Darwinism Has Been Used To Support Racism - And Still Is
Sound of Trumpet
Monday, April 19, 2010
Coffee!!: Darwinism as support for racism
I have sometimes been excoriated for saying that Darwinism has been
used to support racism.
Well, here is a classical modern day example, from no less a luminary
than John Derbyshire:
First, the rational grounds. If a species is divided into separate
populations, and those populations are left in reproductive isolation
from each other for many generations, they will diverge. If you return
after several hundred generations have passed, you will observe that
the various traits that characterize individuals of the species are
now distributed at different frequencies in the various populations.
After a few ten thousands of generations, the divergence of the
populations will be so great they can no longer cross-breed; and that
is the origin of species. This is Biology 101.
[ ... ]
We see the same differences in traits that we don't think of as
directly physical, what evolutionary psychologists sometimes refer to
as the "BIP" traits — behavior, intelligence, and personality. Two of
the hardest-to-ignore manifestations here are the extraordinary
differentials in criminality between white Americans and African
Americans, and the persistent gaps in scores when tests of cognitive
ability are given to large population samples.
There is a huge academic literature on the gaps in cognitive test
results, practically all of it converging on the fact that African
American mean scores on cognitive tests fall below the white means by
a tad more than one white standard deviation. There is in fact so much
data on this now that we have meta-studies — studies of the studies:
the one best-known to me is the meta-study by Roth et al. in 2001,
which covered 39 studies involving nearly six million test-takers.
That one standard deviation on cognitive testing has been so
persistent across so many decades, a friend of mine, an academic
sociologist, calls it "the universal constant of American sociology" —
it's like the speed of light in physics.
Etc.
Read the rest here.
I’m sure glad that I would be unable to demonstrate that I am an
African or an American or an African-American. I’d feel so depressed
hearing this that I would probably drop out of school, and maybe get
frustrated and ... well, if a crime got committed, would reserve my
defence.
By the way: Apologies to those who entered recent Uncommon Descent
contests, so far unjudged. I was assigned a long chapter of a book on
a subject I had never researched. I have not forgotten you. Indeed, I
can’t. My Calendar persecutes me every morning. I will get to your
entries as soon as I turn in the chapter.
Some people fear God rather than men. I fear men more than Calendars.
Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:
raven1
<soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>I have sometimes been excoriated for saying that Darwinism has been
>used to support racism.
And uranium has been used to make bombs. What's your point, strumpet?
Devils Advocaat
> http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2010/04/coffee-darwinism-as-suppor...
>
> Monday, April 19, 2010
>
> Coffee!!: Darwinism as support for racism
Breaking news strumpet: Religion has been used to support racism too,
and in parts of the world it still is.
W.T.S.
news:281f4816-260f-4414...@g1g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2010/04/coffee-darwinism-as-support-for-racism.html
>
> Monday, April 19, 2010
>
> Coffee!!: Darwinism as support for racism
>
> I have sometimes been excoriated for saying that Darwinism has been
> used to support racism.
>
> Well, here is a classical modern day example, from no less a luminary
> than John Derbyshire:
>
> First, the rational grounds. If a species is divided into separate
> populations, and those populations are left in reproductive isolation
> from each other for many generations, they will diverge. If you return
> after several hundred generations have passed, you will observe that
> the various traits that characterize individuals of the species are
> now distributed at different frequencies in the various populations.
> After a few ten thousands of generations, the divergence of the
> populations will be so great they can no longer cross-breed; and that
> is the origin of species. This is Biology 101.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> We see the same differences in traits that we don't think of as
> directly physical, what evolutionary psychologists sometimes refer to
> the hardest-to-ignore manifestations here are the extraordinary
> differentials in criminality between white Americans and African
> Americans, and the persistent gaps in scores when tests of cognitive
> ability are given to large population samples.
>
> There is a huge academic literature on the gaps in cognitive test
> results, practically all of it converging on the fact that African
> American mean scores on cognitive tests fall below the white means by
> a tad more than one white standard deviation. There is in fact so much
> the one best-known to me is the meta-study by Roth et al. in 2001,
> which covered 39 studies involving nearly six million test-takers.
> That one standard deviation on cognitive testing has been so
> persistent across so many decades, a friend of mine, an academic
> it's like the speed of light in physics.
>
> Etc.
>
> Read the rest here.
>
> African or an American or an African-American. I?d feel so depressed
> hearing this that I would probably drop out of school, and maybe get
> frustrated and ... well, if a crime got committed, would reserve my
> defence.
>
> By the way: Apologies to those who entered recent Uncommon Descent
> contests, so far unjudged. I was assigned a long chapter of a book on
> a subject I had never researched. I have not forgotten you. Indeed, I
> entries as soon as I turn in the chapter.
>
> Some people fear God rather than men. I fear men more than Calendars.
>
> Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:
poverty, suffering, injustice. The bible is directly responsible for
everything that is sick and degenerate on Earth.
Bible, lie. Evolution, truth.
----------------------------------------
http://folding.stanford.edu
Save lives, visit today!
JayPee Vee
> http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2010/04/coffee-darwinism-as-suppor...
>
>
> Coffee!!: Darwinism as support for racism
False.
Mark Evans
Actually it has been BUT that says more about people seeking any
justification for racism thanthan it does about Darwin. Sports has
been cited to support racism, as have the ruins of ancient cities.
Just because someone grabs a concept to support their pet ideas does
not mean the concept is good, bad, or even fitting.
Mark Evans
Syd M.
wrote:
> http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2010/04/coffee-darwinism-as-suppor...
>
> Monday, April 19, 2010
>
> Coffee!!: Darwinism as support for racism
>
Liar.
That only applies to the religious.
PDW
robin shepherd
also was at times undiscerning. Too easy to throw out the baby with
the bathwater.
As more centuries pass, we see slightly more balance. Medieval days
were comparatively illiterate and subsistence economy, but there were
also some imortant infusions of early-science, the Islamic connection,
transmission of knowledge from Jews (especially in Meiterranean
lands), and so forth.
The British Empire Days infected everyone, not just Darwin and
Huxley. Those were the "White Man's Burden" idea of nobless oblige.
Favored races helping the primitives. Sad to say, Darwin never
insisted on that sort of chivalry. NO. It was religious people, the
Christians, and British government (and Americans).
Darwin merely looked at the science, predicting (almost approvingly)
the extermination - rapidly - of savage races.
William December Starr
Sound of Trumpet <soundof...@dcemail.com>
quoted somebody whose name he couldn't be bothered to provide:
> http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2010/04/coffee-darwinism-as-support-for-racism.html
>
> Monday, April 19, 2010
>
> Coffee!!: Darwinism as support for racism
>
> I have sometimes been excoriated for saying that Darwinism
> has been used to support racism.
But I bet that mostly you've just been ignored.
-- wds
James A. Donald
And, of course, Darwin, and Darwinism, is quite correct.
But an even bigger difference shows up in future orientation. Credit
is largely a measure of future orientation, and credit scores differ
between races a lot more than IQ does. This is consistent with the
conjecture that surviving cold winters in the ancestral environment
required greater future orientation. The ancestors of some of today's
races had to prepare for winter. The ancestors other races did not.
James A. Donald
<m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The bible has been used to support murder, torture, hatred,
> bigotry, war, poverty, suffering, injustice.
Trumpet, however, would argue this is an incorrect
interpretation and use of the bible. It is clearly an
incorrect interpretation of the New Testament, though it is
equally clearly an entirely correct interpretation of the Old
Testament.
The New Testament supports injustice in the sense, and only
in the sense, of prohibiting violence and coercive action to
remedy injustice. The old testament, on the other hand,
recommends that God's people massacre loot and burn.
That genocide is, though regrettable, is natural, in the long
run inevitable, and in the long run for the best, is an
entirely correct implication of Darwinism, and an
implication endorsed by Darwin himself.
The title of his first book is
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or
the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
"Races" of course, refers not only to races of men, but to
races of cabbages and races of horses, but it *does* refer to
races of men. Darwin makes this clear as he expands on this
topic:
Descent of Man, Chapter 01
Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be
applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that
some finally become extinct? We shall see that all
these questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to
most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in
the same manner as with the lower animals.
Descent of Man, Chapter 05
Man accumulates property and bequeaths it to his
children, so that the children of the rich have an
advantage over the poor in the race for success,
independently of bodily or mental superiority. On
the other hand, the children of parents who are
short-lived, and are therefore on an average
deficient in health and vigour, come into their
property sooner than other children, and will be
likely to marry earlier, and leave a larger number
of offspring to inherit their inferior
constitutions. But the inheritance of property by
itself is very far from an evil; for without the
accumulation of capital the arts could not progress;
and it is chiefly through their power that the
civilised races have extended, and are now
everywhere extending their range, so as to take the
place of the lower races.
Descent of Man, Chapter 07
At some future period, not very distant as measured
by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost
certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races
throughout the world. At the same time the
anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has
remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The break
between man and his nearest allies will then be
wider, for it will intervene between man in a more
civilised state, as we may hope, even than the
Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead
of as now between the negro or Australian and the
gorilla.
Olrik
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 08:11:20 -0500, "W.T.S."
> <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> The bible has been used to support murder, torture, hatred,
>> bigotry, war, poverty, suffering, injustice.
>
> Trumpet, however, would argue this is an incorrect
> interpretation and use of the bible. It is clearly an
> incorrect interpretation of the New Testament
Most religious wars since 2,000 years ago have involved "new testament"
xians.
> , though it is
> equally clearly an entirely correct interpretation of the Old
> Testament.
Who cares? Actions are more important than words.
> The New Testament supports injustice in the sense, and only
> in the sense, of prohibiting violence and coercive action to
> remedy injustice. The old testament, on the other hand,
> recommends that God's people massacre loot and burn.
So xians prefer the "old testament".
> That genocide is, though regrettable, is natural,
Sure, sure...
Darwin could have been a mass murderer, a serial killer, but his
observations and his theory of evolution would still be correct.
Olrik
Prophet
Everyone knows Darwin was a racist.
He thought black people were inferior and their race was doomed to die
out.
Darwin was wrong about everything.
Ray Fischer
>On May 30, 1:17�pm, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 30, 6:39�am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2010/04/coffee-darwinism-as-suppor...
>>
>> > Monday, April 19, 2010
>>
>> > Coffee!!: Darwinism as support for racism
>>
>> Liar.
>> That only applies to the religious.
>
Everyone knows that you're a rightard liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
W.T.S.
news:76f73672-df64-4a9e...@e28g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> On May 30, 1:17?pm, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 30, 6:39?am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2010/04/coffee-darwinism-as-suppor...
>>
>> > Monday, April 19, 2010
>>
>> > Coffee!!: Darwinism as support for racism
>>
>> Liar.
>> That only applies to the religious.
>>
>> PDW
>
> Everyone knows Darwin was a racist.
>
> He thought black people were inferior and their race was doomed to die
> out.
>
> Darwin was wrong about everything.
some "Creationist Ministries" pack of lying bull shit. But, you won't do
that. You know Evolution is a fact, and your bible should be recycled into
toilet paper, but you'll cling to the lie, even thinking up new lies to
support the old lies. That's the nature of the illness of your mind. You
think just because you think it's so, it must be so. Everyone else is wrong
but you. You need treatment and therapy. Seek it out now. In the
meantime, take your lying bull shit creationism and shove it back where it
came from, the second anus you have that's only visible when you open your
mouth.
Evolution, truth. Creationism, a stinking turd of a lie dreamed up by
religious filth.
Richo
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 08:11:20 -0500, "W.T.S."
>
> > The bible has been used to support murder, torture, hatred,
> > bigotry, war, poverty, suffering, injustice.
>
> Trumpet, however, would argue this is an incorrect
> interpretation and use of the bible.
And of course using science to support racism is an abuse of science.
So he is a Hypocrite.
<snip>
> That genocide is, though regrettable, is natural, in the long
> run inevitable, and in the long run for the best, is an
> entirely correct implication of Darwinism, and an
> implication endorsed by Darwin himself.
>
Nonsense.
Evolution says how things are - howw they come to be - it doesnt say
how things "aught" to be - moral judgements are made by morally
responsible beings - not by molecules.
> The title of his first book is
>
> "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or
> the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
>
> "Races" of course, refers not only to races of men, but to
> races of cabbages and races of horses, but it *does* refer to
> races of men. Darwin makes this clear as he expands on this
> topic:
>
> Descent of Man, Chapter 01
> Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be
> applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that
> some finally become extinct? We shall see that all
> these questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to
> most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in
> the same manner as with the lower animals.
>
Darwin had observed that white european invaders reduced native
peoples in the americas and australia and other places to a pitiful
state - and looked certain to exterminate the remainder.
It happened - but that doesnt mean we cannot chose as moral agents to
behave otherwise.
You are making the "naturalistic fallacy" - look it up.
Darwin reporting *accurately* what he saw going on in the real world.
"Naturalistic fallacy" - look it up.
Mark.
William December Starr
and pile-driving shitter aches for pitiable rear entrance for
indomitable groin rubbing and immoderate pissing. If you're
interested in kinky sex, email me at mailto:wds...@panix.com.
Mike Jones
=[FAIL]
Slap upside the head for being a prat too.
--
*=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
*=( For all your UK news needs.
James A. Donald
> Le 2010-05-31 00:37, James A. Donald a écrit :
> > On Sun, 30 May 2010 08:11:20 -0500, "W.T.S."
> > <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> The bible has been used to support murder, torture, hatred,
> >> bigotry, war, poverty, suffering, injustice.
> >
> > Trumpet, however, would argue this is an incorrect
> > interpretation and use of the bible. It is clearly an
> > incorrect interpretation of the New Testament
>
> Most religious wars since 2,000 years ago have involved "new testament"
> xians.
Usually in that Muslims were attacking them.
> Darwin could have been a mass murderer, a serial killer, but his
> observations and his theory of evolution would still be correct.
Indeed they are. I merely observe that the truth is disturbing.
Bob T.
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 03:39:52 -0700 (PDT), Sound of Trumpet
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2010/04/coffee-darwinism-as-suppor...
No, it does not.
> Credit is largely a measure of future orientation, and credit scores differ
> between races a lot more than IQ does.
Credit is largely a measure of financial success. Financial success
has many components, including opportunity. People from wealthy
majorities tend to have more money than people from poor minorities,
therefore they have better credit.
> This is consistent with the
> conjecture that surviving cold winters in the ancestral environment
> required greater future orientation. The ancestors of some of today's
> races had to prepare for winter. The ancestors other races did not.
Utter quackery.
- Bob T
Don Martin
wrote:
>Darwin merely looked at the science, predicting (almost approvingly)
>the extermination - rapidly - of savage races.
Considering that he had the striking example of what was going on across the
North American continent as well (more striking, because the "savage" population
here was far more vulnerable than African or Asian ones to civilized man's
greatest weapon, Old World diseases), his prediction was pretty well founded.
And in evolutionary terms, a glance at a property map of the U.S. or Canada
shows which population secured the resources of the land, so while we did not
manage to exterminate the Native Americans (though we did our damnedest), we did
pretty much succeed in grabbing their goodies.
Only recently, with the rise of casinos, have the Native Americans in the U.S.
begun to recover wealth and acquire land on a significant scale. I understand
that the Puyallup Tribe in my home state of Washington has enough casino money
to send _all_ of its children to college for four years. Good on 'em! I look
forward to our Bureau of Indian Affairs "controlling" a population that contains
a significant percentage of lawyers.
-
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Darwin was wrong about everything.
Nobody's wrong about everything. Not even you.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Christopher A. Lee
<drdon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 May 2010 16:01:55 -0700 (PDT), robin shepherd <rs2...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Darwin merely looked at the science, predicting (almost approvingly)
>>the extermination - rapidly - of savage races.
Actually he it wasn't "almost approviongly". He said that it happened.
And that hopefully their replacement would be more civilised than
either them or us.
>Considering that he had the striking example of what was going on across the
>North American continent as well (more striking, because the "savage" population
>here was far more vulnerable than African or Asian ones to civilized man's
>greatest weapon, Old World diseases), his prediction was pretty well founded.
>And in evolutionary terms, a glance at a property map of the U.S. or Canada
>shows which population secured the resources of the land, so while we did not
>manage to exterminate the Native Americans (though we did our damnedest), we did
>pretty much succeed in grabbing their goodies.
>
>Only recently, with the rise of casinos, have the Native Americans in the U.S.
>begun to recover wealth and acquire land on a significant scale. I understand
>that the Puyallup Tribe in my home state of Washington has enough casino money
>to send _all_ of its children to college for four years. Good on 'em! I look
>forward to our Bureau of Indian Affairs "controlling" a population that contains
>a significant percentage of lawyers.
>
Syd M.
No, liar.
His theory has mountains of evidence for it.
PDW
Syd M.
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 22:10:44 -0700 (PDT), Prophet <el...@priest.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> those that claim Blacks are inferior. This in a time where racism was
> very much in vogue.
>
> >Darwin was wrong about everything.
>
And proud of it.
PDW
James A. Donald
> > Credit is largely a measure of future orientation, and credit scores differ
> > between races a lot more than IQ does.
"Bob T."
> Credit is largely a measure of financial success.
On averge, black people have credit scores far below that
of same income whites.
James A. Donald
<m.richa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That genocide is, though regrettable, is natural, in the
> > long run inevitable, and in the long run for the best, is
> > an entirely correct implication of Darwinism, and an
> > implication endorsed by Darwin himself.
Richo
> Darwin had observed that white european invaders reduced
> native peoples in the americas and australia and other
> places to a pitiful state - and looked certain to
> exterminate the remainder. It happened - but that doesnt
> mean we cannot chose as moral agents to behave otherwise.
Governments can so choose, and some individuals will so
choose, but the genocides and displacements Darwin observed
were done by primarily by individuals, primarily affluent
individuals, not governments. Given the choice, some
individuals will choose to acquire land that is ill defended.
In the long run, governments will sometimes lack the will,
sometimes the capability, to restrain that choice. In the
long run, evolution will continue, and it is apt to be a
nasty business.
> > Descent of Man, Chapter 07
> > At some future period, not very distant as
> > measured by centuries, the civilised races of man
> > will almost certainly exterminate, and replace,
> > the savage races throughout the world. At the same
> > time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor
> > Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be
> > exterminated. The break between man and his
> > nearest allies will then be wider, for it will
> > intervene between man in a more civilised state,
> > as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some
> > ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between
> > the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
> Darwin reporting *accurately* what he saw going on in the
> real world. "Naturalistic fallacy" - look it up.
What he accurately saw was winners win, and losers lose, and
in the long run, the consequences of this process are things
we prefer.
James A. Donald
> Damn lie, read his book there is one short article where he
> critices those that claim Blacks are inferior. This in a
> time where racism was very much in vogue.
Darwin's book is permeated over and over again with the
argument and evidence that races, the races of man among
them, differ in fitness and, in what is related but not quite
the same thing, differ in evolutionary level. Take that out
of Darwin, half the book goes away and most of the theory and
theoretical evidence for evolution goes away.
The politically correct version of Darwin, the post 1972
version, has practically nothing left. They had to credit
him with common descent to explain what he is famous for.
When Darwin is shrunk to what is politically correct, there
is very little left. Darwin not only stomps all over
political correctness on race, but also on sex, gender,
endangered species, the objectivity of excellence, class, and
so on and so forth. Pretty much everything that political
correctness is sensitive to, gets a hammering in Darwin's
books.
Ray Fischer
>> Damn lie, read his book there is one short article where he
>> critices those that claim Blacks are inferior. This in a
>> time where racism was very much in vogue.
>
>Darwin's book is permeated over and over again with the
>argument and evidence that races, the races of man among
The bulllshit of a dishonest rightard really isn't evidence at all.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Spartakus
> http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2010/04/coffee-darwinism-as-suppor...
>
> Monday, April 19, 2010
>
> Coffee!!: Darwinism as support for racism
>
> I have sometimes been excoriated for saying that Darwinism has been
> used to support racism.
So has Christianity.
Chris
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 08:11:20 -0500, "W.T.S."
>
> > The bible has been used to support murder, torture, hatred,
> > bigotry, war, poverty, suffering, injustice.
>
> Trumpet, however, would argue this is an incorrect
> interpretation and use of the bible. It is clearly an
> incorrect interpretation of the New Testament, though it is
> equally clearly an entirely correct interpretation of the Old
> Testament.
So what, shit-for-brains? What he describes is an incorrect
application of evolution too.
You are a brain-dead mouth-breathing moron.
Yap
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 08:11:20 -0500, "W.T.S."
>
> > The bible has been used to support murder, torture, hatred,
> > bigotry, war, poverty, suffering, injustice.
>
> Trumpet, however, would argue this is an incorrect
> interpretation and use of the bible. It is clearly an
> incorrect interpretation of the New Testament, though it is
> equally clearly an entirely correct interpretation of the Old
> Testament.
Can you also explain why it should be transformed into a New Testament
when all it was was words of god in command?
>
> The New Testament supports injustice in the sense, and only
> in the sense, of prohibiting violence and coercive action to
> remedy injustice. The old testament, on the other hand,
> recommends that God's people massacre loot and burn.
Both were the works of con artist, as much as the bible being the
piece of un-educated herders in ancient times.
>
> That genocide is, though regrettable, is natural, in the long
> run inevitable, and in the long run for the best, is an
> entirely correct implication of Darwinism, and an
> implication endorsed by Darwin himself.
cultural, religious and tribal disputes over the centuries as in
Rwanda, not an inevitable event and certainly had nothing to do with
Darwinism.
In fact, look at the Serbian genocide, it was rested in racism and
barbarism.
Yap
> On Mon, 31 May 2010 01:09:26 -0400, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Le 2010-05-31 00:37, James A. Donald a écrit :
> > > On Sun, 30 May 2010 08:11:20 -0500, "W.T.S."
> > >> The bible has been used to support murder, torture, hatred,
> > >> bigotry, war, poverty, suffering, injustice.
>
> > > Trumpet, however, would argue this is an incorrect
> > > interpretation and use of the bible. It is clearly an
> > > incorrect interpretation of the New Testament
>
> > Most religious wars since 2,000 years ago have involved "new testament"
> > xians.
>
> Usually in that Muslims were attacking them.
Even then, the evil of religion showed up in the wars and killings.
>
> > Darwin could have been a mass murderer, a serial killer, but his
> > observations and his theory of evolution would still be correct.
>
> Indeed they are. I merely observe that the truth is disturbing.
spot what you personally believe.
Olrik
> On Mon, 31 May 2010 01:09:26 -0400, Olrik<olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Le 2010-05-31 00:37, James A. Donald a écrit :
>>> On Sun, 30 May 2010 08:11:20 -0500, "W.T.S."
>>> <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> The bible has been used to support murder, torture, hatred,
>>>> bigotry, war, poverty, suffering, injustice.
>>>
>>> Trumpet, however, would argue this is an incorrect
>>> interpretation and use of the bible. It is clearly an
>>> incorrect interpretation of the New Testament
>>
>> Most religious wars since 2,000 years ago have involved "new testament"
>> xians.
>
> Usually in that Muslims were attacking them.
muslims were not involved in the wars between catholics and protestants,
nor were they involved with the genocides in the "americas".
muslims were busy elsewhere, spreading their insane religion wherever
they could.
>> Darwin could have been a mass murderer, a serial killer, but his
>> observations and his theory of evolution would still be correct.
>
> Indeed they are. I merely observe that the truth is disturbing.
What "truth" would that be, if indeed a "truth" exist?
James A. Donald
> > > "new testament" xians.
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> > Usually in that Muslims were attacking them.
Yap
> How could you be a neutral judge when you are a Christian?
I am not a christian - if you have been reading my posts,
that should be obvious.
You appear to believe that Muslims were minding their own
business until suddenly these dreadful crusaders showed up
convert them at sword point. Today's events around the
world, for example Nigeria, should tell you how silly that
idea is.
Burkhard
And this argument is logical why exactly? Does it prove that the US
wants to become Iraq a new state of the union, because just look at
what they did with California?
Burkhard
Only someone seriously scientifically illiterate would damage Darwin
by reading normative conclusions into a descriptive theory, or make
the environment an ersatz religion that follows some mystical telos
James A. Donald
wrote:
> > You appear to believe that Muslims were minding their own
> > business until suddenly these dreadful crusaders showed up
> > convert them at sword point. Today's events around the
> > world, for example Nigeria, should tell you how silly that
> > idea is.
> And this argument is logical why exactly?
Islam is aggressive, militaristic, and expansionist. The borders of
Islam are covered in blood. <http://chromatism.net/bloodyborders/>
Always have been, always will be. Islam is always at war with all
unsubjugated infidels. The only time we had peace was during colonial
domination, from 1830 to 1960.
If a Muslim is not murdering innocents and raping children, he is a
bad Muslim.
Burkhard
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 02:03:15 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
How many countries with mainly Christian population have been invaded
recently by countries with mainly Muslim population, and how many
countries with mainly Muslim population have been invaded by countries
with mainly Christian population? My count seems to be different from
yours somehow.
James A. Donald
> > version, has practically nothing left. They had to
> > credit him with common descent to explain what he is
> > famous for. When Darwin is shrunk to what is politically
> > correct, there is very little left. Darwin not only
> > stomps all over political correctness on race, but also
> > on sex, gender, endangered species, the objectivity of
> > excellence, class, and so on and so forth. Pretty much
> > everything that political correctness is sensitive to,
> > gets a hammering in Darwin's books.
Burkhard
> Only someone seriously scientifically illiterate would
> damage Darwin by reading normative conclusions into a
> descriptive theory
It follows from Darwinism that people whose ancestors have
spent the last ten thousand years in an environment of
agriculture, artifacts, and clothing, will be considerably
better adapted to such an environment than those whose
ancestors have spent the last ten thousand years running
naked through the jungle, and Darwin proceeds to list a great
pile of evidence that they are, as evidence for Darwinism.
It immediately follows from that theory and that evidence
that affirmative action will fail and has failed (a political
conclusion), and that affirmative action is evil and based on
lies (a moral conclusion)
Similarly, one can deduce from Darwinism, from the great
differences between men and women discussed at such
considerable length in "the Descent of Man" that Marie
Curie's Nobel prize was fraudulent and should be rescinded, a
moral and political conclusion.
What kind of animal are we? Among other things we are social
but fierce and political, so moralities based on caring for
far away strangers will fail dismally, not being in our
nature, and their application will be full of lies,
hypocrisy, and dreadful crimes, as of course we observe - so
communism will fail, as it has, a political conclusion, and
is evil, a moral conclusion.
Burkhard
> > > The politically correct version of Darwin, the post 1972
> > > version, has practically nothing left. They had to
> > > credit him with common descent to explain what he is
> > > famous for. When Darwin is shrunk to what is politically
> > > correct, there is very little left. Darwin not only
> > > stomps all over political correctness on race, but also
> > > on sex, gender, endangered species, the objectivity of
> > > excellence, class, and so on and so forth. Pretty much
> > > everything that political correctness is sensitive to,
> > > gets a hammering in Darwin's books.
>
> Burkhard
>
> > Only someone seriously scientifically illiterate would
> > damage Darwin by reading normative conclusions into a
> > descriptive theory
>
> It follows from Darwinism that people whose ancestors have
> spent the last ten thousand years in an environment of
> agriculture, artifacts, and clothing, will be considerably
> better adapted to such an environment than those whose
> ancestors have spent the last ten thousand years running
> naked through the jungle,
Do you have any idea of the timescale needed for evolution?
> and Darwin proceeds to list a great
> pile of evidence that they are, as evidence for Darwinism.
>
> It immediately follows from that theory and that evidence
> that affirmative action will fail and has failed (a political
> conclusion), and that affirmative action is evil and based on
> lies (a moral conclusion)
No, it simply follows that we should have a state sponsored programme
of interbreeding, with tax relief for mixed race couples. Or that we
should prohibit houses, clothing and artefacts as they are unnatural
and interfere with natural selection. or whatever you fancy, really.
>
> Similarly, one can deduce from Darwinism, from the great
> differences between men and women discussed at such
> considerable length in "the Descent of Man" that Marie
> Curie's Nobel prize was fraudulent and should be rescinded, a
> moral and political conclusion.
The "source fallacy", just another example of your inability to
understand science. In science, theories and discoveries stand on
their own merit, not the attributes of the discoverer. Whacked around
by strong intelligent woman a lot?
> What kind of animal are we? Among other things we are social
> but fierce and political, so moralities based on caring for
> far away strangers will fail dismally, not being in our
> nature,
Or, you just don;t know th research that explains even non-reciprocal
altruism from an evolutionary perspective such as signaling theory.
Millet, K., & Dewitte, S. (2007). Altruistic behavior as a costly
signal of general intelligence. Journal of Research in Personality,
41, 316-326
It is also in our nature to eat lice of other people's heads. it is
however not the done thing in polite society any longer
> and their application will be full of lies,
> hypocrisy, and dreadful crimes, as of course we observe - so
> communism will fail, as it has, a political conclusion, and
> is evil, a moral conclusion.
"replace "moral conclusions" with "my personal prejudices" and we get
there.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> On 1 June, 10:41, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 02:03:15 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > You appear to believe that Muslims were minding their own
> > > > business until suddenly these dreadful crusaders showed up
> > > > convert them at sword point. Today's events around the
> > > > world, for example Nigeria, should tell you how silly that
> > > > idea is.
> > > And this argument is logical why exactly?
> >
> > Islam is aggressive, militaristic, and expansionist. The borders of
> > Islam are covered in blood. <http://chromatism.net/bloodyborders/>
> > Always have been, always will be. Islam is always at war with all
> > unsubjugated infidels. The only time we had peace was during colonial
> > domination, from 1830 to 1960.
> >
> > If a Muslim is not murdering innocents and raping children, he is a
> > bad Muslim.
>
> How many countries with mainly Christian population have been invaded
> recently by countries with mainly Muslim population
Muslims follow the example of Mohammed - piratical raiding and random
terror to maintain a steady pressure, rather than western style shock
warfare and direct conquest. Mohammed took Mecca by attacking
caravans, robbing, raping and murdering travelers, thus disrupting the
trade on which the city depended, rather than attempting to directly
invade it..
Muslim countries harass their less Muslim neighbors with small scale
attacks, for example Pakistan against India. Individual Muslims
infiltrate, and when the Muslim minority reaches ten to fifty percent,
terror often ensues from the internal Muslim population, for example
Nigeria, Thailand and the Philippines, though oddly, Chad is fine.
France is getting there. Every year, people from Muslim suburbs head
off into town and burn cars, and every year, the car burning is
bigger. This is not comparable with the practice of crucifying Thai
Buddhists, but crucifixions may well in due course follow car
burnings, as the Muslim population grows.
James A. Donald
> > It follows from Darwinism that people whose ancestors have
> > spent the last ten thousand years in an environment of
> > agriculture, artifacts, and clothing, will be considerably
> > better adapted to such an environment than those whose
> > ancestors have spent the last ten thousand years running
> > naked through the jungle,
Burkhard
> Do you have any idea of the timescale needed for evolution?
Observing finches on the galapagos islands, changes in beak sizes
occurred fast enough for the difference to be measurable over two
decades.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1630798.html
A new species can appear in as little as three hundred generations,
(Faeroe Island house mouse) though three thousand is more common.
Ten thousand years is five hundred human generations. Plenty of time
for big changes.
> > Similarly, one can deduce from Darwinism, from the great
> > differences between men and women discussed at such
> > considerable length in "the Descent of Man" that Marie
> > Curie's Nobel prize was fraudulent and should be rescinded, a
> > moral and political conclusion.
>
> The "source fallacy", just another example of your inability to
> understand science. In science, theories and discoveries stand on
> their own merit, not the attributes of the discoverer.
She got a nobel, in fact two nobels for having a pussy, not for
discovering radium. Can you recollect anyone else who discovered an
element without looking them up? No one else got a nobel merely for
discovering an element. Further, she did not discover radium. She
assisted her famous scientist husband to discover radium. He did lots
of famous science before he married her, but she never did any
significant science after he died.
Women cannot do science. If they could do science, you would have a
more impressive poster girl than Madam Curie.
Alex W.
> On 1 June, 11:21, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>> > The politically correct version of Darwin, the post 1972
>>> > version, has practically nothing left. �They had to
>>> > credit him with common descent to explain what he is
>>> > famous for. When Darwin is shrunk to what is politically
>>> > correct, there is very little left. �Darwin not only
>>> > stomps all over political correctness on race, but also
>>> > on sex, gender, endangered species, the objectivity of
>>> > excellence, class, and so on and so forth. �Pretty much
>>> > everything that political correctness is sensitive to,
>>> > gets a hammering in Darwin's books. �
>>
>> Burkhard
>>
>>> Only someone seriously scientifically illiterate would
>>> damage Darwin by reading normative conclusions into a
>>> descriptive theory
>>
>> It follows from Darwinism that people whose ancestors have
>> spent the last ten thousand years in an environment of
>> agriculture, artifacts, and clothing, will be considerably
>> better adapted to such an environment than those whose
>> ancestors have spent the last ten thousand years running
>> naked through the jungle,
>
> Do you have any idea of the timescale needed for evolution?
For humans, considerably more than ten thousand years. That
said, there is the ability of some populations to metabolise
dairy products which took rather less long to develop because it
involved the rapid evolution of our gut flora. It's not true
human evolution, but the end result was the same. Pass the
cheese, please.
Burkhard
Jābir ibn Hayyān comes to mind. As do Rutherford, Scheele and
Berzelius. And more recently of course Seaborg, who amongst other
elements discovered Curium of course
> No one else got a nobel merely for
> discovering an element.
Good then that the price cited her studies in its properties as well
that can "see" things between liens nobody else does
> Further, she did not discover radium. She
> assisted her famous scientist husband to discover radium.
Ah, that would be your highly evolved magic powers again,
>He did lots
> of famous science before he married her, but she never did any
> significant science after he died.
>
> Women cannot do science. If they could do science, you would have a
> more impressive poster girl than Madam Curie.
Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin would be high on my list, as would be Linda
Buck or Deborah S. Jin. For one male who apparently can't read
statistical distribution curves, look in the mirror.
MarkA
> http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2010/04/coffee-darwinism-as-support-for-racism.html
>
>
>
> Monday, April 19, 2010
>
>
> Coffee!!: Darwinism as support for racism
>
> I have sometimes been excoriated for saying that Darwinism has been used
> to support racism.
>
The Universe is what it is. Deal with it.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Ray Fischer
Ah, the stench of religious bigotry. It reeks as badly now as when
the Nazis were rounding up "thieving, dirty, inferior" Jews for
extermination.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
James A. Donald
> >> It follows from Darwinism that people whose ancestors have
> >> spent the last ten thousand years in an environment of
> >> agriculture, artifacts, and clothing, will be considerably
> >> better adapted to such an environment than those whose
> >> ancestors have spent the last ten thousand years running
> >> naked through the jungle,
> > Do you have any idea of the timescale needed for evolution?
> For humans, considerably more than ten thousand years.
The relevant thing is the number of generations. In non humans, we
have measured considerable changes in a dozen generations.
Skeletons suggest that white race, the youngest of the races, is only
ten thousand years old. Two thousand year old sculptures of the
Romans show that they did not look quite like us. Noticeable change
in human appearance has occurred in a mere two thousand years.
Jews were no smarter than the average, until Europe introduced a
policy that forced all lower class people to practice the dominant
religion, but cut middle class people more slack, thereby placing
heavy selective pressure on the Jewish population. So in less than a
thousand years, european Jews (but not middle eastern Jews) were bred
to be genetically non working class.
Alex W.
>>>> It follows from Darwinism that people whose ancestors have
>>>> spent the last ten thousand years in an environment of
>>>> agriculture, artifacts, and clothing, will be considerably
>>>> better adapted to such an environment than those whose
>>>> ancestors have spent the last ten thousand years running
>>>> naked through the jungle,
>
>>> Do you have any idea of the timescale needed for evolution?
>
>> For humans, considerably more than ten thousand years.
>
> The relevant thing is the number of generations. In non humans, we
> have measured considerable changes in a dozen generations.
>
> Skeletons suggest that white race, the youngest of the races, is only
> ten thousand years old. Two thousand year old sculptures of the
> Romans show that they did not look quite like us. Noticeable change
> in human appearance has occurred in a mere two thousand years.
Newsflash: modern-day Italians still look different from the
Nordic ideal.
>
> Jews were no smarter than the average, until Europe introduced a
> policy that forced all lower class people to practice the dominant
> religion, but cut middle class people more slack, thereby placing
> heavy selective pressure on the Jewish population. So in less than a
> thousand years, european Jews (but not middle eastern Jews) were bred
> to be genetically non working class.
You really are a lackwit of the first order, aren't you?
Tom McDonald
I can't tell if you are just a racist or are a racist and an idiot. If
forced to choose, I'd guess the latter.