|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 23, 2019 20:55:51 GMT
Origin of the Species? If you're refering to "Descent of Man", that still doesn't back up your narrative, quite the opposite:
Introducing chapter seven ("On the Races of Man"), Darwin wrote "It is not my intention here to describe the several so-called races of men; but to inquire what is the value of the differences between them under a classificatory point of view, and how they have originated."[15] In answering the question of whether the races should rank as varieties of the same species or count as different species, Darwin discussed arguments which could support the idea that human races were distinct species.[16][17] This included the geographical distribution of mammal groups which was correlated with the distribution of human races,[18] and the finding of Henry Denny that different species of lice affected different races differently.[19] Darwin then presented the stronger evidence that human races are all the same species, noting that when races mixed together, they intercrossed beyond the "usual test of specific distinctness"[20] and that characteristics identifying races were highly variable.[21] He put great weight on the point that races graduate into each other, writing "But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed",[22] and concluded that the stronger evidence was that they were not different species
The origin of species is not the full title. ‘On The Origin of Species By Way of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’ That still doesn't back up your argument, no where in "Origin of the Species" (or any of Darwins writings) is the idea of "survival of the fittest" used in regards to some races being more "evolved" than others. Darwin had some antiquated views sure, but again he still accepted all races were the same species which actually at the time was considered a radical idea amongst many.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Mar 23, 2019 21:08:06 GMT
The origin of species is not the full title. ‘On The Origin of Species By Way of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’ That still doesn't back up your argument, no where in "Origin of the Species" (or any of Darwins writings) is the idea of "survival of the fittest" used in regards to some races being more "evolved" than others. Darwin had some antiquated views sure, but again he still accepted all races were the same species which actually at the time was considered a radical idea amongst many. LOL Have you actually read ‘The Descent of Man’?
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 23, 2019 21:18:57 GMT
That still doesn't back up your argument, no where in "Origin of the Species" (or any of Darwins writings) is the idea of "survival of the fittest" used in regards to some races being more "evolved" than others. Darwin had some antiquated views sure, but again he still accepted all races were the same species which actually at the time was considered a radical idea amongst many. LOL Have you actually read ‘The Descent of Man’? I've read excerpts and even replied to you where he stated all races were part of the same species the book. Did you miss that part? You can go ahead and post some more of his antiquated views on European colonialism if you want, that doesn't really have anything to do with his actual scientific findings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Mar 23, 2019 21:35:01 GMT
LOL Have you actually read ‘The Descent of Man’? I've read excerpts and even replied to you where he stated all races were part of the same species the book. Did you miss that part? You can go ahead and post some more of his antiquated views on European colonialism if you want, that doesn't really have anything to do with his actual scientific findings. Just because he believed they were part of the same species does not mean he did not believe certain races are superior to others. How anybody can read the text of ‘The descent of Man’ and come away with the conclusion that it is anything other than undeniably racist is a mystery.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 23, 2019 21:42:47 GMT
I've read excerpts and even replied to you where he stated all races were part of the same species the book. Did you miss that part? You can go ahead and post some more of his antiquated views on European colonialism if you want, that doesn't really have anything to do with his actual scientific findings. Just because he believed they were part of the same species does not mean he did not believe certain races are superior to others. How anybody can read the text of ‘The descent of Man’ and come away with the conclusion that it is anything other than undeniably racist is a mystery. I don't deny he had outdated views, I've already admitted that. The point is Darwinism in itself doesn't actually support the idea of some races being more "evolved" than others, this has already been explained to you.
"How anybody can read the text of ‘The descent of Man’ and come away with the conclusion that it is anything other than undeniably racist is a mystery."
He was an english nobleman from the 18th century, it's rather absurd to judge him from todays standards. Again he was also an abolitionist and believed all races were the same species and even renounced his faith, those were actually considered radical, progressive views for the time. You know those crazy, far leftists you like to complain about? That's pretty much what Darwin was for his time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Mar 23, 2019 21:53:13 GMT
Just because he believed they were part of the same species does not mean he did not believe certain races are superior to others. How anybody can read the text of ‘The descent of Man’ and come away with the conclusion that it is anything other than undeniably racist is a mystery. I don't deny he had outdated views, I've already admitted that. The point is Darwinism in itself doesn't actually support the idea of some races being more "evolved" than others, this has already been explained to you.
"How anybody can read the text of ‘The descent of Man’ and come away with the conclusion that it is anything other than undeniably racist is a mystery."
He was an english nobleman from the 18th century, it's rather absurd to judge him from todays standards. Again he was also an abolitionist and believed all races were the same species and even renounced his faith, those were actually considered radical, progressive views for the time. You know those crazy, far leftists you like to complain about? That's pretty much what Darwin was for his time.
Darwin clearly believed certain races were further evolved than others and thus justified their domination of inferior ones. Exactly what Hitler also believed.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 23, 2019 21:59:14 GMT
I don't deny he had outdated views, I've already admitted that. The point is Darwinism in itself doesn't actually support the idea of some races being more "evolved" than others, this has already been explained to you.
"How anybody can read the text of ‘The descent of Man’ and come away with the conclusion that it is anything other than undeniably racist is a mystery."
He was an english nobleman from the 18th century, it's rather absurd to judge him from todays standards. Again he was also an abolitionist and believed all races were the same species and even renounced his faith, those were actually considered radical, progressive views for the time. You know those crazy, far leftists you like to complain about? That's pretty much what Darwin was for his time.
Darwin clearly believed certain races were further evolved than others and thus justified their domination of inferior ones. Exactly what Hitler also believed.
"Darwin clearly believed certain races were further evolved than others"
No he didn't you've yet to show one quote that actually supports that, I've shown several quotes that contradicts that.
"thus justified their domination of inferior ones"
He believed in dominating "inferior" races but was also an abolitionist? Uh yeah ok.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Mar 23, 2019 22:55:21 GMT
Darwin clearly believed certain races were further evolved than others and thus justified their domination of inferior ones. Exactly what Hitler also believed.
"Darwin clearly believed certain races were further evolved than others"
No he didn't you've yet to show one quote that actually supports that, I've shown several quotes that contradicts that.
"thus justified their domination of inferior ones"
He believed in dominating "inferior" races but was also an abolitionist? Uh yeah ok. I’ve already provided the quote. Here it is again. “The Western nations of Europe . . . now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilization. . . . The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world.” “Civilized races” will exterminate and replace “savage races” according to Darwin.
|
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Mar 24, 2019 1:20:12 GMT
Explain this:
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 24, 2019 1:52:35 GMT
"Darwin clearly believed certain races were further evolved than others"
No he didn't you've yet to show one quote that actually supports that, I've shown several quotes that contradicts that.
"thus justified their domination of inferior ones"
He believed in dominating "inferior" races but was also an abolitionist? Uh yeah ok. I’ve already provided the quote. Here it is again. “The Western nations of Europe . . . now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilization. . . . The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world.” “Civilized races” will exterminate and replace “savage races” according to Darwin. I've already addressed that, that's him lamenting on the inevitabilty of European expansion, not necessarily endorsing it. Besides that still doesn't have anything to with his evolutionary findings because again Darwin himself admitted other races aren't "less evolved". I don't know why you keep pushing Darwinism as some sort of racial hierachy theory when Darwin himself said things that completely contradict that. Don't get me wrong, he definetly had some ethnocentric views, but that was more on cultural reasons, not biological which is what you keep insisting but can't show me any actual proof.
|
|
