"Genetic Death": The Evolution Meat Grinder

Comparing any previous European war to the Great War or the Second World War is an exercise in idiocy. If that is your bench mark, one could as easily contend that there had never been a major war in Europe before 1914. Yeah, Gunga, you're slick, you exposed me . . .

What you know about history wouldn't fill a small thimble.

I think what Gunga might have meant was that it took Darwin to present a motive for going to war that was previously unheard of. A quasi-mystical motive which transcended nationality and the squabblings over material interests and resided in the blood in the Lawrentian sense and with scientific credibilty to justify it.

Sir Anthony Eden stated that the cultural move in that direction was underway long before Hitler came to power and he was chosen as a suitable leader of it because of his success in the struggle for existence within a party which came from nowhere in almost a flash to win a democratic election.

Umberto Eco describes a European war where the officers of each side go boozing and whoring together every night after the day's work is done.
Obviously when the negotiations lead to a cease fire the hero's return home is accompanied by lurid stories of bravery and danger with which to impress the ladies and,being heroes, their accounts are the only ones entering the history books; the others being unable to read or write and having a lot of work to catch up with.

Setanta told Gunga-



Which invites the reply that what you know about history Setanta could be written on the back of a postage stamp with a slurry gun.

A small thimble might contain a distilled essence and actually,in this case,be unfillable.

"Farmerman" here makes it sound like youd need poison gas or atom bombs to have a total war.

In actual fact Europeans got a good look at total war during the Mongol invasion in the 1200s and then again during the 30 years war and what they saw particularly in the later scared them badly enough that they didnt go there again until WW-I.

To anybody who has read as many as one or two history books, which clearly does not include "farmerman" or setanta, it is clear enough that nothing in the 1800s even began to compare with WW-I and that the reasons for that have nothing to do with technology.

These guys and their ilk are like the southern aristocracy to whom Rhet Butler said "Gentlemen, all you have is arrogance."

Farmer makes it sound like youd need a degree in evolutionary biology before you could talk about evolution. What a waste of a life. Id rather pay the tuition for a kid to spend four years in a redneck studies curriculum.

I mean, I could probably explain a lifetime spent selling used care to St. Peter. A life wasted as an "evolutionary biologist, I couldnt.

Another way to look at it is to consider the ramifications of the fact that there could have ever been such a thing as a 100 years war in Europe.

A hundred years war faught like WW-I and-or WW-II was and all life in Europe would have been extinguished, and it would not take the weapons of WW I or WW II; all it would take would be the ideologies and the attitudes. You could do it with knives and axes. In fact, knives and axes apparently were all which were used by the Croatian Ustasha death camps in WW II.

The Mongols never pushed farther west than the plains of Hungary and Poland. Leignitz was the greatest battle on European soil involving the Mongols and their proxies, so it is more than a little silly for Gunga Din to claim that " . . . Europeans got a good look at total war during the Mongol invasion." The Mongols were a force which depended upon their mobility, and by the time they were in Hungary, Poland and the Sainai, they were at the greatest extent of their logistical support. The Mamluks claim to have ended the Mongol threat when they defeated a Mongol-proxy force in the Sainai. That seems an extravagent claim, but when confronted by a force which was as mobile and fanatical in combat as their own, they failed to bear down all opposition as had been their wont.

The Mongol tactical doctrine relied upon speed, and feints. They would attack a portion of the enemy force, and then feign fleeing in an attempt to detach a portion of the enemy line to be cut up in detail, using local superiority of force. Like water seeking its level, they flowed through the areas of least resistance. In Afghanistan, they took the cities and towns, but never tried conclusions with the Pathans in the Hindu Kush. In China, in which it was necessary to besiege cities and to campaign in built-up areas, their progress was much slower and much more costly. China had not been fully conquered in the lifetime of Temujin (d. 1227) nor of his successor, Ogedei (d. 1241). Ogedei had authorized the invasion of central and western Europe before he died, but his death shortly thereafter likely prevented the implemenation of that plan. It also likely accounts for the failure of the Mongols and their proxies to renew the attempt to invade Egypt. However, it is by no means certain that they would have succeeded in the forests of central and western Europe, nor in the built up areas of the towns and cities, each isolated in their "oases" within the forests. Even the battle of Leignitz in the year of Ogedei's death was a phyrric victory for them. The Knights Templar and the Teutonic Knights who were slaughtered in that battle had taken a position on the high ground, and could not be lured down into terrain in which the Mongols and Tatars could have used their mobility effectively. The Mongols and Tatars were obliged to dismount and fight hand-to-hand, in which type of battle their casualties soared. They were outnumbered at the start of the battle, and although they wiped out the Duke of Silesia's levies and the Knights Templar and Teutonic Knights who were present, they suffered heavily themselves. Only Europe east of Poland and Hungary had known the total war of the Mongols.

The Thirty Years War is famous for the destruction which it is claimed to have wrought on Germany. However, it is likely that this is more legendary than real. Contemporary historians point out that the agriculture and trade of Germany was again thriving by the Swedish period of the War, after Gustavus Adolphus landed on the Baltic coast of Germany late in 1630. The single event which would have qualified as total war might have been Wallenstein's march across northern Germany in 1627-28. Having joined with Tilly, he defeated Mansfeld and then knocked the Danes out of the war, ending the first, Danish phase of the war. He had promised to raise an army of 20,000 men, and by the time of the defeat of the Danes in 1627, may have had as many as 40,000 men following his banner, largely for the prospect of plunder. Tilly kept a much better degree of discipline in his army, and kept the respect of his men into the bargain. In the winter of 1627-28, Wallenstein marched across northern Germany, and in his train were perhaps as many as 100,000 people, when one adds the families of soldiers, and the sutlers and other assorted camp followers who followed in his wake. It was winter, and the "ate" the countryside they crossed. But Wallenstein failed to take Stralsund, and was fired by the Emperor in the following year. After the Swedes landed in 1630, the Imperial forces never again marched unopposed across Germany.

This experience did not end the "total war" to which Gunga refers. In the War of Devolution in 1667-68, Louis XIV unleashed the new military power he was building on Holland. Although an alliance of Holland, England and several German principalities ended that war, the terms were favorable to France, and they retained much of Flanders and the fortress of Lille. Louis signed a secret treaty with Charles II, and England was not only taken out of an alliance with Holland, by 1671, English troops (in small, largely symbolic numbers) were fighting with the French. John Chruchill, one day to garner immortal fame as the Duke of Marlborough, lead a "forlorne hope" into the breach in a seige in the Rhineland, and won praise from Louis himself. In the renewed war which began in 1670, with England out of the equation, Louis thought to knock the German Protestants out of the Alliance by the harrying of the Rhineland. With the memory of Wallenstein's march fairly fresh, most of Europe condemned Louis policy--nevertheless, this beggars Gunga's contention that "they saw particularly in the later [sic, i.e., the Thiry Year's War] scared them badly enough that they didnt go there again until WW-I." That was not the only example, either. In the famous 1704 campaign in the War of the Spanish succession, Marlborough and Prince Eugene of Savoy harried Bavaria, sparing only the estates of the Prince-Elector, Max Emanuel, to discredit him with the people--he had allied himself with the French, and the Franco-Bavarian army was completely defeated and routed at Blindheim (know to the English as Blenheim). During the Seven Years War, the Russians put East Prussia to the sword and the torch, and even penetrated Brandenburg, briefly occupying Berlin and Potsdam. Frederick the Great's bloodiest battles, and the ones which shook his confidence in himself the most, were with the Russians at Zorndorf in 1758 and Kunersdorf in 1759. In both cases, for reasons of propaganda, Frederick declared the Russians to have been defeated, as they retreated (for lack of logistical support), but in both cases, his casualties had been so high that he was appalled, and it appears that after Kunersdorf, he considered retiring from the field and handing the command over to Prince Henry. The circumstantial evidence for that is the letter from Prince Henry to Frederick urging him to remain in command, and praising his skills, telling him that the nation needed him. In both campaigns, the Russians put the population to the sword wherever they marched, and put the countryside and the towns to the torch.

As i've pointed out already, Gunga doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

Leignitz was a diversion meant to keep Poles and Teutonic Knights away from the plain of Mohi where the most major battle between Mongols and Europeans was faught a day or two later.

History books arent that expensive; try buying one.

Gunga also ignores the Napoleonic Wars, particularly the Russian campaign, and the American Civil War, particularly Sherman's March to the Sea, but also the appalling carnage and destruction possible with the development of comparatively rapid-firing firearms and artillery that had really progressed beyon the relatively-popgun stage, plus a modern industry that could produce munitions in huge quantities. Grant realized yu defeat the enemy by destroying his industrial and agricultural base, and that produced a total war.

WWI, and WWII saw a further development of technology, notably the machine gun in WWI which destroyed a generation of men whose generals still thought in pre-Civil War terms, that massed charges of men could actually win battles. It w2as also the misbegotten product of an attempt to end wars, by creating interlocking alliances, so blocs would be so powerful no one would dare to attack them. It didn't work out that way, as nation after nation got dragged into what was originally a pointless podunk-state skirmish.

To pretend that ANY of that was due to Darwin is so devoid of reality the mind reels.

And I have to say that Setanta, tho he can go on in excruciating detail about side issues, can out-history any of you guys with both hands tied behind his back, a sock in his mouth, and someone pouring water over his head. Give up now, you haven't a prayer when he cites sources.

I agree with username. Set is our main resource in the fine points of historiography as well as the plain old facts. Gunga hasnt a clue. All hes doing now is attempting to backpedal and place page distance between his initial idiotic statement and later statements that offer a "well this is what I meant- plea" .



What've you got against basic science knowledge gunga. You are discounting all the work in a huge body of reserach that encompasses evolutionary biology, and a whole bunch more. Are you saying that gunga knows better? What a pompous person you are. And you preceed a number of statements with your embarrasing lack of knowledge.

John McCarter (Exec of the Field Museum) , in a recent interview stated
..."I think that, five years from now, creationism as a theology will still be powerful,(there are always a bunch of kooks willing to deny anything) but this "intelligent design" tactic, which is supported by a very small group of people, will be history"...

EVERYBODY with brains and talent knows better, Farmer. Evolutionary biology is an ideological doctrine, not science.

That is possibly the single dumbest, least supportable, and least supported statement I've read in the last three months, and it has some serious competition for the dishonor.

Regarding the American civil war, there was no deliberate attempt to exterminate entire races or nations of people, it was brought about by democrats and their slavery thing even as democrats are the cause of most of our problems today, and it was in America, not Europe. There's no real comparison with WW I or WW II.

The natural comparison for Hitler and WW II is with Chengis Khan. Chengis Khan exterminated entire peoples and races because that was the natural way of warfare on the Mongol steppes and he simply outgrew those steppes, while Hitler sought to eliminate slavs, jews, gypsies and the like because he assumed they were doomed to extinction by the theory of evolution one way or another, and he saw no point in drawing the process out any longer than needed.

Gunga, if I were you I would just drop this topic now. Everything you say just compounds the fact that you are abysmally ignorant. It was obvious before that you lacked even a simple basic knowledge of science, and had no business discussing evolution. It's apparent now you lack even a basic knowledge of history--particularly, in this case, intellectual and political history (and for that mattar, grammar--when you are talking about members of the Democratic Party you capitalize Democrat, ; when it's a small d democrat you refer to people who believe in democracy, and equating democracy with slavery is silly. As is equating Democrats, or for that matter Republicans, of today, with Democrats or Republicans of 1860 and before, since there have been several major realignments of political belief with the major parties since then, most notably during the 60s and 70s, when those people who had been segregationists and people for whom it was a subtext rather than all-consuming, generally turned Republican. The Democrats in the 1860s generally avoided questions about slavery as much as possible, as both parties did for much of the next century.

You say,
"Regarding the American civil war, there was no deliberate attempt to exterminate entire races or nations of people, it was brought about by democrats and their slavery thing even as democrats are the cause of most of our problems today". Whatever you think this sentence means, it is far more ideological, and far less factual, and far more fantasy-filled, than anything evolution says. If you equate slavery with 1960 Democrats, I suggest you look at what the party affiliations of most of the people who opposed segregation were and where the legislation came from)and look at the Southern Democrats who became Republicans shortly thereafter).

Hitler came out of the long-standing anti-Semitic tradition in Europe., which predated Darwin by centuries. I suggest you look at the history of the Jewish expulsion from Spain in the 15th century and the forced conversion of those who remained. Look at the word "ghetto" itself, which comes from the 16th century Italian, when Jews were ghetooized on an island near Venice, or the Russian and Eastern European pogroms.


In the 19th centuries, social and political theorists MISUSED AND MISREAD dArwin, to create pernicious social theories which were largely woven in support of the thesis that European civilization was innately superior, which is why it had naturally dominated the other cultures of the planet. Needless to say, Social Darwinism, much like intelligent design today, twisted and misused the language of science (with a conspicuous lack of any experimental verification, which is the hallmark of the true scientific method). To call it Darwinian, as some benighted people with reptiles in their name occasionally do, has NO basis in fact. Darwinian evolution, and evolutionary theory today, deal with biology, not politics or social theory or political ideology.

Your arguments, as always, have no validity.

Hitler's virulent racism had zero basis in Darwinian theory. As a matter of fact, evolutionary theory (and remember "theory" in science means an overarching, experimentally proved explanation that makes sense of a large body of previously unsatisfactorily explained data--it does NOT mean an unproved guess), teaches us that differences between "races" as socially defined are insignificant, to the point where "race" is essentially a meaningless concept--a far cry from racism.

The genetic diference between any two human beings is less than, say, the difference between a Siberian husky and a St. Bernard.

Darwin is not responsible for people who twist his findings, and don't use anything approaching his method of discovery, to support their own ideology and say things he would never have said, in areas the knowledge he discovered don't apply to, anymore than the Catholic Church is responsible for Jerry Falwell--rather less in fact than the Church is responsible for Falwell, since at least they coexist in the same profession.

Darwinism put through a meat grinder and passed off as some new kind of meat is a trick these anti-evolution posters haven't learned well. All they come up with is a patty made of their own bullshit. I'm sure it looks tasy and doesn't smell bad to them but I'm leaving the room.

Gunga has still not come across with anything that resembles any sense from his initial reference to genetic death. As anybody knows, genetic death is a term that means that an individual is taken out of the gene pool before its had a chance to pass anything on, so in gungas usage its kind of oxymoronic. Its kind of an archaic term and I believe it may be traced to Goldschmidt, but dont quote me.


Gunga, do you personally know any scientists who work in the biological, paleo,systematics or related fields who are Creationists? Id like to hear from them. Youre not a really great water carrier. You keep tripping yourself up and getting all ad hominem when things go south for you.. It may be, but its got evidence, whats in your wallet,besides Biblical platitudes and myths?

Evolution is based on painstaking scientific evidence -- the Bible is based on painstaking mythological invention. Anyone who still believes in Genesis is still living in a cave -- come out into the light, one not created by any God but by logical thought.

Perhaps we should report them to the FDA

From Sir Srthur Keith's "Evolution and Ethics:


Chapter 3

The Behavior of Germany Considered from an Evolutionary Point of View in 1942

VISITORS TO GERMANY IN 1934 FOUND AN emotional storm sweeping through masses of the people, particularly the more educated. The movement had much in common with a religious revival. The preacher in this case was Adolf Hitler; his doctrine was, and is, tribalism; he had stirred in the emotional depths of the German people those long-dormant tribal feelings which find release and relief in mutual service; men and women who had been leading selfish lives or were drifting aimlessly were given a new purpose in life: service to their country the Third Reich. It is worth noting that Hitler uses a double designation for his tribal doctrine National Socialism: Socialism standing for the good side of the tribal spirit (that which works within the Reich); aud Nationalism for the ethically vicious part, which dominates policy at and outside the German frontiers.

The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him the national "front" of Europe is also the evolutionary "front"; he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people. He has brought into

10.

modern life the tribal and evolutionary mentality of prehistoric times. Hitler has confronted the statesmen of the world with an evolutionary problem of an unprecedented magnitude. What is the world to do with a united aggressive tribe numbering eighty millions!

We must not lose sight of the purpose of our visit to Germany; it was to see how far modern evolutionary practice can provide us with a scientific basis for ethical or moral behavior. As a source of information concerning Hitler's evolutionary and ethical doctrines I have before me Mein Kampf, extracts from The Times covering German affairs during the last twenty years, and the monthly journal R.F.C. (Racio Political Foreign Correspondenee), published by the German Bureau for Human Betterment and Eugenics and circulated by that bureau for the enlightenment of anthropologists living abroad. In the number of that journal for July 1937, there appears in English the text of a speech given by the German Fuhrer on January 30, 1937, in reply to a statement made by Mr. Anthony Eden that "the German race theory" stood in the way of a common discussion of European problems. Hitler maintained his theory would have an opposite effect; "it will bring about a real understanding for the first time." "It is not for men," said the Fuhrer, "to discuss the question of why Providence created different races, but rather to recognize that it punishes those who disregard its work of creation." I may remark incidentally that in this passage, as in many others, the German Fuhrer, like Bishop Barnes and many of our more intellectual clergy, regards evolution as God's mode of creation. God having created races, it is therefore "the noblest and most sacred duty for each racial species of mankind to preserve the purity of the blood which God has given it." Here we have expounded the perfectly sound doctrine of evolutionary isolation; even as an ethical doctrine it should not be condemned. No German must be guilty of the "greatest racial sin" that of bringing the fruits of hybridity into the world. The reproductive "genes" which circulate within the frontiers of Germany must be kept uncontaminated, so that they may work out the racial destiny of the German people without impediment. Hitler is also a eugenist. Germans who suffer from

11.

hereditable imperfections of mind or of body must be rendered infertile, so that "the strong may not be plagued by the weak." Sir Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics, taught a somewhat similar evolutionary doctrine namely, that if our nation was to prosper we must give encouragement to the strong rather than to the weak; a saving which may be justified by evolution, but not by ethics as recognized and practiced by civilized peoples. The liberties of German women are to be sacrificed; they must devote their activities to their households, especially to the sacred duty of raising succeeding generations. The birth rate was stimulated by bounties and subsidies so that the German tribe might grow in numbers and in strength. In all these matters the Nazi doctrine is evolutionist.

Hitler has sought on every occasion and in every way to heighten the national consciousness of the German people or, what is the same thing, to make them racially conscious; to give them unity of spirit and unity of purpose. Neighborly approaches of adjacent nations are and were repelled; the German people were deliberately isolated. Cosmopolitanism, liberality of opinion, affectation of foreign manners and dress were unsparingly condemned. The old tribal bonds (love of the Fatherland, feeling of mutual kinship), the bonds of "soil and blood," became "the main plank in the National Social program." "Germany was for the Germans" was another plank. Foreign policy was "good or bad according to its beneficial or harmful effects on the German folk now or hereafter." "Charity and humility are only for home consumption" a statement in which Hitler gives an exact expression of the law which limits sympathy to its tribe. "Humanitarianism is an evil . . . a creeping poison." "The most cruel methods are humane if they give a speedy victory" is Hitler's echo of a maxim attributed to Moltke. Such are the ways of evolution when applied to human affairs.

I have said nothing about the methods employed by the Nazi leaders to secure tribal unity in Germany methods of brutal compulsion, bloody force, and the concentration camp. Such methods cannot be brought within even a Machiavellian system of ethics, and yet may be justified by their evolutionary result.

12.

Even in that result we may harbor a doubt: can unity obtained by such methods be relied on to endure?

There are other aspects of Nazi policy which raise points which may be legitimate subjects of ethical debate. In recent years British men of science have debated this ethical problem: an important discovery having been made a new poison gas, for example is it not the duty of the discoverer to suppress it if there is a possibility of its being used for an evil purpose? My personal conviction is that science is concerned wholly with truth, not with ethics. A man of science is responsible for the accuracy of his observations and of his inferences, not for the results which may follow therefrom. Under no circumstances should the truth be suppressed; yet suppression and distortion of the truth is a deliberate part of Nazi policy. Every anthropologist in Germany, be he German or Jew, was and is silenced in Nazi Germany unless the Hitlerian racial doctrine is accepted without any reservation whatsoever. Authors, artists, preachers, and editors are undone if they stray beyond the limits of the National Socialist tether. Individual liberty of thought and of its expression is completely suppressed. An effective tribal unity is thus attained at the expense of truth. And yet has not the Church in past times persecuted science just in this Hitlerian way? There was a time, and not so long ago, when it was dangerous for a biologist to harbor a thought that clashed in any way with the Mosaic theory of creation.

No aspect of Hitler's policy proclaims the antagonism between evolution and ethics so forcibly as his treatment of the Jewish people in Germany. So strong are the feelings roused that it is difficult for even science to approach the issues so raised with an unclouded judgment. Ethically the Hitlerian treatment of the Jews stands condemned out of hand. Hitler is cruel, but I do not think that his policy can be explained by attributing it to a mere satisfaction of a lust, or to a search for a scapegoat on which Germany can wreak her wrath for the ills which followed her defeat of 1918. The Church in Spain subjected the Jews to the cruelty of the Inquisition, but no one ever sought to explain the Church's behavior by suggesting that she had a

13.

lust for cruelty which had to be satisfied. The Church adopted the Inquisition as a policy; it was a means of securing unity of mind in her flock. Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions. When the Huguenots fled to Germany they mingled their "genes" with those of their host and disappeared as an entity. The Jews are made of other stuff: for two thousand years, living amid European communities, they have maintained their identity; it is an article of their creed, as it is of Hitler's, to breed true. They, too, practice an evolutionary doctrine. Is it possible for two peoples living within the same frontiers, dwelling side by side, to work out harmoniously their separate evolutionary destinies? Apparently Hitler believes this to be impossible; we in Britain and in America believe it to be not only possible, but also profitable.

It must not be thought that in seeking to explain Hitler's actions I am seeking to justify them. The opposite is the case. I have made this brief survey of public policy in modern Germany with a definite object: to show that Dr. Waddington is in error when he seeks to place ethics on a scientific basis by a knowledge of evolutionary tendencies and practice.

Chapter 4

Human Life: Its Purpose or Ultimate End

IN THE COURSE OF GATHERING INFORMATION concerning man's morality and the part it has played and is playing in his evolution, I found it necessary to provide space for slips which were labeled "Life: Its Ultimate and Proximate Purposes." Only those who have devoted some special attention to this matter are aware of the multitude of reasons given for the appearance of man on earth. Here I shall touch on only a few of them; to deal with all would require a big book. The reader may exclaim: Why deal with any of them! What has ultimate purpose got to do with ethics and evolution! Let a man with a clearer head and a nimbler pen than mine reply. He is Edward Carpenter, who wrote Civilization: Its Cause and Cure (1889).

14.

It is from the sixteenth edition (1923) I am to quote, p. 249:

If we have decided what the final purpose or Life of Man is, then we may say that what is good for that purpose is finally "good" and what is bad for that purpose is finally "evil."

If the final purpose of our existence is that which has been and is being worked out under the discipline of evolutionary law, then, although we are quite unconscious of the end result, we ought, as Dr. Waddington has urged, to help on "that which tends to promote the ultimate course of evolution." If we do so, then we have to abandon the hope of ever attaining a universal system of ethics; for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy. Dr. Waddington has not grasped the implications of Nature's method of evolution, for in his summing up (Nature, 1941, 150, p. 535) he writes "that the ethical principles formulated by Christ . . . are those which have tended towards the further evolution of mankind, and that they will continue to do so." Here a question of the highest interest is raised: the relationship which exists between evolution and Christianity; so important, it seems to me, that I shall devote to it a separate chapter. Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed. Clearly the form of evolution which Dr. Waddington has in mind is not that which has hitherto prevailed; what he has in mind is a man made system of evolution. In brief, instead of seeking ethical guidance from evolution, he now proposes to impose a system of ethics on evolution and so bring humanity ultimately to a safe and final anchorage in a Christian haven.