Evolution

Have you really? Here's a word of advice for the future. Don't predict anything of this nature again, otherwise you'll likely come unstuck again. If & when a person makes the foreseen statement, then by all means correct the issue... with your apparent charm. Otherwise you’re left holding the candle.

Have you heard of the term propaganda? I believe history tells us that the above character used it quite a bit!

One could easily find YouTube videos of old Nazi films on this very issue i.e. building up an Aryan ‘master-race’ or super-breed of humanity... with evolution & natural selection references.

Professor Richard Weikart, professor of modern European history at California State University, Stanislaus, has thoroughly documented the Darwinian roots of many aspects of the Nazi terror in his book "From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, & Racism in Germany".

Eugenics was coined by Sir Francis Galton in 1883. Sir Francis Galton systematized these ideas & practices according to new knowledge about the evolution of man & animals provided by the theory of his cousin Charles Darwin during the 1860s and 1870s. After reading Darwin's Origin of Species, Galton built upon Darwin's ideas, whereby the mechanisms of natural selection were potentially thwarted by human civilization. He reasoned that, since many human societies sought to protect the underprivileged and weak, those societies were at odds with the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest; & only by changing these social policies could society be saved from a "reversion towards mediocrity," a phrase he first coined in statistics and which later changed to the now common "regression towards the mean". (above taken from the Eugenics Wiki link).

Hang on for a minute... I was providing you with an avenue to disassociate yourself from your "Hitler was creationist" nonsense by stating that you could have got your wires crossed with vegetarianism (which he was)... & you then make the above statement :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: !

Now for the 2nd or 3rd time now... can we leave the Hitler/Nazi topic alone? I will not respond on this issue any more.

See above. Bring the issue up Sir Francis Galton (& many others), if you don't like his intentions/definitions of the term... or with Wikipedia.

Charming acronym in there Mark.

My definitions of evolution have been made or alluded to on several occasions on this thread. I'm sure you have read them & haven't had an issue in the past. However, try looking in posts... 80, 82, 109.

I don't believe you have told us you definition of evolution yet? Please do.

No it isn't! ...

 

This is not valid evidence against the theory of evolution. Still it is clear to why you keep bringing this up.

 

…and here you go….

Did you proofread this post before you submitted, the ‘prediction’ has been vindicated!
You keep shooting yourself in the foot. Another wacko, I had never heard of him and after reading the wikpedia entry on him I know why, you better read it

From that crazy creationist who-know-who, and who cares who said it, as I posted already, now again, just because you use ‘genetics’ doesn’t mean genetics are responsible for the act, see very relevant analogy I posted before.

Love the phrase, “..built upon Darwin’s ideas..”
that is not evolution, cant you comprehend something so obvious!
Don’t blame the theory of evolution for when someone else, no matter how closely related, manipulates it for their own use/abuse.
That’s why I have asked you for your ‘definition’

I googled and the first entry, the wikipedia entry, will do for now, “Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.[1] This change results from interactions between processes that introduce variation into a population, and other processes that remove it. As a result, variants with particular traits become more, or less, common”…. natural selection, genetic drift, common descent

You’re a gentleman, thankyou, but it isn’t and I didn’t

good, I’m sick of you going on about him!

Matt I’m using the term “link” as in ‘associate’, “Anything closely or usually connected with another”, does that help

.aargh you’re familiar with it, yes no stoic me

 

Because Mark keeps brining the issue up. Frankly, it is only a minor side issue. Which is now starting to get quite boring & futile.

Maybe zimmy, I should leave certain questions alone. I prefer not to major on minors anyway. There are far more interesting issues to talk about on this topic (i.e. the science & research) than to nitpick & harp on about word definitions & associations.

Funny... & there's me thinking this is what you were doing .

I've already read it. Do you always call people who go against your world view "wacko". A bit disrespectful. Professor Weikart has earned his stripes.

What's his crime anyway? Yes, he has his critics... don't all academics. We're not going to major on this are we?

Of cause it's not evolution... after all... we'll all still holding our breaths waiting for this to actually present itself. Its natural selection basically... at the hand of man to man (where could it stop?)... based on evolutionary ideals i.e. survival of the fittest, "extinction of the weakest", or potentially wherever one sets the line as to what is & is not acceptable for our species.

I'm finished with this topic now also. There is only so far you can go when there are conflicting viewpoints on the comprehension & use of a term... particularly one that debases human value.

That's why I provided the following links in my previous post...

Yep, you'll going to have to work for it. Not as easy as goggling a wiki link. Seek & thoust shall find . I’ve already provided the answer; It's really not that hard.

Thank you for your Google search. I personally thought you would have easily typed out a sentence or two on something you appear to be interested in & live by. I must say, my definition is a bit more detailed than that. Anyhow, Wikipedia provides a reasonably good general view of things. Oh, hang on; I'm not so sure... there is the Eugenics Wiki page. Oh, who cares.

I'm at least glad this thread has at least covered all the stated points in the Wiki evolution definition.

That's a bit childish. The posts are here for all to see; on who was the first to bring the character in question into the conversation & who also reignites the issue.


It would seem now, based on the attitude & content of the last few posts that this discussion has come to the end of usefulness. Based on the following...

I am sure we have got better things to do than rehash the same old stuff over & over. I'm somewhat confident that we can both at least agree on this.

 

You're right Matt neither of us are making sense to the other, all the best, mark

 

Rethinking the evolution of the human foot: insights from experimental research.
Holowka NB, Lieberman DE
J Exp Biol. 2018 Sep 6;221(Pt 17).