agit-prop, opinion manipulation and well-poisoning games Darwinism Darwinist rhetorical tactics Eugenics etc Evolutionary materialism's amorality Politics/policy and origins issues popular science and science education Racism Science, worldview issues/foundations and society Selective Hyperskepticism

A note on eugenics, social darwinism and evolutionary theory

Spread the love
Logo from the Second International Congress of Eugenics, 1921

Notoriously, the Second International Congress on Eugenics [1921] defined Eugenics as the self-direction of human evolution and saw eugenics as applied evolutionary science with intellectual, logical and factual roots in several linked branches of science, medicine and scholarship.

If you doubt this, simply examine the logo to the right.

Perhaps the best summary of the then prevailing mentality comes from Scientific Monthly, in an article on the congress — noting how it highlights a keynote by a son of Darwin:

>>THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF EUGENICS

In this journal special attention has always been given to problems of evolution, heredity and eugenics. As older readers of the THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY will remember, it gave the first American publication to the work of Spencer, and, to a certain extent of Darwin, Huxley and the other leaders in the develop- ment of the doctrine of evolution. It was indeed under the elder You- mans a journal primarily devoted to the cause of evolution at a time when the word stood for heresy not only with the general public, but also among most men of science.

During the past twenty years under its present editorial control, THE SCI- ENTIFIC MONTHLY has continued to devote a considerable part of its space to work bearing on heredity and eugenics. Francis Galton printed here articles laying the foundation of eugenics, and the leading American students of genetics-Brooks, Wilson, Morgan, Conklin, Davenport, Jen- nings, Pearl and many others have communicated the results of their work to the wider scientific and edu- cated public through this journal. In like manner, many articles by leaders in the subject have been printed on human heredity in so far as it is open to experimental or statistical study, and in other subjects on which a sci- ence of eugenics must rest-popula- tion, birth and death rates, immigra- tion, racial differences, human be- havior, etc.

We are consequently pleased to be able to record the holding in New York City of the second International Congress of Eugenics and to print in the present issue of the MONTHLY several of the more important ad- dresses by foreign representatives.

Shakespeare left no descendants, and Ben Jonson remarked that nature, having made her masterpiece, broke the mold. The four sons of Charles Darwin have followed scientific ca- reers, a fine example of family heredity and tradition. It is a special privilege to welcome to the United States and to print the address in advocacy of eugenics of Major Leon- ard Darwin, based so largely on the works of his father, Charles Dar- win, and of his cousin, Francis Galton. We hope to be able to publish in subsequent issues a gen- eral account of the congress by Dr. C. C. Little, the secretary, and several of the papers containing the results of more special scientific research.

The program was strong in genetics, in which America now. probably is leading. But all the divisions main- tained good standards, the more doubtful theories and premature ap- plications of ignorance, to which newer sciences such as eugenics and psychology are subject, having been in general avoided.>>

The Canadian Eugenics Archive adds:

>>The Congress was made up of four section[s], the first was “Human and Comparative Heredity,” the second was “Eugenics and the Family”, the third was “Human Racial Differences,” and the fourth was “Eugenics and the State” (International Eugenics Congress, 1934). An Exhibition was also prepared for the public at large, include those without academic training (International Eugenics Congress, 1934). The goal of the Congress was to discuss eugenics, but particularly in a climate of international cooperation for eugenics goals (International Eugenics Congress, 1934).

Over 300 people attended the conference. It was generally considered a success, and a committee was formed after the Congress to help educate and promote eugenic ideas in America. This committee eventually became the American Eugenics Society.

The logo of the conference was a tree – an enduring symbol of the eugenics movement.>>

Such, should already establish how the relevant thinking was, by general consent of the guild of scientific scholarship and that of the wider “educated public”

— [e.g. honorary Conference President was Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of telephony and tied to the Grosvenor family which for years dominated National Geographic, which is similar in current impact to the above cited], —

a matter of science rooted in the work of Darwin and Galton. That was the “scientific consensus” of the day; itself a lesson on the intellectual and moral hazards of appeal to consensus in science. Also, we must note the significance of influential media and campaigns by editors embarking on crusades in the building of such a consensus. At that time, G K Chesterton was very much an outlier, a lone voice pointing out the errors and hazards.

It is the consequences over the next twenty-five years and the general horror that resulted, which led to a change of approach.

In this light, let us now view some of Darwin’s key remarks in his second book, Descent of Man:

>[CH 5:] The lower animals, . . .  must have their bodily structure modified in order to survive under greatly changed conditions. They must be rendered stronger, or acquire more effective teeth or claws, for defence against new enemies; or they must be reduced in size, so as to escape detection and danger. When they migrate into a colder climate, they must become clothed with thicker fur, or have their constitutions altered. If they fail to be thus modified, they will cease to exist.

The case, however, is widely different, as Mr. Wallace has with justice insisted, in relation to the intellectual and moral faculties of man. These faculties are variable; and we have every reason to believe that the variations tend to be inherited. [–> notice, the key issue of superior/inferior descent among human populations]  Therefore, if they were formerly of high importance to primeval man and to his ape-like progenitors, they would have been perfected or advanced through natural selection. [–> notice, natural selection] Of the high importance of the intellectual faculties there can be no doubt, for man mainly owes to them his predominant position in the world.

We can see, that in the rudest state of society, the individuals who were the most sagacious, who invented and used the best weapons or traps, and who were best able to defend themselves, would rear the greatest number of offspring. The tribes, which included the largest number of men thus endowed, would increase in number and supplant other tribes. [–> as in, eliminate and/or replace] Numbers depend primarily on the means of subsistence, and this depends partly on the physical nature of the country, but in a much higher degree on the arts which are there practised. As a tribe increases and is victorious, it is often still further increased by the absorption of other tribes.* The stature and strength of the men of a tribe are likewise of some importance for its success, and these depend in part on the nature and amount of the food which can be obtained.

In Europe the men of the Bronze period were supplanted by a race more powerful, and, judging from their sword-handles, with larger hands;*(2) but their success was probably still more due to their superiority in the arts.>>

That already demonstrates the basic point. But in Ch 6, we find much more:

>>[CH 6:] EVEN if it be granted that the difference between man and his nearest allies is as great in corporeal structure as some naturalists maintain, and although we must grant that the difference between them is immense in mental power, yet the facts given in the earlier chapters appear to declare, in the plainest manner, that man is descended from some lower form, notwithstanding that connecting-links have not hitherto been discovered. Man is liable to numerous, slight, and diversified variations, which are induced by the same general causes, are governed and transmitted in accordance with the same general laws, as in the lower animals.

Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence [–> key phrase], and consequently to natural selection. [–> again] He has given rise to many races, some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species. [–> key racist principle, here, cf. the sub-title of Origin, about preservation of favoured races in the struggle for survival] His body is constructed on the same homological plan as that of other mammals. He passes through the same phases of embryological development. He retains many rudimentary and useless structures, which no doubt were once serviceable. Characters occasionally make their re-appearance in him, which we have reason to believe were possessed by his early progenitors. If the origin of man had been wholly different from that of all other animals, these various appearances would be mere empty deceptions; but such an admission is incredible. [–> notice, yet another theological appeal by Darwin] These appearances, on the other hand, are intelligible, at least to a large extent, if man is the co-descendant with other mammals of some unknown and lower form . . . .

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form [–> notice, the fossil gaps question]; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution.

[–> a double-edged sword, this: at what point does cumulative systematic evidence of gaps begin to count? for many, patently, never]

Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies- between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae- between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct.

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,* [ * Anthropological Review, April, 1867, p. 236] 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.  With respect to the absence of fossil remains, serving to connect man with his ape-like progenitors, no one will lay much stress on this fact who reads Sir C. Lyell’s discussion,* where he shews that in all the vertebrate classes the discovery of fossil remains has been a very slow and fortuitous process. Nor should it be forgotten that those regions which are the most likely to afford remains connecting man with some extinct ape-like creature, have not as yet been searched by geologists. [–> the familiar argument, now 140+ years old . . . 1/4 million fossil species, millions of exemplars in museums etc, billions more seen in the ground] >>

It is clear from these writings, that the science is deeply connected to what would be elaborated as eugenics etc. We need to frankly face that, acknowledge it and learn from it if we are to make genuine onward progress. END

42 Replies to “A note on eugenics, social darwinism and evolutionary theory

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    A note on eugenics, social darwinism and evolutionary theory

  2. 2
    Bob O'H says:

    Haven’t we frankly faced that and moved on?

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H: From the sort of push-the-point-away remarks that led me to put this up, no. The lesson, clearly, has not sunk in; neither the narrow one on eugenics nor the broader one on the moral hazard implied. Where, we are currently carrying out a much worse holocaust, of our living posterity in the womb, and are warping all sorts of pivotal institutions of our civilisation to enable it. 800+ millions in 40+ years, a million more per week. The recent threads on what Anthropologists are saying on practices in Amazonia should also give us pause. KF

    PS: Just to clench over a nail or two,

    [CH 7:] There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other,- as in the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body,* the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull, and even in the convolutions of the brain.*(2) But it would be an endless task to specify the numerous points of difference. The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatisation and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristies are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Every one who has had the opportunity of comparison, must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the lighthearted, talkative negroes. There is a nearly similar contrast between the Malays and the Papuans,*(3) who live under the same physical conditions, and are separated from each other only by a narrow space of sea . . . .

    On the Extinction of the Races of Man.- The partial or complete extinction of many races and sub-races of man is historically known. Humboldt saw in South America a parrot which was the sole living creature that could speak a word of the language of a lost tribe. Ancient monuments and stone implements found in all parts of the world, about which no tradition has been preserved by the present inhabitants, indicate much extinction. Some small and broken tribes, remnants of former races, still survive in isolated and generally mountainous districts. In Europe the ancient races were all, according to Shaaffhausen,* “lower in the scale than the rudest living savages”; they must therefore have differed, to a certain extent, from any existing race. The remains described by Professor Broca from Les Eyzies, though they unfortunately appear to have belonged to a single family, indicate a race with a most singular combination of low or simious, and of high characteristics. This race is “entirely different from any other, ancient or modern, that we have heard of.”*(2) It differed, therefore, from the quaternary race of the caverns of Belgium.

    More can be sourced, but the picture on the main point should be clear enough.

  4. 4
    News says:

    Bob O’H at 2: No, unfortunately, we have not “frankly faced that and moved on.”

    As kairosfocus writes, “[Racism] was the ‘scientific consensus’ of the day; itself a lesson on the intellectual and moral hazards of appeal to consensus in science.”

    But more, Darwinism – specifically – played a major role in shaping that consensus, which is what needs to be honestly faced, without resorting to flimsy excuses.

    For example, in a recent discussion here, someone claimed that the fact that Darwin dismissed polygeny (the view that human groups evolved separately) countered racism.

    Nonsense. Polygeny was at odds with most traditions regarding human origins, which saw an original couple as the progenitors of the human race. The “ideas market” for polygeny was small and not likely to grow.

    By contrast, Darwin’s idea of universal common ancestry featuring missing links, savages, and gorillas-on-probation fit very well indeed into the science mindset of his and subsequent generations. It made racism up-to-date science. There are vast masses of material on this, unfortunately.

    If the specific, explicit role of Darwinism in making racism a consensus science belief is not admitted, without qualification, we cannot just move on. There will always be lots more neglected or misrepresented facts to bring to light.

    I suspect that one reason many would not want to admit that Darwinian racism was literally consensus science is not what is says about Darwinism but what it says about consensus science in general.

    Oh well, the way things are going, we won’t be starved for a news feed.

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    News, I see we just about crossed in posting comments. Unfortunately, our civilisation has some re-thinking to do. KF

  6. 6
    Barry Arrington says:

    Bob:
    “Haven’t we frankly faced that and moved on?”

    In addition to KF’s and News’ responses, I would add that every time an ID proponent or a warming skeptic is dismissed as a “science denier,” we have not learned the lesson that science is not a matter of nose counting.

    In the 1920s the opponents of eugenics were “science deniers,” in the sense they were opposing the cutting edge of mainstream science.

    Those science deniers were right. The cutting edgers were dead (pun intended) wrong.

    So, Bob, we do not seem to have learned that lesson. Thanks for asking.

    It reminds me of Jesus rebuke of the Pharisees in Matthew 23: They said “if we had lived in the days of the fathers we would not have killed the prophets.” Very ironic in retrospect no?

  7. 7
    Bob O'H says:

    Hm, nobody’s quoted haven’t quoted anything that was published recently: everything comes from before either of my parents were born. If you can’t find anything more recent, then I reckon that yes we have moved on.

  8. 8
    goodusername says:

    “[Racism] was the ‘scientific consensus’ of the day; itself a lesson on the intellectual and moral hazards of appeal to consensus in science.”
    But more, Darwinism – specifically – played a major role in shaping that consensus, which is what needs to be honestly faced, without resorting to flimsy excuses.

    No one denies that racism was the consensus of its day, and Darwin was certainly racist. It was such a consensus that there wasn’t even a word for “racist” or “racism”. The view was so normal that it wouldn’t have even occurred to anyone to have a word for it.

    The part that many are missing was that it was the consensus pre-Darwinism as well – and, in fact, was a racism far more extreme than after Darwinism. It was a racism that Darwin himself battled.

    For example, in a recent discussion here, someone claimed that the fact that Darwin dismissed polygeny (the view that human groups evolved separately) countered racism.
    Nonsense. Polygeny was at odds with most traditions regarding human origins, which saw an original couple as the progenitors of the human race. The “ideas market” for polygeny was small and not likely to grow.

    Uh, no. That wasn’t the mainstream polygenist view. I mean, there were evolutionist polygenists, but they were a tiny minority.
    What’s being referred to is the consensus science of it’s day that there were multiple human races, and that they were created separately (usually by God). They were almost always anti-evolutionists. In fact, if anyone spoke out against polygenism, you can be sure that they’d be accused of being an evolutionist, whether they were or not. This is because in so many people’s minds, only an evolutionist wouldn’t be a polygenist.
    This is why Darwin wrote: “When the principle of evolution is generally accepted, as it surely will be before long, the dispute between the monogenists and the polygenists will die a silent and unobserved death.”

    Polygenism was the mainstream science in America in the early 19th century (so much so that it became known as the “American school” of anthropology) but by the mid 19th century it was mainstream in Europe as well.

    As Thomas Gossett, author of Race: The History of an Idea in America, writes, “With the exception of Bachman, the monogenic origin theory had no real champion among men of science.”

    This is the problem. Many people like to describe how things changed with the arrival of Darwinism – but they don’t have the slightest idea what things were like in 1858. It makes these discussions incredibly difficult.

    Take a look at the speeches of Lincoln. He regularly said things in his speeches that would have had anyone seeking the presidency after him booed off the stage because they were so outlandishly racist. And, yet, racism gained respectability AFTER Lincoln? Does that make any sense?
    And this was the guy championed by the abolitionists, so you can imagine was his political opponents were saying in their speeches.

    For a taste of mainsteam pre-Darwinism science, here’s Louis Agassiz, the most famous and respected American scientist of the 19th century, from Types of Mankind, which, as Gould describes, was “the leading American text on human racial differences”:

    I am prepared to show that the differences existing between the races of men are of the same kind as the differences observed between the different families, genera, and species of monkeys or other animals; and that these different species of animals differ in the same degree one from the other as the races of men – nay, the differences between distinct races are often greater than those distinguishing species of animals one from the other. The chimpanzee and gorilla do not differ more one from the other than the Mandingo and the Guinea Negro: they together do not differ more from the orang than the Malay or white man differs from the Negro. In proof of this assertion, I need only refer the reader to the description of the anthropoid monkeys published by Prof. Owen and by Dr. J. Wyman, and to such descriptions of the races of men as notice more important peculiarities than the mere differences in the color of the skin… I maintain distinctly that the differences observed among the races of men are of the same kind and even greater than those upon which the anthropoid monkeys are considered as distinct species. (Bold added)

    Another quote:

    “A man must be blind not to be struck by similitudes between some of the lower races of mankind, viewed as connecting links in the animal kingdom; nor can it be rationally affirmed, that the Orang-Outan and Chimpanzee are more widely separated from certain African and Oceanic Negroes than are the latter from the Teutonic or Pelasgic types.”

    In other words, not only is the black race closer to apes than the white race – but the black race is closer to apes than to whites. This is something that Darwin spends a good deal of time in Descent arguing against. (It’s a shame that he’d have to, but that’s pre-Darwinian science for you.)

    Types of Mankind is also filled with talk of racial extinction being perfectly normal and God-willed, and as a good thing. Yes, the leading text of human races was a proponent of genocide. (There are many quotes that are tempting to give but I don’t want this to turn into a copy-and-paste fest.)
    Pick up just about any of the other leading science texts, journals, newspapers articles, etc and you’ll find the same stuff. Again, this was the mainstream view.

    Darwin himself saw this mindset everywhere the Beagle landed on it’s journey, and personally witnessed many genocides in action, and spoke out against it.

  9. 9
    News says:

    Here’s an instance of where racism in evolution studies put us off the track: Was Neanderthal man fully human? The role racism played in assessing the evidence

  10. 10
    News says:

    Good research, goodusername at 8. But neither Agassiz nor these other figures had nearly the effect on culture that Darwin did. Darwin’s version of racism got inherited and the polygenists’ didn’t. We were stuck with the former, not the latter. We are undoing the damage but it takes time. Revisionism does not help.

    In 2009, a reader sent these quotations from Descent of Man a while back, to give readers some sense of Darwin’s view.

  11. 11
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H: This was at first level a specific response on a particular claim. At second level, it is an instance of the pessimistic induction, in the form of a case study where a scientific and popular consensus sustained for many decades and backed by big names in science was disastrously wrong; opening the door to horrific Government abuses. That should be a cautionary science in society case study. As, BTW, should be the story of the rise of nuclear weapons. And as BA pointed out, the consensus vs “denialism” card (complete with projective allusions to what happened in and around Germany within living memory) is still around and we need to understand why the collective appeal to consensus and thus authority can go dangerously wrong. That’s an epistemology, logic and ethics issue. One we still need to heed. KF

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    GUN, News is right to emphasise what was consensus and what its impact was. I also think you may need to read again from Ch 6 as clipped; that reference to Australians and gorillas cannot be wished away or airbrushed out. We need to face and learn from history, especially history that had disastrous consequences. KF

    PS: Maybe, I need to point out how one of Huxley’s students tried to sound warnings in several Sci Fi novels which were very popular: H G Wells. Time Machine, Island of Dr Moreau and War of the Worlds spoke in extremely widely read literature. Notice this, from literally the opening of War of the Worlds:

    No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man’s and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water . . . No one gave a thought to the older worlds of space as sources of human danger, or thought of them only to dismiss the idea of life upon them as impossible or improbable. It is curious to recall some of the mental habits of those departed days. At most terrestrial men fancied there might be other men upon Mars, perhaps inferior to themselves and ready to welcome a missionary enterprise. Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us . . . . looking across space with instruments, and intelligences such as we have scarcely dreamed of, they see, at its nearest distance only 35,000,000 of miles sunward of them, a morning star of hope, our own warmer planet, green with vegetation and grey with water, with a cloudy atmosphere eloquent of fertility, with glimpses through its drifting cloud wisps of broad stretches of populous country and narrow, navy-crowded seas.

    And we men, the creatures who inhabit this earth, must be to them at least as alien and lowly as are the monkeys and lemurs to us. The intellectual side of man already admits that life is an incessant struggle for existence, and it would seem that this too is the belief of the minds upon Mars. Their world is far gone in its cooling and this world is still crowded with life, but crowded only with what they regard as inferior animals. To carry warfare sunward is, indeed, their only escape from the destruction that, generation after generation, creeps upon them.

    And before we judge of them too harshly we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought, not only upon animals, such as the vanished bison and the dodo, but upon its inferior races. The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants, in the space of fifty years. Are we such apostles of mercy as to complain if the Martians warred in the same spirit?

  13. 13
    goodusername says:

    News,

    But neither Agassiz nor these other figures had nearly the effect on culture that Darwin did. Darwin’s version of racism got inherited and the polygenists’ didn’t.

    Yes, with the arrival of Darwinism, the most extreme racist – yet mainstream- views, were dealt a major blow.

    With the arrival of Darwinism, the mainstream view became that all human races shared a common ancestor – a recent one, and are much more alike than they are different.

    So, yes, thank goodness that Darwin supplanted the leading scientists of his day in regards to culture.

    But does Darwinism still leave room for racism? Absolutely.

    One can still easily make the claim that some races are more intelligent than others, or shares more simian features than others, etc. Such views continued to be mainstream for years. But soon after 1859, anyone claiming that the races are unrelated, and/or that some races are closer to apes than to other races, would be mock and denounced. Darwin took a giant step in the right direction in arguing for how alike humans of all races are, he just didn’t go far enough. Darwin knew that much of the anthropology of his age was wrong, he just didn’t realize how wrong it was.

    What’s revisionism is to claim that racist views gained respectability or became more common after Darwin.

  14. 14
    Allan Keith says:

    As much as we find eugenics to be morally unacceptable, the concept is scientifically sound. At its simplest, it was just artificial selection applied to humans. Given our experience with doing so with plants and animals, there is no reason to believe that it wouldn’t work with humans.

    Science merely attempts to find the best explanations for what we observe. At present, evolution does just that. How we apply that knowledge is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical one. Blaming the science for its misuses is counter-productive. The understanding of chemistry has greatly improved out lives. But it also resulted in mustard gas. The study of plants, bacteria and fungi have greatly enhanced our lives through the discovery of antibiotics, but it has also provided us with some very strong poisons and toxins. The study of nuclear physics has greatly enhanced medicine but also gave us the nuclear bomb.

  15. 15
    ET says:

    Allan Keith:

    At its simplest, it was just artificial selection applied to humans.

    And that is the problem.

    Given our experience with doing so with plants and animals, there is no reason to believe that it wouldn’t work with humans.

    Given that experience tells us we should leave humanity out of it.

    Science merely attempts to find the best explanations for what we observe. At present, evolution does just that.

    That depends on what you mean by “evolution”. Neither Darwin’s concepts nor the modern synthesis scientifically explains what we observe.

  16. 16
    Silver Asiatic says:

    AK

    As much as we find eugenics to be morally unacceptable, the concept is scientifically sound.

    So is laboratory experimentation on human beings.

    But a key point is that artificial selection works because it is an example of Intelligent Design.

  17. 17
    Allan Keith says:

    SA,

    So is laboratory experimentation on human beings.

    Yet we do it all of the time. That is what clinical trials do.

    But a key point is that artificial selection works because it is an example of Intelligent Design.

    But not the type of intelligent design that people here typically are talking about. When we use artificial selection, we can only work with the variation in traits that already exist. We are not “designing” a new structure, or a new protein.

  18. 18
    Allan Keith says:

    ET,

    And that is the problem.

    Irrelevant to the question of whether eugenics is scientifically sound.

    Given that experience tells us we should leave humanity out of it.

    Irrelevant to the question of whether eugenics is scientifically sound.

    That depends on what you mean by “evolution”. Neither Darwin’s concepts nor the modern synthesis scientifically explains what we observe.

    Thousands of people who study biology disagree with you.

  19. 19
    Silver Asiatic says:

    AK

    But not the type of intelligent design that people here typically are talking about. When we use artificial selection, we can only work with the variation in traits that already exist. We are not “designing” a new structure, or a new protein.

    We use that as an argument against what blind evolution – random mutations and natural selection — can actually do without intelligence.

  20. 20
    ET says:

    Irrelevant to the question of whether eugenics is scientifically sound.

    No, it gets to the very heart of the question.

    Irrelevant to the question of whether eugenics is scientifically sound.

    Again, it gets to the heart of the question.

    That depends on what you mean by “evolution”. Neither Darwin’s concepts nor the modern synthesis scientifically explains what we observe.

    Thousands of people who study biology disagree with you.

    So what? They cannot refute what I said.

  21. 21
    ET says:

    And artificial selection is an intelligent design mechanism. No if’s and’s or but’s about it.

  22. 22
    kairosfocus says:

    AK, I was not going to draw the line onwards from Wells through Haekel to Mr Schicklegruber, but your revisionism asks for it. Here is a certain occupant of the Landsberg Prison, laying out where he would go over the next twenty years, why:

    Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents . . . Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.

    The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice [–> tremble, oh Polish mice] . . . .

    In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. [That is, Darwinian sexual selection.] And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development.

    If the process were different, all further and higher development would cease and the opposite would occur. For, since the inferior always predominates numerically over the best [NB: this is a theme in Darwin’s discussion of the Irish, the Scots and the English in Descent], if both had the same possibility of preserving life and propagating, the inferior would multiply so much more rapidly that in the end the best would inevitably be driven into the background, unless a correction of this state of affairs were undertaken. Nature does just this by subjecting the weaker part to such severe living conditions that by them alone the number is limited, and by not permitting the remainder to increase promiscuously, but making a new and ruthless choice according to strength and health . . .

    If this echoes some very familiar arguments above, you know why. And the echoes from this in history still reverberate.

    It is time to face some unpleasant truth on what can happen when some things become the scientific consensus in a day and age that worships at the feet of science.

    And maybe, Keynes needs to be heard, too:

    Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. Not, indeed, immediately, but after a certain interval; for in the field of economic and political philosophy there are not many who are influenced by new theories after they are twenty-five or thirty years of age, so that the ideas which civil servants and politicians and even agitators apply to current events are not likely to be the newest. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil.

    Not just in Economics, lord Keynes, not just in Economics.

    KF

  23. 23
    Allan Keith says:

    SA,

    We use that as an argument against what blind evolution – random mutations and natural selection — can actually do without intelligence.

    Just a couple points. Breeders cross animals to maximize traits. In just a few centuries this has resulted in a massive diversification in size and shape from the original wolves. Your argument is a valid one, but a very weak one. Get back to me after a few million years of breeding. If they are still all dogs, your argument would have some teeth. Shall we make an appointment for three million years from today? 🙂

  24. 24
    Allan Keith says:

    ET,

    And artificial selection is an intelligent design mechanism. No if’s and’s or but’s about it.

    There is certainly intelligence involved, but to call it “design” as an analogy of ID, would be a stretch. You are still relying on the natural and unplanned appearance of variation to select from. Are you suggesting that this is how IF functions?

  25. 25
    goodusername says:

    AK,

    As much as we find eugenics to be morally unacceptable, the concept is scientifically sound. At its simplest, it was just artificial selection applied to humans. Given our experience with doing so with plants and animals, there is no reason to believe that it wouldn’t work with humans.

    Yes, the heyday of eugenics was actually more than 2000 years ago. Plato proposed a system of eugenics more extreme than even most fanatical 19th or 20th century eugenicist. And we all know about Sparta. Eugenics was also part of Roman law, and many other societies at the time.

    It shouldn’t be surprising though. As Creationists love pointing out, Darwin’s theory wasn’t wholly new. The effects of selective breeding have been known for thousands, probably tens of thousands of years, and so the idea of applying such breeding to humans to improve human populations is also ancient. Plato makes the argument that we carefully breed horses, dogs, and birds, and so should do the same for humans.

    From Plato’s The Republic:

    The best of either sex should be united with the best as often, and the inferior with the inferior, as seldom as possible; and that they should rear the offspring of the one sort of union, but not of the other, if the flock is to be maintained in first-rate condition. Now these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know, or there will be a further danger of our herd, as the guardians may be termed, breaking out into rebellion.

    http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/h.....page%3D459

    And so Darwinism adds surprisingly very little to the discussion of eugenics, and Darwin himself (and Wallace, Huxley, etc) were anti-eugenics. Eugenics was little more than a curiosity throughout the late 19th century, despite the popularity of Darwinism. It didn’t start really catching on until the second decade of the 20th century, with the rising popularity of Mendelism. The popularity of eugenics reached its height in the 1920s, which actually was the low point in popularity of Darwinism (the “Eclipse of Darwinism”). Starting around 1930 eugenics began declining (in most places) which is also when Darwinism was pulling out of the “Eclipse”.

  26. 26
    kairosfocus says:

    AK,

    Maybe you have not seen what Darwin had to say on human evolution, including things above on “tribes” and “natural selection.” There is, however a letter of July 3, 1881 to a certain Mr William Graham, that speaks quite, quite plainly:

    I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turk, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.

    In short, this letter, penned a decade after Descent of Man, shows beyond doubt that Darwin, plainly, was a foundational Social Darwinist, and that he coolly drew out — without serious compunction — that his theory explained and predicted genocide between the diverse races of man, as a way by which more or less “natural” selection would work to improve the human race.

    This gives very pointed focus to the fact that it was Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, who, impressed by the theory of evolution and its implications, pioneered the eugenics movement. Indeed, in the next generation, Darwin’s son Leonard, led the movement. This is in itself troubling, as the modern Social Darwinism-based eugenics movement has been associated with serious abuses such as racist targetting of “inferior” breeds, groups and classes of man to be reduced or eliminated, and with giving “scientific” credibility to racial and social discrimination.

    Where, in CH 6 of Descent of Man, we may plainly read what Darwin echoed in his letter:

    Man is liable to numerous, slight, and diversified variations, which are induced by the same general causes, are governed and transmitted in accordance with the same general laws, as in the lower animals. Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence, and consequently to natural selection. He has given rise to many races, some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species . . . .

    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.

    Generally, such now discredited ideas are often viewed as illegitimate extensions of the science, but in light of evidence such as the above, we can no longer accept such attempts to distance Darwin from such extensions of his thought. For, it is Darwin himself who applied these thoughts to social darwinism.

    And, by incorporating the displacement and genocide of the inferior races under “natural selection” he clearly saw that the human intellect is part of the weaponry of struggle and is a part of nature, just as the fangs and claws of say the lion.

    By that light, propaganda and policies that reduce then eliminate the breeding of perceived inferior varieties would also be natural selection. In short, eugenics is effectively a form of natural selection, by Darwin’s lights.

    If you doubt this, scroll up to the OP and see his remarks on Wallace. Let me clip CH 5 of Descent again:

    The lower animals, . . . must have their bodily structure modified in order to survive under greatly changed conditions. They must be rendered stronger, or acquire more effective teeth or claws, for defence against new enemies; or they must be reduced in size, so as to escape detection and danger. When they migrate into a colder climate, they must become clothed with thicker fur, or have their constitutions altered. If they fail to be thus modified, they will cease to exist.

    The case, however, is widely different, as Mr. Wallace has with justice insisted, in relation to the intellectual and moral faculties of man. These faculties are variable; and we have every reason to believe that the variations tend to be inherited. [–> notice, the key issue of superior/inferior descent among human populations] Therefore, if they were formerly of high importance to primeval man and to his ape-like progenitors, they would have been perfected or advanced through natural selection. [–> notice, natural selection] Of the high importance of the intellectual faculties there can be no doubt, for man mainly owes to them his predominant position in the world.

    We can see, that in the rudest state of society, the individuals who were the most sagacious, who invented and used the best weapons or traps, and who were best able to defend themselves, would rear the greatest number of offspring. The tribes, which included the largest number of men thus endowed, would increase in number and supplant other tribes. [–> as in, eliminate and/or replace] Numbers depend primarily on the means of subsistence, and this depends partly on the physical nature of the country, but in a much higher degree on the arts which are there practised. As a tribe increases and is victorious, it is often still further increased by the absorption of other tribes.* The stature and strength of the men of a tribe are likewise of some importance for its success, and these depend in part on the nature and amount of the food which can be obtained.

    In Europe the men of the Bronze period were supplanted by a race more powerful, and, judging from their sword-handles, with larger hands;*(2) but their success was probably still more due to their superiority in the arts.

    Again, food for thought to those willing to face the painful lessons of history.

    KF

  27. 27
    ET says:

    Allan Keith:

    There is certainly intelligence involved, but to call it “design” as an analogy of ID, would be a stretch.

    Artificial selection is a design mechanism. Breeders can do what natural selection could not nor would not. Natural selection would be good at undoing what breeders have created.

    You are still relying on the natural and unplanned appearance of variation to select from.

    Question begging. How are you defining “natural”? And how did you determine the variations are “natural and unplanned”?

  28. 28
    kairosfocus says:

    GUN, distractive. It is quite plain from history that eugenics reached peak tide and had its peak impact in the context of the rise of social darwinism over the period from the 1880’s to 1940’s, and that this lingered on to the 1960’s in key parts. The graffiti I recall from that time, “birth control — plan to kill black people” has a point, given some of the writings of leading advocates; though of course, there is such a thing as responsible family planning — as my Mom had to engage as a health educator. (One key step: a comic book — revolutionary, in a day when comics and penny dreadfuls were despised by the educated.) Indeed, eugenics has gone low-key but is still present and surfaces in some aspects of say the current debates on immigrant minorities and IQ metrics. As a point of note, Hunter’s Civic Biology, the book at the heart of the Scopes affair, advocated eugenics . . . as the “Civic” suggests. KF

  29. 29
    kairosfocus says:

    ET, you may find my 26 useful. Also, go look at Ch 5 of Descent, noting what more is there. KF

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    Some sobering quotes from Darwin (per News’s link at post 10)

    Darwin reader: (Quotes on Darwin’s racism) – February 14, 2009
    Excerpt: Savages are intermediate states between people and apes:

    “It has been asserted that the ear of man alone possesses a lobule; but ‘a rudiment of it is found in the gorilla’ and, as I hear from Prof. Preyer, it is not rarely absent in the negro.”

    “The sense of smell is of the highest importance to the greater number of mammals–to some, as the ruminants, in warning them of danger; to others, as the Carnivora, in finding their prey; to others, again, as the wild boar, for both purposes combined. But the sense of smell is of extremely slight service, if any, even to the dark coloured races of men, in whom it is much more highly developed than in the white and civilised races.”

    “The account given by Humboldt of the power of smell possessed by the natives of South America is well known, and has been confirmed by others. M. Houzeau asserts that he repeatedly made experiments, and proved that Negroes and Indians could recognise persons in the dark by their odour. Dr. W. Ogle has made some curious observations on the connection between the power of smell and the colouring matter of the mucous membrane of the olfactory region as well as of the skin of the body. I have, therefore, spoken in the text of the dark-coloured races having a finer sense of smell than the white races….Those who believe in the principle of gradual evolution, will not readily admit that the sense of smell in its present state was originally acquired by man, as he now exists. He inherits the power in an enfeebled and so far rudimentary condition, from some early progenitor, to whom it was highly serviceable, and by whom it was continually used.”,,,

    “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.”
    etc.. etc…
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwin-reader-darwins-racism/

    It might surprise Darwin (and Hitler) to know that, in keeping with the principle of Genetic Entropy, (J. Sanford http://www.geneticentropy.org/properties ), Caucasians are actually inferior to Africans.

    “We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations,” Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. “Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians.”
    Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University “La Sapienza,” Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.-

    New analysis provides fuller picture of human expansion from Africa – October 22, 2012
    Excerpt: A new, comprehensive review of humans’ anthropological and genetic records gives the most up-to-date story of the “Out of Africa” expansion that occurred about 45,000 to 60,000 years ago.
    This expansion, detailed by three Stanford geneticists, had a dramatic effect on human genetic diversity, which persists in present-day populations. As a small group of modern humans migrated out of Africa into Eurasia and the Americas, their genetic diversity was substantially reduced.
    http://phys.org/news/2012-10-a.....nsion.html

    Finding links and missing genes: Catalog of large-scale genetic changes around the world – October 1, 2015
    Excerpt: “When we analysed the genomes of 2500 people, we were surprised to see over 200 genes that are missing entirely in some people,” says Jan Korbel, who led the work at EMBL in Heidelberg, Germany.,,,
    African genomes harboured a much greater diversity overall.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....094723.htm

    “…but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have…”
    Maciej Marian Giertych – Population Geneticist – member of the European Parliament – EXPELLED
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z5-15wk1Zk

    Human Genetic Variation Recent, Varies Among Populations – (Nov. 28, 2012)
    Excerpt: Nearly three-quarters of mutations in genes that code for proteins — the workhorses of the cell — occurred within the past 5,000 to 10,000 years,,,
    “One of the most interesting points is that Europeans have more new deleterious (potentially disease-causing) mutations than Africans,”,,,
    “Having so many of these new variants can be partially explained by the population explosion in the European population. However, variation that occur in genes that are involved in Mendelian traits and in those that affect genes essential to the proper functioning of the cell tend to be much older.” (A Mendelian trait is controlled by a single gene. Mutations in that gene can have devastating effects.) The amount variation or mutation identified in protein-coding genes (the exome) in this study is very different from what would have been seen 5,000 years ago,,,
    The report shows that “recent” events have a potent effect on the human genome. Eighty-six percent of the genetic variation or mutations that are expected to be harmful arose in European-Americans in the last five thousand years, said the researchers.
    The researchers used established bioinformatics techniques to calculate the age of more than a million changes in single base pairs (the A-T, C-G of the genetic code) that are part of the exome or protein-coding portion of the genomes (human genetic blueprint) of 6,515 people of both European-American and African-American decent.,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....132259.htm

    In fact, blond hair, blue eyes, and fair skin, are all the result of a loss of preexisting genetic information (i.e. Genetic Entropy). They are not the result of a gain of new genetic information as the Nazi’s had presupposed in their racial ideology:

    Daily thought: blue eyes and other gene mutations, April 25, 2013
    Excerpt: “Research on blue-eyes has led many scientist to further affirm that humans are truly mere variations of the same origin. About 8% of the world’s total population has blue eyes so blue eyes are fairly rare. In fact, blue eyes are actually a gene mutation that scientist have researched and found to have happened when the OCA2 gene “turned off the ability to produce brown eyes.”
    http://www.examiner.com/articl.....-mutations

    The Genetics of Blond Hair June 1, 2014
    Excerpt: ,,,When he and his colleagues studied this regulatory DNA in human cells grown in a laboratory dish, they discovered that the blond-generating SNP reduced KITLG activity by only about 20%. Yet that was enough to change the hair color. “This isn’t a ‘turn the switch off,’ ” Kingsley says. “It’s a ‘turn the switch down.’ ”
    “This study provides solid evidence” that this switch regulates the expression of KITLG in developing hair follicles,
    http://news.sciencemag.org/bio.....blond-hair

  31. 31
    bornagain77 says:

    Melanin
    Excerpt: The melanin in the skin is produced by melanocytes, which are found in the basal layer of the epidermis. Although, in general, human beings possess a similar concentration of melanocytes in their skin, the melanocytes in some individuals and ethnic groups more frequently or less frequently express the melanin-producing genes, thereby conferring a greater or lesser concentration of skin melanin. Some individual animals and humans have very little or no melanin synthesis in their bodies, a condition known as albinism.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin#Humans

    Are Wisdom Teeth (Third Molars) Vestiges of Human Evolution? by Jerry Bergman – December 1, 1998
    Excerpt: Curtis found that both predynastic Egyptians and Nubians rarely had wisdom teeth problems, but they often existed in persons living in later periods of history. He concluded that the maxillary sinus of the populations he compared were similar and attributed the impactions he found to diet and also disuse causing atrophy of the jaws which resulted in a low level of teeth attrition. Dahlberg in a study of American Indians found that mongoloid peoples have a higher percentage of agenesis of third molars then do other groups and few persons in primitive societies had wisdom teeth problems. As Dahlberg notes, third molars were ‘very useful in primitive societies’ to chew their coarse diet.
    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....sdom-teeth

    Also of note: The I.Q. tests, (i.e. “Bell Curve”), that have shown supposed large differences in the intelligence between races of humans, are all shown to be biased by overlooked environmental factors:

    Myth: The black/white IQ gap is largely genetically caused.

    Fact: Almost all studies show the black/white IQ gap is environmental.
    (i.e. children from an enriched learning environment always perform equally well on I.Q. tests, no matter what their race may be.)
    http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-IQgapgenetic.htm

    Dr. Ben Carson is a prime example of overcoming strong peer pressure from fellow African Americans trying to tell him to neglect his education:

    Gifted Hands – The Benjamin Carson Story – movie
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDfS3chUOi8

    Simply put, Cultural influences play a far more important role in a child’s intelligence than genetic influences:

    Geometric Principles Appear Universal in Our Minds – May 2011
    Excerpt: Villagers belonging to an Amazonian group called the Mundurucú intuitively grasp abstract geometric principles despite having no formal math education,,, Mundurucú adults and 7- to 13-year-olds demonstrate as firm an understanding of the properties of points, lines and surfaces as adults and school-age children in the United States and France,,,
    http://www.wired.com/wiredscie.....-geometry/

    Religiously engaged adolescents demonstrate habits that help them get better grades, Stanford scholar finds – April 15, 2018
    Excerpt: Adolescents who practice religion on a regular basis do better in school than those who are religiously disengaged, according to new research from Stanford Graduate School of Education (GSE).,,,
    The link between religiosity and grades remained after accounting for race, class, gender and religious denomination, Horwitz said. It also held after controlling for certain behaviors associated with strict religious practice among teenagers, like lower alcohol consumption and limited sexual activity.
    “Generally, kids who are religious drink less, have less sex, and are more closely supervised by their parents,” said Horwitz. “These variables explained some of why religious kids do better in school. But my models showed there’s something above and beyond those factors that the survey data couldn’t explain.”
    https://ed.stanford.edu/news/religiously-engaged-adolescents-demonstrate-habits-help-them-get-better-grades-stanford-scholar?newsletter=true

    Do private schools educate children better than public schools?
    Excerpt: However, moving past the dueling tests and studies, what’s clear is that private school students have better SAT scores, and better college admission and graduation rates, regardless of socioeconomic level.
    http://curiosity.discovery.com.....ic-schools

    Council For American Private Education (CAPE)
    Excerpt: Most private school students (78 percent) attend religiously-affiliated schools,,,
    Students in private schools consistently score well above the national average. At all three grades a significantly higher percentage of private school students score at or above the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced levels than public school students.,,,
    http://www.capenet.org/facts.html

    Verse:

    John 13:13
    “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am.”

  32. 32
    bornagain77 says:

    This following studies that show that our brains are shrinking instead of getting larger, (which also supports the principle of genetic entropy), would have really messed with Hitler’s head;

    Are brains shrinking to make us smarter? – February 2011
    Excerpt: Human brains have shrunk over the past 30,000 years,
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....arter.html

    If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? – January 20, 2011
    Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.”
    “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,,
    He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.”
    http://discovermagazine.com/20.....-shrinking

    It is also fitting to note the unbridgible chasm between human intelligence and animal intelligence:

    Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language – December 19, 2014
    Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,
    (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, “The mystery of language evolution,” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).)
    Casey Luskin added: “It’s difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92141.html

    The Fundamental Difference Between Humans and Nonhuman Animals – Michael Egnor – November 5, 2015
    Excerpt: Human beings have mental powers that include the material mental powers of animals but in addition entail a profoundly different kind of thinking. Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals.
    Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different — ontologically different — from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial. Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,,,
    It is a radical difference — an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference.
    We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....00661.html

    Of final note to the fossil evidence and genetic evidence: Here is a video playlist of Dr. Giem’s series reviewing John Sanford’s new book “Contested Bones”. The book “Contested Bones” (by Christopher Rupe and John Sanford) is the result of four years of intense research into the primary scientific literature concerning those bones that are thought to represent transitional forms between ape and man. This book’s title reflects the surprising reality that all the famous “hominin” bones continue to be fiercely contested today—even within the field of paleoanthropology (The last videos in the series deal with the misleading genetic evidence).

    “Contested Bones” review by Paul Giem – video playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6ZOKj-YaHA&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm

  33. 33
    Allan Keith says:

    BA77 at 30, 31 and 32. [SNIP– slander]. Oops. I apologize. I forgot that it is morally unacceptable to slander anyone on UD who is no longer alive to defend themselves. 🙂 🙂 🙂

  34. 34
    bornagain77 says:

    Allan Keith, and how many times before have you been banned from UD for trollish behavior?

    I have no qualms against lodging a grievance against you if you take to trolling me.

    Unlike Darwinists, I provide actual empirical evidence for my claims.

    And can provide much more.

    The proper response on your part, (since you apparently have no clue what a proper response is), would have been for you to provide real time empirical evidence for your belief in human evolution. And once you have been refuted on that ‘non-existent’ evidence, to concede that Darwinian evolution is false. (That is called being honest.)

    Since I have been down this road for years and know for a fact that you have no real time evidence that can withstand scrutiny, you are reduced to trollish behavior. That’s all you have got left.

    It is intellectually dishonest and, frankly, pathetic on your part to be so disingenuous to the evidence we now have in hand.

    I have no time for your childish antics.

    But feel free to try your luck at trolling me again.

  35. 35
    Allan Keith says:

    KairosFocus,

    It is quite plain from history that eugenics reached peak tide and had its peak impact in the context of the rise of social darwinism over the period from the 1880’s to 1940’s, and that this lingered on to the 1960’s in key parts.

    Even if we agree that eugenics was caused by the general acceptance of evolution, how do you explain the fact that it has declined since its hay day in spite of the general acceptance of evolution continuing to increase?

  36. 36
    ET says:

    Allan Keith:

    how do you explain the fact that it has declined since its hay day in spite of the general acceptance of evolution continuing to increase?

    There isn’t any general acceptance of evolutionism.

  37. 37
    Allan Keith says:

    ET,

    There isn’t any general acceptance of evolutionism.

    I didn’t say ‘evolutionism’, but with regard to the general acceptance of unguided evolution:

    https://www.themarysue.com/the-public-acceptance-of-evolution-in-34-countries/

  38. 38
    ET says:

    Allan Keith:

    I didn’t say ‘evolutionism’, but with regard to the general acceptance of unguided evolution:

    Unguided evolution is evolutionism. And seeing that there isn’t any science to support its claims why would anyone accept it?

  39. 39
    Allan Keith says:

    ET,

    Unguided evolution is evolutionism. And seeing that there isn’t any science to support its claims why would anyone accept it?

    Ask all of these people.

    https://www.themarysue.com/the-public-acceptance-of-evolution-in-34-countries/

  40. 40
    ET says:

    Allan Keith:

    Ask all of these people.

    Ask the gullible fools who don’t know what science entails? How is that going to help you?

  41. 41
    Allan Keith says:

    ET,

    Ask the gullible fools who don’t know what science entails? How is that going to help you?

    They already agree with me. You should be attempting to teach them of the folly of their ways. Tou haven’t been able to convince the thousands of scientists who understand the subject or the handful of those commenting here who have no more than a hobbyists interest in the subject. Convincing the hundreds of millions of gullible fools should be child’s play.

  42. 42
    ET says:

    Allan Keith:

    They already agree with me.

    Gullible fools agreeing with a gullible fool doesn’t help you.

    You should be attempting to teach them of the folly of their ways.

    It is a waste of time. They should be attempting to find support for unguided evolution.

    Tou haven’t been able to convince the thousands of scientists who understand the subject or the handful of those commenting here who have no more than a hobbyists interest in the subject.

    Those scientists cannot convince anyone with an objective mind. They can’t even formulate a scientific theory of evolution. And peer-review is devoid of support for unguided evolution.

    So in the end all you have is a bunch of liars and bluffers supporting each other.

Leave a Reply