How we as humans came to be

[ScoutParent]

You are so predictable FirstPusk. I do understand evolution and disagree that it occurred to bring about present day humans. In the name of preserving the myth of evolution, people have committed huge atrocities against each other such as the 10,000+ australian aboriginals that were beheaded so they could be displayed as "living fossils" in museums in this country and throughtout the world; such as 6 million Jews being killed in an effort to bring about "a master race", such as Planned Parenthood sanctioning eliminating undesireables through abortion, or 100,000 retarded people as well as blacks being involuntarily sterilized in this country alone (until made Public by Robert Kennedy in the 1960's). The traits I asked about (when you were all so quick to call me a racist) are all traits that are currently being studied by evolutionists. Talk about irony meters going off. Australian Aboriginals were heralded as the missing link by evolutionists(displaying their heads and their skin in museums to portray evolution in humans) Intelligence has long been a subject of controversy with evolutionists with most favoring high intelligence as a trait to ensure species surviving. German scientists have postulated that blondes will be "extinct" by 2200. Race has been and is currently being studied to determine genetic and biological differences. ADHD and whether it is an advanced trait or a disorder that is dangerous to the "gene pool" is currently being studied. Many in the field of science suggest that ADHD patients should not have children. NO, it is not me that is the racist. It is not me that is ignorant. The idea of human evolution is an ugly theory that encompasses many ugly ideas.

When you play semantics games, when you call names, when you label people as ignorant that disagree with you, it keeps you from addressing the questions asked of you and in this case it keeps the attention off the ugly subjects that must be part of any human evolution discussion; especially with you looking forward to an "intellectual revolution" in the next century as a result of the human genome project. Responsible and ethical scientists always think about the implications of their work.

 

I asked you questions concerning genetics and evolution and you chose to make assumptions and run with them, hardly a very scientific approach to any situation. The scouts and scouters that read these posts are intelligent enough to discern the facts regardless of the slurs you are so fond of.

[Rooster7]

Firstpusk, Merlyn, and LV,

 

Either you guys don't get it, or you're playing dumb just to get a rise out of ScoutParent. She's not defending racists' theories. She's suggesting, and quite frankly I think she's very astute in her observation, that if you accept evolution, then you have to apply it to all creatures including human beings. Consequently, evolutionists must recognize that the theory supports such racists thoughts that one group of human beings is superior to others. Since she obviously does not support the theory of evolution, she can discard these ideas without compromising herself intellectually. On the other hand, I don't think you guys have defended your position very wellunless you think calling ScoutParent a racist is an intelligent rebuttal.

 

And Firstpuck, you last statement - we are all brothers and we must work together regardless of our differences to make the world a better place. - not only qualifies as preaching to the choir, but appears to be quite condescending. If you haven't figured out where ScoutParent is coming from yet, then you haven't been reading her posts.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[firstpusk]

ScoutParent,

 

First and foremost I did not call you or anyone else racist. I did indicate that talking about superiority between the races and trying to use science to support it is racist. Eugenics, the Nazis, the holocaust, forced sterilization are all examples of the misuse, no, abuse of science to support personal prejudices. You seem to imply that anyone who accepts evolution supports such ideas. You could not be more wrong. Hitler and his henchmen also used religious arguments against the Jews to appeal to prejudices of German Catholics and Lutherans. Does that mean all Catholics and Lutherans agree with him?

 

I will only address one of your examples. The desecration of the remains of these aboriginal peoples is a shameful mark on the history of Australia and the western world. The display of these victims started long before Darwin published any of his ideas. The specific cases I could find of beheading occurred in the late 1700's and early 1800's. These people were killed not to document evolution but becase they got in the way of a colonial power.

 

I asked you a question, twice. You have not responded. I asked for only one viable scientific theory that can be considered an alternative to evolution. Instead, you have implied that those that accept evolution support a list of evils. This is utter foolishness. Are racism and cruelty new to the world since 1859? The ideas of Eugenics have been refuted by both science and people of conscience.

 

I addressed you initial question of superiority of the races with disdain for two reasons. First, it is a mean spirited misrepresentation of science and how it works, an argument with lots of heat and no light. Secondly, it doesn't have anything to do with whether evolution is a viable scientific theory that explains the world in which we find ourselves. When you posed the question, I was pretty sure what path you would walk down. You disappointed me as I expected you would. Now, can you give me that viable scientific theory that explains the world in which we find ourselves and the diversity of life on it?

[firstpusk]

Rooster,

 

Never called her a racist. I would say however, that the notion of racial superiority is racist. The question she asked was at best insensitive. I wasn't impressed with her line of reasoning or yours. Accepting evolution does not mean you agree with everyone who has ever abused the theory for their own evil ends. And it certainly doesn't address whether or not it is true.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Firstpusk, Merlyn, and LV,

 

Either you guys don't get it, or you're playing dumb just to get a rise out of ScoutParent. She's not defending racists' theories. She's suggesting, and quite frankly I think she's very astute in her observation, that if you accept evolution, then you have to apply it to all creatures including human beings.

 

*I* certainly have been; when asked which species or subspecies of human is superior, I pointed out that humans are all the SAME species (homo sapiens) and subspecies (homo sapiens sapiens), so the question doesn't make sense.

 

If people are going to USE scientific terms like "species", I'm going to insist that it be used CORRECTLY. All humans ARE classified as the same species and subspecies - if you don't like it, that isn't my problem.

[littlebillie]

"evolutionists must recognize that the theory supports such racists thoughts that one group of human beings is superior to others...:

 

see, the problem is that an true evolutionist and scientist (and NOT some racist fraud masquerading as such)would NOT use the word superior. (s)he might say differently adapted, better adapted, or more suited to one particular environment, but this is NOT superiority. evolution does not deal in the superior or the inferior, but to the more or less adapted to (I'll say it again) ONE PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT. Since a Sherpa can live on the mountain and at altitude better than I, does that make him superior? YES, if that's your criteria, and the thing YOU choose to measure; the evolutionist would simply say that the Sherpa is better adapted to that environment.

 

Crikey, folks, don't we all spend time telling our children that everyone has something different they're better at, and that it doesn't mean you're bad or stupid or a geek if your skill ain't the mainstream, it just means we're all different? ("That's just the way God made me" - Peggy Hill and/or Randy Travis).

 

If the point has been that evolution supports racism, then I missed it because it just is not so. Evolution recognizes that some traits are better adapted to certain environments, and if those environments maintain long enough, then those traits will become more and more frequently found in that particular population.

 

If the Andes suddenly flattened, and the mountain folk had to start competition with the population already in the rain forest... oh, you get the point.

 

maybe this is the key - "better adapted" DOES NOT MEAN "superior". it isn't - and cannot be - used that way. see, the genes that allow that better adaptation can be shared, and in many cases are recessively present when a population is suddenly confronted with a need to adapt to a new situation.

 

so I suppose that could mean that we're ALL superior, but then that totally invalidates the use of the word anyway.

 

WE ARE ALL FAMILY. We are all better at different things. and the true world community MUST begin as a community of children, because we adults have done way too much to drive wedges between ourselves...

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Jesus loves the little children,

All the children of the world.

Red and yellow, black and white,

All are precious in His sight,

Jesus loves the little children of the world.

[NJCubScouter]

Hmm, OGE, you must indeed be "Old" to remember that song. (As am I.) Amazing to think that the same guy who did that song had his other big hit with "The Streak." (Don't look, Ethel!)

[NJCubScouter]

ScoutParent says:

 

In the name of preserving the myth of evolution, people have committed huge atrocities against each other such as the 10,000+ australian aboriginals that were beheaded so they could be displayed as "living fossils" in museums in this country and throughtout the world; such as 6 million Jews being killed in an effort to bring about "a master race",

 

I'll leave aside the part about the aboriginals since I know little about it, but I do know something about the 6 million Jews (and millions of others) murdered in the Holocaust. ScoutParent, I find your statement to be absurd and highly offensive. My great-grandparents, uncles and aunts were not killed "in the name of preserving the myth of evolution." They were killed because the Nazis wanted them dead. Obviously the Nazis were involved in eugenics, genetic experimentation and wanted to create a "master race," but I do not see what those things have to do with "evolution" -- nor were the deaths of my relatives necessary to bring about these evil plans.

 

I am not even sure what argument you are making. Are you saying that things like "selective breeding" are some sort of experiment to prove the theory of evolution? I don't see how this is so, but if it is, you lose the argument about evolution right there. Unfortunately, selective breeding does "work," in humans as with all other animals. If you took a group of 50 men measuring 6"5" or more, and an equal number of women of 5'11" or more, sent them to an isolated island somewhere (after they all chose partners of the other gender group and married, of course), where there were adequate resources for survival and good health, and came back (say) five generations later, I am pretty sure the average height of the resulting population would be greater than the average in the society in which they originated. It would be wrong, of course. But our new "tall civilization" has not "evolved," they are still human.

 

I personally don't care much who believes in evolution, which is why I have mostly stayed out of this. You can disbelieve in gravity too, if it makes you happy. Just keep your religious teachings out of my public schools.

[ScoutParent]

FirstPusk writes:

 

"Eugenics, the Nazis, the holocaust, forced sterilization are all examples of the misuse, no, abuse of science to support personal prejudices. You seem to imply that anyone who accepts evolution supports such ideas. You could not be more wrong."

 

Scientists, lawmakers, philosophers are all debating the ethical use of scientific developments and equating gene therapy and gene enhancement with eugenics. Artifically inducing human evolution is another hot topic.

 

[ScoutParent]

I'll leave aside the part about the aboriginals since I know little about it, but I do know something about the 6 million Jews (and millions of others) murdered in the Holocaust. ScoutParent, I find your statement to be absurd and highly offensive. My great-grandparents, uncles and aunts were not killed "in the name of preserving the myth of evolution." They were killed because the Nazis wanted them dead. Obviously the Nazis were involved in eugenics, genetic experimentation and wanted to create a "master race," but I do not see what those things have to do with "evolution" -- nor were the deaths of my relatives necessary to bring about these evil plans.

 

 

NJ, I am very sorry to hear that you lost relatives in the holocaust. I really don't know why you find my statement absurd or offensive. Of course it had a great deal to do with evolution and with creating a "master race". Evil begets evil is the point I am making, of course. It's not just my religious beliefs, it's the beliefs of millions of people worldwide. I would ask the same courtesy in keeping your religious beliefs out of the public school systems. And if you kept the individuals in your selective breeding experiment there long enough would they become a different entity entirely? I think not they would still just be taller humans. I never said I didn't agree that one can inherit certain traits but the fact is I believe God put the information in the first humans and it is simply recombined time and time again.

[littlebillie]

"In the name of preserving the myth of evolution, people have committed huge atrocities..."

 

well, if you swap out 'superiority' for 'evolution' in that excerpt, it's probably true.

 

otherwise, PLEASE explain how mass murder, genocide, progroms, crusades, inquisitions, etc., help preserve the so-called 'myth of evolution', or preserve evolution at all! EVOLUTION DOES NOT TALK ABOUT SUPERIORITY, and EVOLUTION DOES NOT CONDONE MASS MURDER. it has nothing to do with this, and no amount of errored argument will change that!

 

[littlebillie]

...in fact, ya know what? Using Hitler to prove that evolution's 'wrong' would be like using the Spanish Inquisition to prove that Christianity's 'wrong'.

 

Neither is invalidated by the acts of madmen or fanatics... are they?

[ScoutParent]

"Sir Arthur Keith was one of Great Britains leading evolutionary anthropologists in the mid-1900s. In one of his popular books he conceded:

 

 

The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution (1947, p. 230)."

 

Not just my idea; commonly known and used to be taught in public schools. Of course if I were a transhumanist or eguenicist; I would want to dumb down the school system and not teach this too.

 

[littlebillie]

" is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution"

 

Trying to make Germany "conform" to evolution does not affect, alter or redefine scientific evolution at all. In other words, so what? Basically, however misguided, this was culling - getting rid of the undesirables. Dog breeders do this when they move out the less desirable puppies with the caveat that the dog's new family won't try to breed the dog - really the same end result, a LOT kinder and more humanitarian, and guess what? - the dog is STILL the same species.

 

Further, "evolutuionist" used in this regard almost certainly refers to the school of political thought that nations and societies can and do change through a series of phases. Not the same kind of evolution we've been discussing up to now, and generally called Social Darwinism. Since Hitler held Christian beliefs, one can easily come to the conclusion that he was using 'science' to give vent to his prejudices.

 

Now, I say "almost certainly" because it is unlikely that I will have a chance to ever confrim my interpretation with Arthur Keith, but since Hitler WAS known to be a Social Darwinist and not to be a scientist, I feel fairly secure in my interpretation.

 

So really, I supppose this is more an embarrassment for the poli-sci majors than the bio-texts, and they're used to handing this stuff already!

 

Now, the Spanish Inquisition was not held for any reason of Evolution - what can we say about the institutions and personages that sponsored IT?