Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

xingu wrote:

Who cares whether Darwin was a racist or not. We're talking about evolution today, not racist ideas held by individuals over a hundred years ago.

James Watson, in his recent book , stated:

Dr James Watson wrote:

There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.

Tell me how that differs from evolutionary principle that you hold.

When we look at the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants, and compare them to species closely allied together, we generally percieve in each domestic race, as already remarked, less uniformity of character than to true species

Domestic races of the same species,also, often have a somewhat monstrous character...they often differ in some extreme degree in some part or another...

"which much light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history

I see rather than answering the questions raised about his statements, real life disappears for a few days and then reappears to completely change the subject.

(The hypothesis is upheld in this instance.)

If one reads any of the source biographies of DArwin, or letters by Darwin, we quickly see that his use of the term "races" had to do with the characteristics that define differences in domestic animals (which were used as his homolgue for natural selection process. Peckhams "Variorum" text , is a line by line recording of changes that Darwin prepared for each of his 6 editions.
In ed II he inserted

Quote:

When we look at the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants, and compare them to species closely allied together, we generally percieve in each domestic race, as already remarked, less uniformity of character than to true species

and in a later page

Quote:

Domestic races of the same species,also, often have a somewhat monstrous character...they often differ in some extreme degree in some part or another...

Weve had this very same discussion with RL in earlier pages and Im just amazed at how ,either
1he suffers from Alzheimers
or

2Hes figuring that he's preaching to a new crowd.


Darwin doesnt even delve into "the Descent of MAn" until 1870 to publish in 1871, which was one year before his 6th edition, in which he provides an oblique reference to "Descent" in

Quote:

"which much light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history

In Eldredges book "Darwin, Discovering the Tree of Life (2005) Eldredge makes a perfectly reasonable analysis of Darwins use of the term "race" as synonymous with "variety" , and it has to do with the distinguishing of animals at the sub species level.


All this was presented to RL before, why he keeps bringing up the subject as a losing cause is a mystery to me.

parados wrote:

I see rather than answering the questions raised about his statements, real life disappears for a few days and then reappears to completely change the subject.

(The hypothesis is upheld in this instance.)

Well it's good to see I was missed over the weekend. Did I forget to ask your permission?

Get a life and get off the internet for a few days, parados. It'll do ya good.

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

I see rather than answering the questions raised about his statements, real life disappears for a few days and then reappears to completely change the subject.

(The hypothesis is upheld in this instance.)

Well it's good to see I was missed over the weekend. Did I forget to ask your permission?

Get a life and get off the internet for a few days, parados. It'll do ya good.

I do have a life and often get away from the internet.

You may have noticed I wasn't around for a couple of weekends in a row.

I however don't use that as an excuse to drop a topic.

So.. Please respond to my earlier posts about how your statements are contradictory.

Do you have alzheimers real life? It's not like you have to go 'hunting' to find your last post on this thread prior to today. It is 2 pages ago. You were asked repeatedly to explain your two contradictory statements.

My point is that the very environment proposed as having produced them would be as likely to destroy them as well.

Miller and Urey put together an experiment purporting to reproduce the 'early earth's atmosphere'.

Just because they claimed they had done so, doesn't mean they had. (Sound familiar?)

The amino acids that the Miller-Urey scenario produced would've likely been short-lived in the ACTUAL environment of the early earth.

Not to mention that EVEN IF such compounds had been produced by lightning in the atmosphere, they'd have been spread out so far geographically by the time they touched the ground as to be useless to one another.

real life wrote:

Miller and Urey put together an experiment purporting to reproduce the 'early earth's atmosphere'.

Just because they claimed they had done so, doesn't mean they had. (Sound familiar?)

How to conduct the experiment is online and has been duplicated by many including HS students. Do you have evidence they and everyone else that has done the same experiment faked their evidence?

real life wrote:

The amino acids that the Miller-Urey scenario produced would've likely been short-lived in the ACTUAL environment of the early earth.

Repeating this argument doesn't change your statement. And when asked what YOU think the early atmosphere was, you did not tell us. So.. what was the early atmosphere composed of? Provide your source. You can't say it was NOT something unless you can show evidence it was something else. Then once you have told us what the early atmosphere was composed of we can examine your claim that it would have been "more likely" to destroy amino acids. Until you do provide us your atmosphere you are blowing smoke without any evidence.

real life wrote:

Not to mention that EVEN IF such compounds had been produced by lightning in the atmosphere, they'd have been spread out so far geographically by the time they touched the ground as to be useless to one another.

Another post of mine you ignored I see. You haven't told us why gravity doesn't exist in your world. Please do so.

The issue is: did Charlie Darwin see one race (subspecies) as more evolved than another?

Do you disagree that the 'atmosphere' Miller and Urey proposed is different from the atmosphere that is now considered to have existed in the early earth?

Seems like you've chided me a number of times for differing with the 'consensus' of scientists, and now you may be in the same boat.

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

Not to mention that EVEN IF such compounds had been produced by lightning in the atmosphere, they'd have been spread out so far geographically by the time they touched the ground as to be useless to one another.

Another post of mine you ignored I see. You haven't told us why gravity doesn't exist in your world. Please do so.

Where did I say so?

Other than your wishing it to be so, what is inaccurate about it? Be specific please.

Since a lightning strike from ground to earth can be 3-4 miles long and if it is straight down, why would these compounds be widely dispersed unless gravity doesn't exist in your world. 1. The amino acids would fall to the earth. Gravity works in a straight line. 2. Because of gravity, water flows to the lowest point collecting there. Any amino acids would flow with that water.

Actually DArwin uses the term "race" precisely 4 times in "The Origin" starting with ed I and (3X) and expanded to 4x in ed II and all subsequent editions.

If none of the extinct species ever went extinct, it would be impossible to state which organism belongs to what species because the defining line would be blurred.