Evidence For And Against Evolution

[YoursTrue]

I would go further and say that it solves *none* of the problems.

It does. It really does. Let's go back to Haeckel for a moment. He was not alone in thinking about racial superiority, one race over or below another race. May I ask how you feel about that, especially in the line of evolution?

 

[Polymath257]

Let's go back to the beginning. (A unicell.) Was it simple, or complex? And -- how do you know what it looked like? (Two questions...)

I never said that I did. But what we know is that all life we have seen is cellular. We know that cell-like structures form naturally from the types of lipids that are made naturally.

My guess is that the first life was cellular, but with a rather porous membrane to allow sugars and other necessary chemicals in.

The terms 'simple' and 'complex' are relative ones, not absolute ones. Life is certainly more complex than a water molecule. But intelligent life is more complex than single celled life.

One big issue at this point is definitional. What, precisely do you mean when you say something is alive? I tend to require at least genetics, metabolism, reproduction, growth, and internally stable environment.

 

[Polymath257]

It does. It really does. Let's go back to Haeckel for a moment. He was not alone in thinking about racial superiority, one race over or below another race. May I ask how you feel about that, especially in the line of evolution?

I think it is despicable twisting of science to promote religious and ideological goals.

Evolution, the science, has nothing to say about this.

And how does introducing an unknowable intelligence, able to create life by a process we cannot understand, with properties we cannot understand, and with goals we cannot understand helpful at all in understanding anything?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what? That's an interesting question. What do you believe? Are all the "races" equally human? Or do you believe as Haeckel did, namely that Jews and Africans were at the bottom of that racial evolution type thing? The following information helps.
"The term eugenics, which literally means “well born,” was coined in England by Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin, but many of the most prominent eugenicists were Americans. American eugenicists advocated restrictions on marriage and immigration in order to prevent races from mixing. They also lobbied for laws that would permit sterilizing the “socially unfit.” These American laws, passed in the 1920s, became models for similar laws enacted in Germany a decade later." Thank you very much, SZ, for helping.
Breeding Society’s "Fittest"

This is incredible. I have answered this question at least twice for you as have others. Clearly the shortcomings of your education is not the fault of your teachers.

 

[YoursTrue]

I never said that I did. But what we know is that all life we have seen is cellular. We know that cell-like structures form naturally from the types of lipids that are made naturally.

My guess is that the first life was cellular, but with a rather porous membrane to allow sugars and other necessary chemicals in.

The terms 'simple' and 'complex' are relative ones, not absolute ones. Life is certainly more complex than a water molecule. But intelligent life is more complex than single celled life.

One big issue at this point is definitional. What, precisely do you mean when you say something is alive? I tend to require at least genetics, metabolism, reproduction, growth, and internally stable environment.

I was wondering about that myself for several reasons. What does it mean to have life, or be alive? On the other hand for the sake of this discussion, we are talking about living forms coming from one or more than one astonishing first living cell or cells, aren't we? I say astonished because really, no one knows how it appeared, or really what it looked like.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is incredible. I have answered this question at least twice for you as have others. Clearly the shortcomings of your education is not the fault of your teachers.

Lol if you have I did not see it. I don't have time to read everything. Sorry. So quick question...are all the races equal, or are some races superior in intelligence than others, as Haeckel taught? Really it's a yes or no answer. No big explanation needed.

 

[YoursTrue]

As opposed to a much more complex being getting it going? yes, at some point life had to get itself going. I don't know what that life was like, but the evidence points to it happening on Earth and that it was single celled. There is still a lot of debate about that, though.

What is NOT a point of debate any longer is that species change over time (evolution).

What I find interesting is that the Bible says God put life or initiated it (my terminology) in Adam and Eve. I'll get back to this.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, so what?

That is your answer methinks. It's so what if Haeckel believed in the superiority of one race genetically per evolutionary movement over another. So... what.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol if you have I did not see it. I don't have time to read everything. Sorry. So quick question...are all the races equal, or are some races superior in intelligence than others, as Haeckel taught? Really it's a yes or no answer. No big explanation needed.

I saw it. That question was answered. When you keep asking the same questions you can't expect people to keep giving you the same answers Sooner or later they will get tired of that nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol if you have I did not see it. I don't have time to read everything. Sorry. So quick question...are all the races equal, or are some races superior in intelligence than others, as Haeckel taught? Really it's a yes or no answer. No big explanation needed.

I saw it. That question was answered. When you keep asking the same questions you can't expect people to keep giving you the same answers Sooner or later they will get tired of that nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is your answer methinks. It's so what if Haeckel believed in the superiority of one race genetically per evolutionary movement over another. So... what.

You screwed up again. And you don't know why.

If you are serious you should apologize for repeatedly asking the same questions.

 

[YoursTrue]

You screwed up again. And you don't know why.

If you are serious you should apologize for repeatedly asking the same questions.

So if I missed it, it shouldn't be a big problem for you to answer. And thanks to you again, I've been reading more about the genetics of race, or perhaps, no different "races," as had been thought by scientists until fairly recently. Many, many people believe in the superiority of one race over another. I didn't see your answer. Except of course, 'so what' (if people think that)? Apparently, geneticists do now think it's a big issue. Very, very interesting. Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

I saw it. That question was answered. When you keep asking the same questions you can't expect people to keep giving you the same answers Sooner or later they will get tired of that nonsense.

Maybe -- and maybe not. But right now I'm researching and learning.
Also about eugenics and, of course, Haeckel's ideas of racial superiority, one over another. Of course, there's more who believed that.

 

[YoursTrue]

That article is about Social Darwinism. It has very little to do with evolution. And I already told you that Haeckel was wrong about those beliefs. Why bring it up? It does not help you in your argument against evolution.

I think I found it. I also think you answered only that once, but -- then again -- I can be wrong. You have been wonderful to talk to, thanks again.
Of COURSE it had to do with his beliefs and others' beliefs about evolution. His contemporaries (including Darwin) as well. Scientists today, I am learning, are looking into the genetics of what has been called different races, coming to terms with the fact that humans of a lineage are or are not genetically superior to another line by virtue of passing on of intellectual genes.

 

[YoursTrue]

I saw it. That question was answered. When you keep asking the same questions you can't expect people to keep giving you the same answers Sooner or later they will get tired of that nonsense.

Surely many scientists got tired about the racial superiority thing that Haeckel taught and which people can believe today, that by genetics they say. Scientists coming to terms now with that also.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think it is despicable twisting of science to promote religious and ideological goals.

Evolution, the science, has nothing to say about this.

And how does introducing an unknowable intelligence, able to create life by a process we cannot understand, with properties we cannot understand, and with goals we cannot understand helpful at all in understanding anything?

Now it is being discussed moreso by scientists. Earlier it was not, and superiority of one race over another was considered de rigeur. Did scientists at the time believe it? Yes, there is no doubt they did. Eugenics and suggestions of mandatory sterilizations as well as forbiddance of mixed marriages in certain parts of the U.S. tells us yes, it was connected to Haeckel's teachings as well as Darwin's. Related obviously without question to the idea of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So if I missed it, it shouldn't be a big problem for you to answer. And thanks to you again, I've been reading more about the genetics of race, or perhaps, no different "races," as had been thought by scientists until fairly recently. Many, many people believe in the superiority of one race over another. I didn't see your answer. Except of course, 'so what' (if people think that)? Apparently, geneticists do now think it's a big issue. Very, very interesting. Thanks.

And why don't geneticists think that it is a big issue?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe -- and maybe not. But right now I'm researching and learning.
Also about eugenics and, of course, Haeckel's ideas of racial superiority, one over another. Of course, there's more who believed that.

Sometimes it looks as if you are trying not to learn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Surely many scientists got tired about the racial superiority thing that Haeckel taught and which people can believe today, that by genetics they say. Scientists coming to terms now with that also.

"Coming to terms"?

And you know what group traditionally believed in racial superiority more than any other? Here is a hint, it is in their religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now it is being discussed moreso by scientists. Earlier it was not, and superiority of one race over another was considered de rigeur. Did scientists at the time believe it? Yes, there is no doubt they did. Eugenics and suggestions of mandatory sterilizations as well as forbiddance of mixed marriages in certain parts of the U.S. tells us yes, it was connected to Haeckel's teachings as well as Darwin's. Related obviously without question to the idea of evolution.

I see that you are still confused.