Happy Loving Day

[Actor]

Originally Posted by TJDave

Shows what you get when trying to share a bit of good news with this crowd.

I'd think twice before doing that again.

Right.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Are you saying science cannot differentiate between Races and the classifications used by anthropologists are not scientific?

https://www.thoughtco.com/scientific...f-race-2834954

[Actor]

Originally Posted by woodtoo

How do you not know that is a better question.

Quantum theory says that absolutely everything is uncertain. You have to build up from the quantum level to understand the macro level. Therefore everything we know has an uncertainty. This uncertainty may be so small that it can be ignored, nevertheless it is there.

By the way, I did not say I did not know. Not knowing is also uncertain.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

https://www.thoughtco.com/scientific...f-race-2834954

Now you are citing a journalist's opinion piece as proof of your claim. Where is the peer review in a scientific journal?

Nadra Kareem Nittle

Experienced journalist and essayist covering race, education, fashion, business, health, and religion

Has written for The Atlantic.com, The New York Times and the Robert C. Maynard Institute for Journalism Education

Has been cited in a number of books covering topics ranging from race issues to affirmative action


The Maynard Institute is a entity with an agenda

In its second year of the Maynard 200 Fellowship, the Robert C. Maynard Institute for Journalism Education announced today its 2019 roster of 23 fellows as the program continues its mission of training leaders, media entrepreneurs and storytellers from across the country.

Maynard 200 aims to reinvigorate the diversity pipeline in U.S. media by training 200 journalists of color in the next five years.

“We are proud to welcome a dynamic second cohort of fellows from across the country,” said Evelyn Hsu, the institute’s co-executive director. “Their work aligns with the institute’s vision of making newsrooms look more like America.”

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

Darwin's natural selection is not a value judgemental theory. Just a scientific approach that observes the survival ability of one group of genes overt others. It was first observed in lower plants and animals. Darwinian evolution as applied to humans does not imply it's inhuman application of eugenics. It simply enhances our understanding of how man has evolved. Yes intelligence is a vital survival skill, and should be studied.

But you quoting.."I look at this process as now going on with the races of man; the less intellectual races being exterminated". was not Darwin recommindibg the less intelligent races should be exterminated. Rather Darwin commenting on the 19th century "white man's burden" doing just that, but not saying the bigotry of European assumed "white man's superiority" was justified

The key is now going on

Why interject arguments, I never stated? I never stated Darwin said that the lesser races should be exterminated. However, according to his theory that would be ultimate end, the extinction of lesser by the greater. Factually, though, that is Darwin's position, as he believed that the superior Europeans will exterminate the lesser races.

Oops, another factual failure of Darwin's theory as the superior race did not exterminate the lesser race.

Also, I gave you the definition of racist. Belief and assertion that there are "lesser races" is prima facia racism.

Regarding his work, yes it does assume the superiority of one race over another race. Darwin states you should not mix the inferior with the superior. Humans are very different than plants and feral animals, when it comes to generating life. Plants and feral animals do not make conscious choices and yes they are governed by nature and its events/instincts.

Absolutely, Darwin's theory is a valued based judgment as it applies to domesticated breeding stock. You breed animals to obtain what characteristics you value.

According to Darwin, you do not mix inferior breeding stock with superior stock, because you weaken the superior stock. Darwin argues the same for humans regarding marriage. Hmmm sounds very much like eugenics, doesn't it?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txzOIGulUIQ

Yeah, right.

Straw-man argument.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Why interject arguments, I never stated? I never stated Darwin said that the lesser races should be exterminated. However, according to his theory that would be ultimate end, the extinction of lesser by the greater. Factually, though, that is Darwin's position, as he believed that the superior Europeans will exterminate the lesser races.

You highlighted a sentence using Darwn's words taken out of context implying he supported extermination of inferior peoples. Whereas he was commenting on the favored views of colonialism and imperialism of his times and religious types who used their white man's burden to justify practices like slavery.

Oops, another factual failure of Darwin's theory as the superior race did not exterminate the lesser race.

As I said the colonialism of the times justified controlling and yes...exterminate the lesser race without any use of Darwin's theories all by themselves, and misapplied Darwin as a further "scientific" justification.

Also, I gave you the definition of racist. Belief and assertion that there are "lesser races" is prima facia racism.

Regarding his work, yes it does assume the superiority of one race over another race. Darwin states you should not mix the inferior with the superior. Humans are very different than plants and feral animals, when it comes to generating life. Plants and feral animals do not make conscious choices and yes they are governed by nature and its events/instincts.

You are confusing "Social Darwinism" for Darwin.

Social Darwinism is a name given to various theories of society which emerged in the United Kingdom, North America, and Western Europe in the 1870s, claiming to apply biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to sociology and politics.[1][2] Social Darwinists argue that the strong should see their wealth and power increase while the weak should see their wealth and power decrease.

.....As a scientific concept, broadly declined in popularity following World War I and was largely discredited by the end of World War II, partially due to its association with Nazism and partially due to a growing scientific consensus that it was scientifically groundless.[6][7] Later theories that were categorised as social Darwinism were generally described as such as a critique by their opponents; their proponents did not identify themselves by such a label.[8][7].

Absolutely, Darwin's theory is a valued based judgment as it applies to domesticated breeding stock. You breed animals to obtain what characteristics you value.

Once again Dartwin's theories did not claim any such thing. It was the misapplication of his theories as eugenics and Social Darwinism which Hitler used.

According to Darwin, you do not mix inferior breeding stock with superior stock, because you weaken the superior stock. Darwin argues the same for humans regarding marriage. Hmmm sounds very much like eugenics,doesn't it?[/QUOTE]Your misunderstanding of Darwin does.

Creationists have often maintained that social Darwinism—leading to policies designed to reward the most competitive—is a logical consequence of "Darwinism" (the theory of natural selection in biology).[9] Biologists and historians have stated that this is a fallacy of appeal to nature, since the theory of natural selection is merely intended as a description of a biological phenomenon and should not be taken to imply that this phenomenon is good or that it ought to be used as a moral guide in human society.[10] While most scholars recognize some historical links between the popularisation of Darwin's theory and forms of social Darwinism, they also maintain that social Darwinism is not a necessary consequence of the principles of biological evolution.

[hcap]

Scholars debate the extent to which the various social Darwinist ideologies reflect Charles Darwin's own views on human social and economic issues. His writings have passages that can be interpreted as opposing aggressive individualism, while other passages appear to promote it.[11] Darwin's early evolutionary views and his opposition to slavery ran counter to many of the claims that social Darwinists would eventually make about the mental capabilities of the poor and colonial indigenes.[12] After the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859, one strand of Darwins' followers, led by Sir John Lubbock, argued that natural selection ceased to have any

....Darwin, unlike Hobbes, believed that this struggle for natural resources allowed individuals with certain physical and mental traits to succeed more frequently than others, and that these traits accumulated in the population over time, which under certain conditions could lead to the descendants being so different that they would be defined as a new species.

However, Darwin felt that "social instincts" such as "sympathy" and "moral sentiments" also evolved through natural selection, and that these resulted in the strengthening of societies in which they occurred, so much so that he wrote about it in Descent of Man:

The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable—namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well, or nearly as well developed, as in man. For, firstly, the social instincts lead an animal to take pleasure in the society of its fellows, to feel a certain amount of sympathy with them, and to perform various services for them.[34]

[hcap]

Nazism, Eugenics, Fascism, Imperialism

Social Darwinism was predominantly found in laissez-faire societies where the prevailing view was that of an individualist order to society. As such, social Darwinism supposed that human progress would generally favor the most individualistic races, which were those perceived as stronger. A different form of social Darwinism was part of the ideological foundations of Nazism and other fascist movements. This form did not envision survival of the fittest within an individualist order of society, but rather advocated a type of racial and national struggle where the state directed human breeding through eugenics.[66] Names such as "Darwinian collectivism" or "Reform Darwinism" have been suggested to describe these views, in order to differentiate them from the individualist type of social Darwinism.[5]

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Actor

Quantum theory says that absolutely everything is uncertain. You have to build up from the quantum level to understand the macro level. Therefore everything we know has an uncertainty. This uncertainty may be so small that it can be ignored, nevertheless it is there.

Just because Quantum theory says something doesn't mean that it is absolutely true and must be believed blindly.
There is 100 % certainty and 0 % uncertainty about the outcome of the Raptors game the other night. No uncertainty about that.
Perhaps you've inadvertently identified a flaw in Quantum theory and haven't realized it yet. If so, good on you.

By the way, if science can't tell the difference between Elvis Presley and Sammy Davis Jr how will we ever identify differences between friendly and unfriendly aliens (ETs) if we ever meet them.

[hcap]

One more thing....

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Charle...win_and_racism

Darwin and racism
Many anti-evolutionists from Darwin’s lifetime to this day have done all they can to project Darwin in as bad a light as possible. One of the most prominent lies about Darwin is labeling him and his theory as “racist”.

.....The Descent of Man may start out sounding like typical English thinking towards different races, but Darwin is merely repeating what he was told by others about different races, and the further one reads into the book, the more obvious an evolution in his thinking can be seen, as Darwin constantly criticizes those racist tendencies and begins to question the idea of multiple races: he says that the label “race” is inadequately defined and not of any actual value regarding human beings, who are not sufficiently distinct to be considered separate species.[9] While racists today try to claim that there is some kind of division between races (which there are none), Darwin said that our biased judgments against other people are superficial and erroneous, and that no matter how distinct other people may appear to European eyes, there is no consistent demarcation, because some Africans share traits in common with some Caucasians and the same is true of every other group.[10] He said that every race blends into every other race so smoothly that it is impossible to determine any real division. He even pointed out that noted experts in could not agree how many “races” there were or how to categorize them. Before Darwin was born, the scientist Carl Linnæus (creator of Linnaean taxonomy) categorized humans into 6 different “races,” but Darwin criticized that too. He pointed out that not even the best authorities on the subject could agree on the number of races there were, and that some of his colleagues had proposed as many as 63 races![11] However, this continuum view of biological variation extended to all organisms, and Darwin did not deny the utility of divisions.
“”Extinction has only separated groups; it has by no means created them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished from other groups, as all would blend together by steps as fine as those between the finest existing varieties, nevertheless a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Just because Quantum theory says something doesn't mean that it is absolutely true and must be believed blindly.
There is 100 % certainty and 0 % uncertainty about the outcome of the Raptors game the other night. No uncertainty about that.
Perhaps you've inadvertently identified a flaw in Quantum theory and haven't realized it yet. If so, good on you.

Thee preponderance of experimental evidence testing and verifying outcomes vastly supports quantum theory, as well as modern evolutionary theory. As well as anthropomorphic climate change, and the asymmetric progression of time forward.

Now if you had a "sports system" to pick winners..... we would have to see it work going forward. Outcomes already happened are as true in quantum theory are as true as the finished Raptors game.

So what?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

I don't care whether Darwin was or was not a racist. Evolution is not racist. Plenty of non-racist scientists, e,g. Richard Dawkins, have examined the evidence and concluded the theory is correct.

"Page unavailable."

Your understanding is incorrect. Where did you get that idea?

we already discussed Dawkins, remember. Peer review was not supportive of his so- called science.

Who told you the fossil record supported Darwin?

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by hcap

Thee preponderance of experimental evidence testing and verifying outcomes vastly supports quantum theory, as well as modern evolutionary theory. As well as anthropomorphic climate change, and the asymmetric progression of time forward.

Now if you had a "sports system" to pick winners..... we would have to see it work going forward. Outcomes already happened are as true in quantum theory are as true as the finished Raptors game.

So what?

"Your slip is showing."
Tossing in your bias re: anthropomorphic climate change and the arrow of time in a discussion of Quantum theory is a cute move.
The bottom line is this discussion stemmed from Actor's comments implying that there is always a degree of uncertainty. Quantum theory says that.
There is no uncertainty about the fact Toronto won the other night.
There are some things we can say with 100% certainty, whether Quantum theory agrees with that or not.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

One more thing....

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Charle...win_and_racism

Darwin and racism
Many anti-evolutionists from Darwin’s lifetime to this day have done all they can to project Darwin in as bad a light as possible. One of the most prominent lies about Darwin is labeling him and his theory as “racist”.

.....The Descent of Man may start out sounding like typical English thinking towards different races, but Darwin is merely repeating what he was told by others about different races, and the further one reads into the book, the more obvious an evolution in his thinking can be seen, as Darwin constantly criticizes those racist tendencies and begins to question the idea of multiple races: he says that the label “race” is inadequately defined and not of any actual value regarding human beings, who are not sufficiently distinct to be considered separate species.[9] While racists today try to claim that there is some kind of division between races (which there are none), Darwin said that our biased judgments against other people are superficial and erroneous, and that no matter how distinct other people may appear to European eyes, there is no consistent demarcation, because some Africans share traits in common with some Caucasians and the same is true of every other group.[10] He said that every race blends into every other race so smoothly that it is impossible to determine any real division. He even pointed out that noted experts in could not agree how many “races” there were or how to categorize them. Before Darwin was born, the scientist Carl Linnæus (creator of Linnaean taxonomy) categorized humans into 6 different “races,” but Darwin criticized that too. He pointed out that not even the best authorities on the subject could agree on the number of races there were, and that some of his colleagues had proposed as many as 63 races![11] However, this continuum view of biological variation extended to all organisms, and Darwin did not deny the utility of divisions.
“”Extinction has only separated groups; it has by no means created them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished from other groups, as all would blend together by steps as fine as those between the finest existing varieties, nevertheless a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.

You may have the last word regarding Darwin and his apologists.