanger, 1922
On the list because: it preaches eugenics
Margaret Sanger is the mother of modern contraception and the founder of Planned Parenthood. In her 1922 book, The Pivot of Civilization, she outlined her theories of eugenics (control of the human race by selective breeding) and racial purity (3 years before Hitler did the same in Mein Kampf). The basis of her support of contraception was entirely due to her belief that inferior humans should be killed to enable a superior race to appear over time. Sanger did not just entertain popular ideas of her time - she was the champion of the cause. In her book she says: “the most urgent problem of to-day is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.” She goes on to say: “possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon American society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupid, cruel sentimentalism.” Birth control was, in her mind, “the greatest and most truly eugenic method.” Needless to say, Planned Parenthood today have tried very hard to distance themselves from their founder.
Here are some quotes from margret Sanger:
“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.
“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”
Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.
“Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”
Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.
"Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
“Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.”
[no source available at this time…]
As an advocate of birth control I wish … to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit,’ admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation…
On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.
Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
“The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.”
Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
“Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism … [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”
Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on “The Cruelty of Charity,” pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.
“The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.”
Margaret Sanger, quoted in Charles Valenza. “Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?” Family Planning Perspectives, January-February 1985, page 44.
Add that to the mountain Barbarian.
In Christ,
maryJohnZ
This is a description of her book:
listverse.com/literature/10-books-that-screwed-up-the-world/
6 The Pivot of CivilizationMargaret Sanger, 1922
On the list because: it preaches eugenics
Margaret Sanger is the mother of modern contraception and the founder of Planned Parenthood. In her 1922 book, The Pivot of Civilization, she outlined her theories of eugenics (control of the human race by selective breeding) and racial purity (3 years before Hitler did the same in Mein Kampf). The basis of her support of contraception was entirely due to her belief that inferior humans should be killed to enable a superior race to appear over time. Sanger did not just entertain popular ideas of her time - she was the champion of the cause. In her book she says: “the most urgent problem of to-day is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.” She goes on to say: “possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon American society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupid, cruel sentimentalism.” Birth control was, in her mind, “the greatest and most truly eugenic method.” Needless to say, Planned Parenthood today have tried very hard to distance themselves from their founder.
Here are some quotes from margret Sanger:
“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.
“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”
Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.
“Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”
Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.
"Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
“Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.”
[no source available at this time…]
As an advocate of birth control I wish … to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit,’ admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation…
On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.
Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
“The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.”
Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
“Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism … [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”
Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on “The Cruelty of Charity,” pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.
“The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.”
Margaret Sanger, quoted in Charles Valenza. “Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?” Family Planning Perspectives, January-February 1985, page 44.
Add that to the mountain Barbarian.
In Christ,
maryJohnZ
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian on the accusation against Pianka:
That’s not what he said, was it Mary? He said nothing about people being “eliminated.”
Sorry, since I caught the “Answers in Genesis” people editing statements of scientists to make it appear that they thought the opposite of their actual statement, those people have no credibility with me.
BTW, after Von Baer showed Haeckel’s drawings to be inaccurate, the theory of recapitulation was dead. It’s not part of evolutionary theory.
**von Baer: Recapitulation is kaput
In 1828, the Estonian-born embryologist Karl von Baer launched a withering attack on recapitulation. A careful look at embryos revealed that it was impossible to arrange them in any meaningful series. From the earliest stages, vertebrates all share an anatomy that invertebrates such as insects or worms never acquire. And even within vertebrates, there are facts that clash with recapitulation. A human does not develop a wing or a hoof before forming a hand—humans, birds, and horses all begin with limb buds, which then diverge into different adult limbs.
Compelling evidence for evolution
Baer was no fan of evolution, and so it was much to his chagrin that Darwin used his work to provide some of the most compelling evidence in Origin of Species. A species inherits its developmental program from its ancestors, and so two closely related species would be expected to have similar—but not necessarily identical—embryos. Over time, as lineages evolve further away from each other, natural selection modifies their embryos in various ways, but some vestiges of their common ancestry survive. That’s why we still bear a limited resemblance to fish in our early embryonic stages. Darwin did not argue that life was arrayed in a linear series from lower to higher; instead, he saw life branching like a tree as new species emerged.That branching was reflected in the similar paths of development that ultimately produced hooves, claws, and hands.**
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/history_10
Notice, BTW, that while Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, Von Baer demolished Haeckel’s theory in 1828, long before Haeckel could have been affected by Darwin’s theory. They lied to you about that, also. Hitler never mentions Haeckel in Mein Kampf, and even if he did, it wouldn’t have been any reflection on Darwin.
Mary, isn’t it significant that so many of your sources are guilty of ignorance or outright dishonesty? Isn’t it time you wised up about this?
That’s not what he said, was it Mary? He said nothing about people being “eliminated.”
In other words, you don’t have any evidence, so you accuse him anyway. Isn’t there something about false witness you should be considering, Mary? When did people become guilty unless they could prove themselves innocent? Wait, I know. Germany from about 1937 on to 1945.NOT WHILE THE CAMERA IS ON ANYWAY
Nice try. But Von Baer destroyed Haeckel’s arguments. And Darwin used Von Baer’s discoveries in his theory. Feel free to argue that Haeckel endorsed eugenics.But how about this, I looked up the evolutionist who was Hitler’s man to see if he had connections to Darwing. Sure enough, it seems he was influenced by Darwin’s “Descent of Man”.
answersingenesis.org/crea…i2/haeckel.aspThis is what I found at this website:
Sorry, since I caught the “Answers in Genesis” people editing statements of scientists to make it appear that they thought the opposite of their actual statement, those people have no credibility with me.
BTW, after Von Baer showed Haeckel’s drawings to be inaccurate, the theory of recapitulation was dead. It’s not part of evolutionary theory.
**von Baer: Recapitulation is kaput
In 1828, the Estonian-born embryologist Karl von Baer launched a withering attack on recapitulation. A careful look at embryos revealed that it was impossible to arrange them in any meaningful series. From the earliest stages, vertebrates all share an anatomy that invertebrates such as insects or worms never acquire. And even within vertebrates, there are facts that clash with recapitulation. A human does not develop a wing or a hoof before forming a hand—humans, birds, and horses all begin with limb buds, which then diverge into different adult limbs.
Compelling evidence for evolution
Baer was no fan of evolution, and so it was much to his chagrin that Darwin used his work to provide some of the most compelling evidence in Origin of Species. A species inherits its developmental program from its ancestors, and so two closely related species would be expected to have similar—but not necessarily identical—embryos. Over time, as lineages evolve further away from each other, natural selection modifies their embryos in various ways, but some vestiges of their common ancestry survive. That’s why we still bear a limited resemblance to fish in our early embryonic stages. Darwin did not argue that life was arrayed in a linear series from lower to higher; instead, he saw life branching like a tree as new species emerged.That branching was reflected in the similar paths of development that ultimately produced hooves, claws, and hands.**
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/history_10
Notice, BTW, that while Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, Von Baer demolished Haeckel’s theory in 1828, long before Haeckel could have been affected by Darwin’s theory. They lied to you about that, also. Hitler never mentions Haeckel in Mein Kampf, and even if he did, it wouldn’t have been any reflection on Darwin.
Mary, isn’t it significant that so many of your sources are guilty of ignorance or outright dishonesty? Isn’t it time you wised up about this?
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
It continued on, among your people for a long time, Mary. There are still some like that. The Bell Curve which has been denounced as psuedoscience by Darwinists like Stephen Gould, is evidence of that. But it was dead as far as Darwinists were concerned by the 1930s. As you learned, Darwinists like Punnet and Morgan destroyed any possible scientific support for it.Just to add anothyer boulder on the mountain against the idea that eugenics died at the end of WWII
That’s true. It was dead to science. Non-scientists among your people continued to believe it.and that the Darwinists argued against it, defeating it as a theory
Non scientist. Yep. Your people. I didn’t know much about her, so I did a little check on the web. A social worker, an LPN, and then I found this statement from her:here is a bit of Margret Sangar and her wonderful ideas:
To each group we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
I need to run that one down, and verify it. If true, I’ve wronged her somewhat in my past judgment. And one more non-scientist to the list of eugenicists, falsely labeled as a scientist. A mountain of deception you’re building, Mary. Aren’t you just a little concerned that so much of what you’re peddling from other websites is dishonesty? Doesn’t it bother you that you’re being used to spread dishonesty? One more boulder on the mountain of deception.
So noted. Isn’t it time you admitted the truth, now?Add that to the mountain Barbarian.
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
Telling me that his nonscientist son later endorsed eugenics is just grasping at straws. .
Is it? He used his father’s own words to back his interests in eugenics. should I repeat those words?
"The major repeated his father’s admonition that, though the crudest workings of natural selection must be mitigated by “the spirit of civilization,” society must encourage breeding among the best stock and prevent it among the worst “without further delay.”
Does that sound like he thought eugenics was evil? Hardly.
Sad that they didn’t take full personal responsibility. “We did it, but Darwin made us.” Horsefeathers. He called it “evil”, and later Darwinists showed it wouldn’t work.
Do I think Darwin’s description of eugenic ideas as “evil” means more than what some self-serving excuse from someone else says about his ideas? Yes. He gets to say what he thinks. You only make it worse for yourself by denying it.
mean everything is
just an opinion to you relativists. But that would mean you
own statement are just opinions! Heavens, what will we do
now! We can’t tell what is true anymore!
from Dembski’s website:
Darwin wasn’t arguing FOR eugenics. He was arguing that while eugenics would theoretically work it would require that we degrade the noblest part of our natures to do it, that part which DOES distinguish us from our non-human mammalian relatives.
Again? OK.
**The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly
an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil./b]
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man
It would be interesting to ask Darwin what he meant by the contigent benefit. I would accept your proof if it was stated in different ways throughout the fifth chapter, but it is not. He goes back and forth, declaring some people more fit than others. It is not a compassionate view of the hiuman person. He likens the process of procreation to animals breeding and is making arguments for what benefits a society or takes away from a society when different groups have more or less children. There is no sense of love for the human person throughout the chapter.
Pure materialistic view of the human. The fact that you find Darwin to be a kind, compassionate person because of this one passage says to me you want to find that aand look past the rest of the material.
That’s not what I said, is it, Mary. I said that Martin Luther provided the main argument for the Holocaust. He did. Would you like to see it again?
Martin Luther was an antisemite, and that is not what the holocaust was about. The nazi’s killed all kinds of people. You know that. So you can’t say it was because of martin Luther, and Hitler’s own words shows his interst and ambrace of
social Darwinism as it was postulized in the eugenics doctrines.
The influence was there. To deny it is putting your head ib the sand.
I think you just believe that if you say something often enough you will make it true.
As for the German scientist and the scientist you mentioned who debunked him, see me next post.
In Chrsit, maryJohnZ
]**
Is it? He used his father’s own words to back his interests in eugenics. should I repeat those words?
"The major repeated his father’s admonition that, though the crudest workings of natural selection must be mitigated by “the spirit of civilization,” society must encourage breeding among the best stock and prevent it among the worst “without further delay.”
Does that sound like he thought eugenics was evil? Hardly.
Sad that they didn’t take full personal responsibility. “We did it, but Darwin made us.” Horsefeathers. He called it “evil”, and later Darwinists showed it wouldn’t work.
Do I think Darwin’s description of eugenic ideas as “evil” means more than what some self-serving excuse from someone else says about his ideas? Yes. He gets to say what he thinks. You only make it worse for yourself by denying it.
mean everything is
just an opinion to you relativists. But that would mean you
own statement are just opinions! Heavens, what will we do
now! We can’t tell what is true anymore!
from Dembski’s website:
Darwin wasn’t arguing FOR eugenics. He was arguing that while eugenics would theoretically work it would require that we degrade the noblest part of our natures to do it, that part which DOES distinguish us from our non-human mammalian relatives.
Again? OK.
**The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly
an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil./b]
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man
It would be interesting to ask Darwin what he meant by the contigent benefit. I would accept your proof if it was stated in different ways throughout the fifth chapter, but it is not. He goes back and forth, declaring some people more fit than others. It is not a compassionate view of the hiuman person. He likens the process of procreation to animals breeding and is making arguments for what benefits a society or takes away from a society when different groups have more or less children. There is no sense of love for the human person throughout the chapter.
Pure materialistic view of the human. The fact that you find Darwin to be a kind, compassionate person because of this one passage says to me you want to find that aand look past the rest of the material.
That’s not what I said, is it, Mary. I said that Martin Luther provided the main argument for the Holocaust. He did. Would you like to see it again?
Martin Luther was an antisemite, and that is not what the holocaust was about. The nazi’s killed all kinds of people. You know that. So you can’t say it was because of martin Luther, and Hitler’s own words shows his interst and ambrace of
social Darwinism as it was postulized in the eugenics doctrines.
The influence was there. To deny it is putting your head ib the sand.
I think you just believe that if you say something often enough you will make it true.
As for the German scientist and the scientist you mentioned who debunked him, see me next post.
In Chrsit, maryJohnZ
]**
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
OK. so we have a german scientist who came up with a theory called the ‘recapulation’ theory which basically said that each species went through all the different forms it had descended from during stages of development as an embryo. The scientist was an evolutionist. Darwing quoted from him and used his drawings in his books. Later when the drawings were found to be totally falsified, in fact fantasyies, Darwin still continued to use them.
"As we saw earlier, Darwin discounted other scientists’ negative views of Haeckel’s interpretative drawings at the time and used them to bolster his own theory. But this was not the only point where Darwinism diverged from the truth. Much more striking is that he presented the views of Karl Ernst von Baer-reputedly the most noted embryologist of the time-as distorted. Jonathan Wells’ Icons of Evolution explains in detail that von Baer did not accept Darwin’s theory and harshly refuted it. He was also firmly against evolutionist interpretations of embryology, formulating the rule that "the embryo of a higher form never resembles any other form, but only its embryo."62 He also said that Darwinists dogmatically "accepted the Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis as true before they set to the task of observing embryos."63 But, after the third edition of The Origin of the Species, Darwin distorted von Baer’s interpretations and conclusions and used them to bolster his own theory. As Wells explains:
Darwin cited von Baer as the source of his embryological evidence, but at the crucial point, Darwin distorted that evidence to make it fit his theory. Von Baer lived long enough to object to Darwin’s misuse of his observations, and he was a strong critic of Darwinian evolution until his death in 1876. But Darwin persisted in citing him anyway, making him look like a supporter of the very doctrine of evolutionary parallelism he explicitly rejected.64
hyahya.org/books/darwinism/therewasdarwinism/therewasdarwinism7.php
So Darwin was not above distortion in his own works.
As for science and the fraudulent work of Haeckel, that work was
still be used in many text books even into this century. it wasn’t until New Scientist magazine fully disclosed the fraud in 1999. I know people who told me about embryos having fish gills for a time and ‘tails’…but all of that was false.
"… somehow, Haeckel’s admissions were kept under cover since the beginning of this century and his drawings continued to be studied in textbooks as if they were authentic. The magazine says: Haeckel’s confession got lost after his drawings were subsequently used in a 1901 book called Darwin and After Darwin and reproduced widely in English-language biology texts.60
An article in the October 16, 1999 edition of New Scientist brought Haeckel’s embryology myth completely out into the open:
Now I suppose you will say all that is a lie as well.
In Christ,
maryJohnZore
"As we saw earlier, Darwin discounted other scientists’ negative views of Haeckel’s interpretative drawings at the time and used them to bolster his own theory. But this was not the only point where Darwinism diverged from the truth. Much more striking is that he presented the views of Karl Ernst von Baer-reputedly the most noted embryologist of the time-as distorted. Jonathan Wells’ Icons of Evolution explains in detail that von Baer did not accept Darwin’s theory and harshly refuted it. He was also firmly against evolutionist interpretations of embryology, formulating the rule that "the embryo of a higher form never resembles any other form, but only its embryo."62 He also said that Darwinists dogmatically "accepted the Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis as true before they set to the task of observing embryos."63 But, after the third edition of The Origin of the Species, Darwin distorted von Baer’s interpretations and conclusions and used them to bolster his own theory. As Wells explains:
Darwin cited von Baer as the source of his embryological evidence, but at the crucial point, Darwin distorted that evidence to make it fit his theory. Von Baer lived long enough to object to Darwin’s misuse of his observations, and he was a strong critic of Darwinian evolution until his death in 1876. But Darwin persisted in citing him anyway, making him look like a supporter of the very doctrine of evolutionary parallelism he explicitly rejected.64
hyahya.org/books/darwinism/therewasdarwinism/therewasdarwinism7.php
So Darwin was not above distortion in his own works.
As for science and the fraudulent work of Haeckel, that work was
still be used in many text books even into this century. it wasn’t until New Scientist magazine fully disclosed the fraud in 1999. I know people who told me about embryos having fish gills for a time and ‘tails’…but all of that was false.
"… somehow, Haeckel’s admissions were kept under cover since the beginning of this century and his drawings continued to be studied in textbooks as if they were authentic. The magazine says: Haeckel’s confession got lost after his drawings were subsequently used in a 1901 book called Darwin and After Darwin and reproduced widely in English-language biology texts.60
An article in the October 16, 1999 edition of New Scientist brought Haeckel’s embryology myth completely out into the open:
Now I suppose you will say all that is a lie as well.
In Christ,
maryJohnZore
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian chuckles:
Telling me that his nonscientist son later endorsed eugenics is just grasping at straws. .
Darwin’s own words:
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly
an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man
Barbarian on the attempt to elude full responsibility:
Sad. “We did it, but Darwin made us.” Horsefeathers. He called it “evil”, and later Darwinists showed it wouldn’t work.
Barbarian observes:
Do I think Darwin’s description of eugenic ideas as “evil” means more than what some self-serving excuse from someone else says about his ideas? Yes. He gets to say what he thinks. You only make it worse for yourself by denying it.
from Dembski’s website:
Darwin wasn’t arguing FOR eugenics. He was arguing that while eugenics would theoretically work it would require that we degrade the noblest part of our natures to do it, that part which DOES distinguish us from our non-human mammalian relatives.
And Darwin’s opinion:
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly
an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man
Barbarian observes:
That’s not what I said, is it, Mary. I said that Martin Luther provided the main argument for the Holocaust. He did. Would you like to see it again?
As for the German scientist and the scientist you mentioned who debunked him, see me next post.
Telling me that his nonscientist son later endorsed eugenics is just grasping at straws. .
Yep. You’ve realized Darwin was adamantly opposed to eugenic ideas, so you’ve retreated to trying to show that people related to him had them. It’s a very telling admission.Is it?
Darwin’s own words:
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly
an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man
Um, yes. Yes it does, Mary.Does that sound like he thought eugenics was evil?
Barbarian on the attempt to elude full responsibility:
Sad. “We did it, but Darwin made us.” Horsefeathers. He called it “evil”, and later Darwinists showed it wouldn’t work.
Barbarian observes:
Do I think Darwin’s description of eugenic ideas as “evil” means more than what some self-serving excuse from someone else says about his ideas? Yes. He gets to say what he thinks. You only make it worse for yourself by denying it.
As you know, Mary, I’m not a relativist. Do you really think false accusations will help you?mean everything is just an opinion to you relativists.
from Dembski’s website:
Darwin wasn’t arguing FOR eugenics. He was arguing that while eugenics would theoretically work it would require that we degrade the noblest part of our natures to do it, that part which DOES distinguish us from our non-human mammalian relatives.
And Darwin’s opinion:
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly
an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man
It’s perfectly obvious. People who are unable to help themselves are a burden, one Darwin thinks we should willingly assume, because it would be evil to let them die.It would be interesting to ask Darwin what he meant by the contigent benefit.
Of course. Some humans are more fit than others. Darwin’s point was that made no difference as to their value as humans. Hence, it would be wrong to even let them die, much less kill them.I would accept your proof if it was stated in different ways throughout the fifth chapter, but it is not. He goes back and forth, declaring some people more fit than others.
I think any reasonable person, reading his opinion that it would be evil to let the weak and helpless die, would admit that it was a compassionate statement.It is not a compassionate view of the hiuman person.
Barbarian observes:
That’s not what I said, is it, Mary. I said that Martin Luther provided the main argument for the Holocaust. He did. Would you like to see it again?
You’re serious? The Holocaust was not about antisemitism? Six million Jews would disagree with you. But they’re dead. Do yourself a favor. Look up the Wannsee conference and learn. And stay off the Nazi sites. Of course they deny it.Martin Luther was an antisemite, and that is not what the holocaust was about.
Mary, about 90 percent of the Wannsee protocols are straight from Luther’s rant.So you can’t say it was because of martin Luther,
You’ve already learned that Darwin denounced that sort of thing, and that later Darwinists should it was scientifically indefensible. If you still want to deny that, then you’ll remain deluded.and Hitler’s own words shows his interst and ambrace of
social Darwinism as it was postulized in the eugenics doctrines.
As for the German scientist and the scientist you mentioned who debunked him, see me next post.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Actually, as I pointed out, Haeckel’s ideas of recapitulation were refuted long before Darwin wrote about his theory. They lied to you about that, Mary. Nor did Darwin accept recapitulation. In fact, as you just learned, he used the same evidence Von Baer used to refute Haeckel’s idea, to form his theory of evolution.OK. so we have a german scientist who came up with a theory called the ‘recapulation’ theory which basically said that each species went through all the different forms it had descended from during stages of development as an embryo. The scientist was an evolutionist.
You’ve been lied to about that, also. It turns out that (as you learned from that website) vertebrate embryos do resemble each other closely early on. They use photographs to show that, nowadays, but it’s still true.Darwing quoted from him and used his drawings in his books. Later when the drawings were found to be totally falsified, in fact fantasyies, Darwin still continued to use them.
He didn’t present Von Baer’s opinions at all. He used his evidence, which refutes Haeckel’s ideas, but supports Darwinian evolution.As we saw earlier, Darwin discounted other scientists’ negative views of Haeckel’s interpretative drawings at the time and used them to bolster his own theory. But this was not the only point where Darwinism diverged from the truth. Much more striking is that he presented the views of Karl Ernst von Baer-reputedly the most noted embryologist of the time-as distorted.
** Baer was no fan of evolution, and so it was much to his chagrin that Darwin used his work to provide some of the most compelling evidence in Origin of Species. A species inherits its developmental program from its ancestors, and so two closely related species would be expected to have similar—but not necessarily identical—embryos. Over time, as lineages evolve further away from each other, natural selection modifies their embryos in various ways, but some vestiges of their common ancestry survive. That’s why we still bear a limited resemblance to fish in our early embryonic stages. Darwin did not argue that life was arrayed in a linear series from lower to higher; instead, he saw life branching like a tree as new species emerged.That branching was reflected in the similar paths of development that ultimately produced hooves, claws, and hands.
What about Baer’s claim that vertebrates couldn’t be aligned with invertebrate animals? Embryologists working in the mid-1800s showed that the division was not unbridgeable. Some invertebrates known as sea squirts, for example, develop the same kind of stiff rod that vertebrates form in their back as embryos, known as a notochord. In vertebrates the notochord turns into the disks between the vertebrae. If this were in fact a sign of common ancestry, you’d expect sea squirts to be close relatives of vertebrates. And indeed, studies on the DNA of sea squirts show that they are in fact the closest invertebrate relatives of vertebrates yet known.**
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/history_10
Von Baer didn’t like the fact that his data so nicely confirmed Darwin’s theory. But there it was.Jonathan Wells’ Icons of Evolution explains in detail that von Baer did not accept Darwin’s theory and harshly refuted it.
And Wells is hardly one to talk about misrepresenting the views of other people. For example, he cites Majuris to show that moths don’t rest on tree trunks. But in the very study he cites Majuris showed that they did.
Again, isn’t it a tip-off that so many of your sources are guilty of dishonesty?
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
As to Haeckel and Darwin:
"This was the “work” that Darwin used as a source in The Descent of Man. However, even before Darwin wrote his book, some noticed a major distortion in Haeckel’s “work” and wrote about it. In 1868, L. Rutimeyer published an article in the science periodical Archiv für Anthropologie (Archives of Anthropology) that revealed Haeckel’s falsifications. Rutimeyer, professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at Basle University, examined the embryo drawings in Naturlische Schopfungsgeschichte and Über die Entstehung und den Stammbaum des Menschengeschlechts and demonstrated that the drawings in both books had nothing to do with reality. As Rutimeyer wrote:
Haeckel claims these works to be easy for the scientific layman to follow, as well as scientific and scholarly. No one will quarrel with the first evaluation of the author, but the second quality is not one that he seriously can claim. …
**Despite this, Darwin and other biologists who supported him **continued to accept Haeckel’s drawings as a reference. And this encouraged Haeckel to try to make embryology a strong support for Darwinism. His observations produced no such support, but he regarded his drawings as more important than his observations. In following years, he made a series of comparative drawings of embryos and composed charts comparing the embryos of fish, salamanders, frogs, chickens, rabbits and human beings. The interesting thing about these side-by-side charts was that the embryos of these various creatures closely resembled one another, at first, but slowly began to differentiate in the course of their development. Particularly striking was the similarity between the embryos of a fish and a human being; so much so that in the drawings, the human embryo had what looked like gills. On the so-called scientific basis of these drawings, Haeckel proclaimed his theory that “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” This slogan represented his belief that in the course of its development, either in the egg or in its mother’s womb, every creature repeats the history of its own species, from the beginning. For example, a human embryo first resembles a fish, in later weeks a salamander, then it passes through the reptilian and mammalian stages before “evolving” into a recognizable human being.
At the beginning of the 20th century, it came to light that Haeckel had falsified his drawings and he openly confessed to this, saying:
After this compromising confession of “forgery” I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner’s dock hundreds of fellow-culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of “forgery,” for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematized and constructed. 57
But despite his avowal, Darwinists liked his propaganda material and refused to give up using it. They ignored the fact that the drawings were false and for decades, textbooks and much evolutionist literature presented them as authentic."
As to Baer:
"As we saw earlier, Darwin discounted other scientists’ negative views of Haeckel’s interpretative drawings at the time and used them to bolster his own theory. But this was not the only point where Darwinism diverged from the truth. Much more striking is that he presented the views of Karl Ernst von Baer-reputedly the most noted embryologist of the time-as distorted. Jonathan Wells’ Icons of Evolution explains in detail that von Baer did not accept Darwin’s theory and harshly refuted it. He was also firmly against evolutionist interpretations of embryology, formulating the rule that "the embryo of a higher form never resembles any other form, but only its embryo."62 He also said that Darwinists dogmatically "accepted the Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis as true before they set to the task of observing embryos."63 But, after the third edition of The Origin of the Species, Darwin distorted von Baer’s interpretations and conclusions and used them to bolster his own theory. "
hyahya.org/books/darwinism/therewasdarwinism/therewasdarwinism7.php
So Darwin continued to use Haeckel’s drawings even after they were shown to be false and he was willing to distort Baer’s work to make it support his theories.
Heavens, it sounds like there is a lot of people in ths cience world willing to make distortions to uphold their theories!
In Christ,
maryJohnz
"This was the “work” that Darwin used as a source in The Descent of Man. However, even before Darwin wrote his book, some noticed a major distortion in Haeckel’s “work” and wrote about it. In 1868, L. Rutimeyer published an article in the science periodical Archiv für Anthropologie (Archives of Anthropology) that revealed Haeckel’s falsifications. Rutimeyer, professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at Basle University, examined the embryo drawings in Naturlische Schopfungsgeschichte and Über die Entstehung und den Stammbaum des Menschengeschlechts and demonstrated that the drawings in both books had nothing to do with reality. As Rutimeyer wrote:
Haeckel claims these works to be easy for the scientific layman to follow, as well as scientific and scholarly. No one will quarrel with the first evaluation of the author, but the second quality is not one that he seriously can claim. …
**Despite this, Darwin and other biologists who supported him **continued to accept Haeckel’s drawings as a reference. And this encouraged Haeckel to try to make embryology a strong support for Darwinism. His observations produced no such support, but he regarded his drawings as more important than his observations. In following years, he made a series of comparative drawings of embryos and composed charts comparing the embryos of fish, salamanders, frogs, chickens, rabbits and human beings. The interesting thing about these side-by-side charts was that the embryos of these various creatures closely resembled one another, at first, but slowly began to differentiate in the course of their development. Particularly striking was the similarity between the embryos of a fish and a human being; so much so that in the drawings, the human embryo had what looked like gills. On the so-called scientific basis of these drawings, Haeckel proclaimed his theory that “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” This slogan represented his belief that in the course of its development, either in the egg or in its mother’s womb, every creature repeats the history of its own species, from the beginning. For example, a human embryo first resembles a fish, in later weeks a salamander, then it passes through the reptilian and mammalian stages before “evolving” into a recognizable human being.
At the beginning of the 20th century, it came to light that Haeckel had falsified his drawings and he openly confessed to this, saying:
After this compromising confession of “forgery” I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner’s dock hundreds of fellow-culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of “forgery,” for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematized and constructed. 57
But despite his avowal, Darwinists liked his propaganda material and refused to give up using it. They ignored the fact that the drawings were false and for decades, textbooks and much evolutionist literature presented them as authentic."
As to Baer:
"As we saw earlier, Darwin discounted other scientists’ negative views of Haeckel’s interpretative drawings at the time and used them to bolster his own theory. But this was not the only point where Darwinism diverged from the truth. Much more striking is that he presented the views of Karl Ernst von Baer-reputedly the most noted embryologist of the time-as distorted. Jonathan Wells’ Icons of Evolution explains in detail that von Baer did not accept Darwin’s theory and harshly refuted it. He was also firmly against evolutionist interpretations of embryology, formulating the rule that "the embryo of a higher form never resembles any other form, but only its embryo."62 He also said that Darwinists dogmatically "accepted the Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis as true before they set to the task of observing embryos."63 But, after the third edition of The Origin of the Species, Darwin distorted von Baer’s interpretations and conclusions and used them to bolster his own theory. "
hyahya.org/books/darwinism/therewasdarwinism/therewasdarwinism7.php
So Darwin continued to use Haeckel’s drawings even after they were shown to be false and he was willing to distort Baer’s work to make it support his theories.
Heavens, it sounds like there is a lot of people in ths cience world willing to make distortions to uphold their theories!
In Christ,
maryJohnz
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Mary, I told you about it a few posts ago."This was the “work” that Darwin used as a source in The Descent of Man. However, even before Darwin wrote his book, some noticed a major distortion in Haeckel’s “work” and wrote about it.
You’ve gotten mixed up on dates again. Haeckel’s recapitulation theory was refuted before Darwin ever wrote “The Origin of Species.”Despite this, Darwin and other biologists who supported him continued to accept Haeckel’s drawings as a reference. And this encouraged Haeckel to try to make embryology a strong support for Darwinism.
Like this?so much so that in the drawings, the human embryo had what looked like gills.
http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Bones/Gill_Arches/Images/Meckel4.jpg
Informally, biologists often call them “gill slits” because in fish, that’s what they become. More properly, they are called “branchial arches” and while in fish they become gills and associated mouthparts, in mammals they become jaws and middle ear structures. In reptiles, they become jaws. You can, in the opossum embryo, see them change from the reptilian form to the mammalian form as the embryo grows. (two bones of the reptilian jaw that communicate sound to the middle ear, become two middle ear bones in mammals; this can be observed evolving in a series of therapsid reptiles)
So they really are there. Haeckel was mistaken in assuming that they were actually gills. They are the tissues from which gills form, but in tetrapods, they develop in a different direction.
Check out the photograph. Textbooks now use photos, which show the same things.But despite his avowal, Darwinists liked his propaganda material and refused to give up using it. They ignored the fact that the drawings were false and for decades, textbooks and much evolutionist literature presented them as authentic."
Take a look for yourself. Von Baer was deeply wrong about that. We have tails in utero, for example. The site you are quoting is the work of a militant fundamentalist Muslim, who is thought to be crazy, even by his fellow Muslims. Wells, as you probably know, is a minister of the Unification Church. As you know, he isn’t above doctoring the truth, either. Would you like to see the details on his moth scam?Jonathan Wells’ Icons of Evolution explains in detail that von Baer did not accept Darwin’s theory and harshly refuted it. He was also firmly against evolutionist interpretations of embryology, formulating the rule that “the embryo of a higher form never resembles any other form, but only its embryo.”
Your Muslim friend isn’t a scientist. He just makes up stories. Wells says that he got his PhD because he had a “mission from Father (rev. Moon) to destroy evolution.” And in Moon’s theology, the ends justify the means.Heavens, it sounds like there is a lot of people in ths cience world willing to make distortions to uphold their theories!
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
Barbarian:
Your Muslim friend isn’t a scientist.
Mary:
His article was well documente with footnotes Mary:
"
Also it is interesting to note that the ‘gill’ tissue or such as it is taken to beinorder to support evolutionary ideas that humans came from fish, can be formed into all those other tissues. Can you really say it is ‘gill’ tissue then? But it also talks of design. You have one material and it is formed in so many different ways by some directive force or design, and that can speak to the idea os a Creator as well.
But here is what I found:
The concept of homology can thus function in several ways, which can be brought into sharper focus by placing them in the context of syllogisms:
A. Classical (morphological) view:
Premise 1 (Definition). Features are homologous if and only if they have similar structures.
Premise 2 (Empirical observation). A bat’s wing and a whale’s flipper have similar structures.
Conclusion. Therefore, a bat’s wing and a whale’s flipper are homologous features.
“…efforts to correlate evolution with changes in gene frequencies, however, have not been very successful. Detailed studies at the molecular level fail to demonstrate the expected correspondence between changes in gene products and the sorts of organismal changes which constitute the “stuff of evolution.” (Lewontin, 1974, p. 160). According to Rudolf Raff and Thomas Kaufman, evolution by DNA mutations “is largely uncoupled from morphological evolution;” the “most spectacular” example of this is the morphological dissimilarity of humans and chimpanzees despite a 99% similarity in their DNA. (Raff and Kaufman, 1983, pp. 67, 78).”
carm.org/evolution_archive/human_embryo_gillslits.htm
In Christ,
MaryJohnZ
Your Muslim friend isn’t a scientist.
Mary:
His article was well documente with footnotes Mary:
"
Also it is interesting to note that the ‘gill’ tissue or such as it is taken to beinorder to support evolutionary ideas that humans came from fish, can be formed into all those other tissues. Can you really say it is ‘gill’ tissue then? But it also talks of design. You have one material and it is formed in so many different ways by some directive force or design, and that can speak to the idea os a Creator as well.
But here is what I found:
The concept of homology can thus function in several ways, which can be brought into sharper focus by placing them in the context of syllogisms:
A. Classical (morphological) view:
Premise 1 (Definition). Features are homologous if and only if they have similar structures.
Premise 2 (Empirical observation). A bat’s wing and a whale’s flipper have similar structures.
Conclusion. Therefore, a bat’s wing and a whale’s flipper are homologous features.
Code:
A'. Darwin's extension of the morphological view:
Premise 1 (Conclusion from classical view). A bat's wing and a whale's flipper are homologous features.
Premise 2 (Proposed explanation). Features are homologous because they are inherited from a common ancestor.
Conclusion: Therefore, a bat's wing and a whale's flipper are inherited from a common ancestor.
B. Post-Darwinian (phylogenetic) view:
Premise 1 (Definition). Features are homologous if and only if they are inherited from a common ancestor.
Premise 2 (Assumption? Empirical inference?). A bat's wing and a whale's flipper are inherited from a common ancestor.
Conclusion. Therefore, a bat's wing and a whale's flipper are homologous features.
Ironically, the post-Darwinian (phylogenetic) definition of homology undercuts one of Darwin's own arguments for evolution, since it requires that common ancestry be established (or assumed) before features can be called homologous. Logically speaking, it is a fallacy to infer evolution from phylogenetic homology: once one determines (or assumes) that features are homologous because of common ancestry, it would be circular reasoning to claim that homology demonstrates common ancestry. ...
2. THE NEED FOR A NATURALISTIC MECHANISM
It turns out, however, that tracing structural similarities back through fossils to a presumed common ancestor is insufficient to exclude archetypes or design-based explanations. ... As the title of his book indicates, Berra's primary purpose is to show that living organisms are the result of naturalistic evolution rather than Supernatural design. Structural similarities among automobiles, however, - even similarities between older and newer models (which Berra calls "descent with modification"), - are due to construction according to preexisting patterns, i.e., to design. Ironically, therefore, Berra's analogy shows that phylogenetic homology is not sufficient to exclude design-based explanations. In order to demonstrate naturalistic evolution, it is necessary to show that the mechanism by which organisms are constructed (unlike the mechanism by which automobiles are constructed) does not involve design. One could simply postulate that the mechanism of biological evolution is naturalistic, arguing that the postulate is justified because science is limited to studying natural mechanisms. ...U] Asserting that something is objectively true implies that it is based on empirical evidence, not merely assumed a priori on philosophical grounds. **A methodological exclusion of design-based explanations constitutes a limitation on one's discipline,** **not a description of objective reality.** If evolutionary biologists want to show that the actual mechanism of evolution does not involve Supernatural design, they cannot merely exclude the possibility a priori, but must take the more difficult approach of proposing and corroborating a naturalistic alternative....carm.org/evolution_archive/human_embryo_gillslits.htm
In Christ,
MaryJohnZ
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
From an apologists’ site:
apologeticspress.org/articles/46
The cover story of the November 11, 2002 issue of Time magazine detailed the latest findings in human fetal development. Juxtaposed between the illustrations and the article are photo-captions that contain throwbacks to this outdated embryonic recapitulation theory: “32 days: …The brain is a labyrinth of cell-lined cavities, while the emerging arms and legs still resemble flipper-like paddles. 40 days: At this point, a human embryo looks no different from that of a pig, chick or elephant. All have a tail, a yolk sac and rudimentary gills” (Nash, 2002, 160[20]:71).
The article itself presents a “marvelous,” seemingly “miraculous,” and “vastly complicated” embryonic process. But those glossy pictures—the ones people tend to remember—have captions that paint an entirely different picture.
Is it correct that the human embryo goes through various stages during its development that resemble its evolutionary ancestors? No, it is not. As Jonathan Sarfati noted: “A human embryo never looks reptilian or pig-like. A human embryo is always a human embryo, from the moment of conception; it is never anything else. It does not become human sometime after eight weeks” (2002, p. 202, emp. in orig.). The scientific community has known for decades that Ernst Haeckel—the man responsible for conjuring up this theory and then falsifying drawings to support it—purposely misled the public during the late 1800s. Embryologist Erich Blechschmidt regarded Haeckel’s “Great Biogenetic Law” (as it came to be known) as one of the most egregious errors in the history of biology.
So why do Time magazine and modern-day professors still perpetuate this falsehood—a theory that was debunked over a century ago? Many individuals use this “principle of embryonic recapitulation” to justify the idea that embryos are not human. After all, at various stages, they say, the fetus is no different from a fish or reptile. As an example, consider the case of the late evolutionist, Carl Sagan, and his wife, Ann Druyan. In an article titled “The Question of Abortion: A Search for the Answers” that they co-authored for the April 22, 1990 issue of Parade, these two humanists argued for the ethical permissibility of human abortion on the grounds that the fetus—growing within a woman’s body for several months following conception—is not a human being. Thus, the killing of this tiny creature is not murder. Using the antiquated argument of embryonic recapitulation, Sagan and Druyan suggested that an embryo is first “a kind of parasite” that eventually looks like a “segmented worm.” Further alterations, they suggested, reveal “gill arches” like that of a “fish or amphibian.” Supposedly, “reptilian” features emerge, and later give rise to “mammalian…pig-like” traits. According to these authors, by two months the creature resembles a “primate but is still not quite human” (1990, p. 6).
While the German scientist used ‘recapitulation’ to argue that human beings were descendant of animals and it was permissable to use animal husbandry tachniques to bring about a superior species during nazi germany another form of recapitualtion is still being used here to dehumanize the tiny human embryo and say it is alright to kill it early in the womb. That is a wrong use of science once again. Would you not agree?
In Christ, maryJohnZ
apologeticspress.org/articles/46
The cover story of the November 11, 2002 issue of Time magazine detailed the latest findings in human fetal development. Juxtaposed between the illustrations and the article are photo-captions that contain throwbacks to this outdated embryonic recapitulation theory: “32 days: …The brain is a labyrinth of cell-lined cavities, while the emerging arms and legs still resemble flipper-like paddles. 40 days: At this point, a human embryo looks no different from that of a pig, chick or elephant. All have a tail, a yolk sac and rudimentary gills” (Nash, 2002, 160[20]:71).
The article itself presents a “marvelous,” seemingly “miraculous,” and “vastly complicated” embryonic process. But those glossy pictures—the ones people tend to remember—have captions that paint an entirely different picture.
Is it correct that the human embryo goes through various stages during its development that resemble its evolutionary ancestors? No, it is not. As Jonathan Sarfati noted: “A human embryo never looks reptilian or pig-like. A human embryo is always a human embryo, from the moment of conception; it is never anything else. It does not become human sometime after eight weeks” (2002, p. 202, emp. in orig.). The scientific community has known for decades that Ernst Haeckel—the man responsible for conjuring up this theory and then falsifying drawings to support it—purposely misled the public during the late 1800s. Embryologist Erich Blechschmidt regarded Haeckel’s “Great Biogenetic Law” (as it came to be known) as one of the most egregious errors in the history of biology.
So why do Time magazine and modern-day professors still perpetuate this falsehood—a theory that was debunked over a century ago? Many individuals use this “principle of embryonic recapitulation” to justify the idea that embryos are not human. After all, at various stages, they say, the fetus is no different from a fish or reptile. As an example, consider the case of the late evolutionist, Carl Sagan, and his wife, Ann Druyan. In an article titled “The Question of Abortion: A Search for the Answers” that they co-authored for the April 22, 1990 issue of Parade, these two humanists argued for the ethical permissibility of human abortion on the grounds that the fetus—growing within a woman’s body for several months following conception—is not a human being. Thus, the killing of this tiny creature is not murder. Using the antiquated argument of embryonic recapitulation, Sagan and Druyan suggested that an embryo is first “a kind of parasite” that eventually looks like a “segmented worm.” Further alterations, they suggested, reveal “gill arches” like that of a “fish or amphibian.” Supposedly, “reptilian” features emerge, and later give rise to “mammalian…pig-like” traits. According to these authors, by two months the creature resembles a “primate but is still not quite human” (1990, p. 6).
While the German scientist used ‘recapitulation’ to argue that human beings were descendant of animals and it was permissable to use animal husbandry tachniques to bring about a superior species during nazi germany another form of recapitualtion is still being used here to dehumanize the tiny human embryo and say it is alright to kill it early in the womb. That is a wrong use of science once again. Would you not agree?
In Christ, maryJohnZ
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
We’ve kind of gone off the rails on this thread, which is about the libelous rants of Ben Stein against science.
I gather, since you’ve changed the subject, that you now understand that Stein lied, and blamed Darwin and Darwinists for the very things they condemned.
The embryology issue, I’ll take up in a new thread.
I gather, since you’ve changed the subject, that you now understand that Stein lied, and blamed Darwin and Darwinists for the very things they condemned.
The embryology issue, I’ll take up in a new thread.
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
Barbarian,
I just wanted you to know that your quote from Margret Sangar did not go by me. I encourage you to find out about her. I think the historical facts show who she is and what she believed in.
here are some other Marggret Sangar quotes:
gateway.org/content/pdf/quotes.pdf
"Today eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
"I think you must agree … that the campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics … Birth control propaganda is thus the entering wedge for the eugenic educator.
"As an advocate of birth control I wish … to point out that the
unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit,’ admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feebleminded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation.
“On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.”
– Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review , October 1921, page 5.
“Give dysgenic groups [people with ‘bad genes’] in our population
their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.”
– Margaret Sanger, April 1932 Birth Control Review .
“The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless
ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.”
Planned parenthood of course paints her as the liberator of women.But she just took eugenic ideas and applied them to individual choice rather than state mandates. The result is what we have today. As of this article from 2006, two year ago, 42 million babies had been aborted. Of course some states don’t even keep records of the abortions and then there are all the chemical abortions which are not recorded as well
christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/01/abortion-by-numbers.html
"That’s 42 million human beings having their lives ended before they have barely begun. If that figure is correct, statistically speaking approximately 3,500 of those children died on the same date that 9-year-old Amber was kidnapped and brutally murdered.
"The United States, from where I write, may have a fairly liberal abortion policy, but other nations also have abortion problems and contribute to the overall abortion count. According to “India’s lost daughters: Abortion toll in millions” from the January 10, 2006, International Herald Tribune, families have been electing to abort female babies as a means of gender selection, and “as many as 10 million female fetuses may have been aborted in India over the last 20 years as families try to secure a male heir . . . .” In China, which has a similar problem with abortion for gender selection, “prenatal sex selection has resulted in an estimated 40 million bachelors.” 40 million bachelors in China suggests that more than that number of girl babies were aborted since it remains the case that female babies are statistically more likely than male babies. Russia, according to the Washington Post article entitled “Russia seeks to cut number of abortions”, has two and one-half abortions for every live birth.
About.com reports that there are an astounding 46 million abortions conducted in the world each year; 126,000 abortions conducted each day! In other words, there are approximately 3 million more abortions performed each year in the world than have been performed in the United States since 1973!"
christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/01/abortion-by-numbers.html
Quite a bloody legacy.
In Christ,
MaryJohnZ
I just wanted you to know that your quote from Margret Sangar did not go by me. I encourage you to find out about her. I think the historical facts show who she is and what she believed in.
here are some other Marggret Sangar quotes:
gateway.org/content/pdf/quotes.pdf
"Today eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
"I think you must agree … that the campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics … Birth control propaganda is thus the entering wedge for the eugenic educator.
"As an advocate of birth control I wish … to point out that the
unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit,’ admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feebleminded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation.
“On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.”
– Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review , October 1921, page 5.
“Give dysgenic groups [people with ‘bad genes’] in our population
their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.”
– Margaret Sanger, April 1932 Birth Control Review .
“The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless
ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.”
Planned parenthood of course paints her as the liberator of women.But she just took eugenic ideas and applied them to individual choice rather than state mandates. The result is what we have today. As of this article from 2006, two year ago, 42 million babies had been aborted. Of course some states don’t even keep records of the abortions and then there are all the chemical abortions which are not recorded as well
christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/01/abortion-by-numbers.html
"That’s 42 million human beings having their lives ended before they have barely begun. If that figure is correct, statistically speaking approximately 3,500 of those children died on the same date that 9-year-old Amber was kidnapped and brutally murdered.
"The United States, from where I write, may have a fairly liberal abortion policy, but other nations also have abortion problems and contribute to the overall abortion count. According to “India’s lost daughters: Abortion toll in millions” from the January 10, 2006, International Herald Tribune, families have been electing to abort female babies as a means of gender selection, and “as many as 10 million female fetuses may have been aborted in India over the last 20 years as families try to secure a male heir . . . .” In China, which has a similar problem with abortion for gender selection, “prenatal sex selection has resulted in an estimated 40 million bachelors.” 40 million bachelors in China suggests that more than that number of girl babies were aborted since it remains the case that female babies are statistically more likely than male babies. Russia, according to the Washington Post article entitled “Russia seeks to cut number of abortions”, has two and one-half abortions for every live birth.
About.com reports that there are an astounding 46 million abortions conducted in the world each year; 126,000 abortions conducted each day! In other words, there are approximately 3 million more abortions performed each year in the world than have been performed in the United States since 1973!"
christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/01/abortion-by-numbers.html
Quite a bloody legacy.
In Christ,
MaryJohnZ
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
I had assumed she was an enthusiastic proponent of abortion. That seems to have been wrong. I find her attitudes generally deplorable, but if that information is right, she at least objected to the killing of the unborn, which is better than her followers to day.I just wanted you to know that your quote from Margret Sangar did not go by me. I encourage you to find out about her. I think the historical facts show who she is and what she believed in.
If so, she is thereby less despicable than Stein, who is making excuses for the Nazis involvement in the Holocaust.
L
leftistdestroye
Guest
The Barbarian;3801524]
If anyone is interested, here is Sangers “manifesto”:
infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/etext05/7wmnr10.htm
It can be read online for free. “Woman and the New Race / Sanger, Margaret, 1883-1966”
Well, I think she was against abortion, not for the sake of the baby, but for the woman. Just like the proponents of abortion have always claimed: End the back alley abortions.she at least objected to the killing of the unborn, which is better than her followers to day.
If anyone is interested, here is Sangers “manifesto”:
infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/etext05/7wmnr10.htm
It can be read online for free. “Woman and the New Race / Sanger, Margaret, 1883-1966”
L
leftistdestroye
Guest
The Barbarian;3801524]
I hardly think that Stein, a JEW, was making excuses for the Nazis. He simply explained how interpreted science, in the hands of a political leader, can justify their madness. Sometimes, humans cannot fully deal with science. Just because we have the technology, does not mean that we should always use it.If so, she is thereby less despicable than Stein, who is making excuses for the Nazis involvement in the Holocaust.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.