Happy Loving Day

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

How can it be so? According to Actor it is impossible for anything to be trusted as a fact. Also, all knowledge is uncertain.

Agreed.
Actor has really walked off a pier with that comment.
Toronto Raptors beat the Golden State Warriors for the NBA title on Thursday. Fact!

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Agreed.
Actor has really walked off a pier with that comment.
Toronto Raptors beat the Golden State Warriors for the NBA title on Thursday. Fact!

The degree of uncertainty of that fact is extremely low, however, there remains an epsilon greater than zero possibility that the Raptors' victory is a hoax perpetrated by persons unknown for reasons unknown.

The concept that all knowledge is uncertain goes back to ancient times and is the original meaning of the word agnosticism.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Umbrella in the colloquial sense of coverage. The man's words speak for themselves. I haven't read all his peers, however, hcap posted racism was the prevailing view at the time, so I will take his word that racism was rampant in the scientific community.

The fact is there is scientific racism. Racism supported through "empirical" evidence championed by Darwin and his son.

I remember my visits, during my youth, to the Field Museum of Natural History, in Chicago, and the evolution exhibit comparing Caucasian, negroid and ape skulls and other so-called measurable.

And racism is baked into his theory. I look at this process as now going on with the races of man; the less intellectual races being exterminated. Darwin

Amazing how many people want to defend this racist.

All this boils down to an ad hominem argument. The present status of the theory does not depend of the attitudes of persons who have been dead for over 100 years. I suggest you read Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne.

I also suggest you take this entire argument to the Religion thread where it belongs.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Actor

The degree of uncertainty of that fact is extremely low, however, there remains an epsilon greater than zero possibility that the Raptors' victory is a hoax perpetrated by persons unknown for reasons unknown.

The concept that all knowledge is uncertain goes back to ancient times and is the original meaning of the word agnosticism.

Whatever way the Raptors won, by hook, or crook, or skill, is a Fact!
100% certainty!
If you orbit much farther out, Houston won't be able to bring you back.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

All this boils down to an ad hominem argument. The present status of the theory does not depend of the attitudes of persons who have been dead for over 100 years. I suggest you read Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne.

I also suggest you take this entire argument to the Religion thread where it belongs.

My argument is grounded in fact. It is a fact some people are racist. Darwin's own words prove his racism, i.e. "lesser races".

Since you admittedly do not know what a fact is any argument to you is ad hominem.

Maybe you should read the peer review paper I posted in this thread.

We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the “creative factor” in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems.
https://link.springer.com/article/10...752-011-0007-1

Also, it is my understanding Darwin's theory is not supported by the fossil record.

FYI this is not a discussion of religion, even though hcap tried to bring religion into the fray.

It is a discussion of a theory steeped in racism, which is flawed.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

I also suggest you take this entire argument to the Religion thread where it belongs.

Upon further reflection, maybe you are correct. Discussions about science do belong in the religion thread.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Darwin's own words from a letter To Charles Lyell.

.....I suppose that you do not doubt that the intellectual powers are as important for the welfare of each being, as corporeal structure: if so, I can see no difficulty in the most intellectual individuals of a species being continually selected; & the intellect of the new species thus improved, aided probably by effects of inherited mental exercise. I look at this process as now going on with the races of man; the less intellectual races being exterminated. But there is not space to discuss this point............
[emphasis added] https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/lett...-LETT-2503.xml

...Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

Are not the less intellectual races part of the weaker and inferior members of society who should be refrained from marriage with the superior?

Is it not the same less intellectual races, which need our sympathy and care?

Do you still want to defend this racist as being legitimate science?

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

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I'm curious why the thumbs up, in a world where a value judgment like Loving vs. Virginia isn't "justice", but merely "difference".

I disagree.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Whatever way the Raptors won, by hook, or crook, or skill, is a Fact!
100% certainty!

How do you know that?

[woodtoo]

Originally Posted by Actor

How do you know that?

How do you not know that is a better question. I will never ever argue in your world.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

My argument is grounded in fact. It is a fact some people are racist. Darwin's own words prove his racism, i.e. "lesser races".

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.

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Maybe you should read the peer review paper I posted in this thread.

We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the “creative factor” in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems.
https://link.springer.com/article/10...752-011-0007-1

"Page unavailable."

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Also, it is my understanding Darwin's theory is not supported by the fossil record.

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

[Actor]

Originally Posted by woodtoo

How do you not know that is a better question.

Why?

[woodtoo]

Why not?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Also, it is my understanding Darwin's theory is not supported by the fossil record.

YouTube

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

FYI this is not a discussion of religion, ...

Yeah, right.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by woodtoo

Why not?

3:14 a.m. You can't sleep either, huh?