Charles Darwin vs. Abraham Lincoln, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times
Topic started on 15-2-2009 @ 01:30 PM by burntheships
Two men born on the same day, both controversial in their time: Abraham Lincoln is the patron saint of America, while Charles Darwin has become a figure perhaps even more controversial than he was 100 years ago.
www.news-gazette.com...

I am really curious to know what others think about this topic. In my mind, I see these two men standing in opposition to one another.

Since we all know that Darwin was wrong...

And Abraham Lincoln was right...

But consider this...great conspiracy that people were so desperate to grab onto Darwins observations and set them up on a pedastal to be turned into a faulty scientific theory used to bllind people from the truth!

Two men, two lives. One Creator!

[edit on 15-2-2009 by burntheships]


reply posted on 15-2-2009 @ 02:31 PM by burntheships
Ever since Darwin the tree has been the unifying principle for understanding the history of life on Earth. At its base is LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all living things, and out of LUCA grows a trunk, which splits again and again to create a vast, bifurcating tree. Each branch represents a single species; branching points are where one species becomes two. Most branches eventually come to a dead end as species go extinct, but some reach right to the top - these are living species. The tree is thus a record of how every species that ever lived is related to all others right back to the origin of life.



For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.


So what happened? In a nutshell, DNA. The discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 opened up new vistas for evolutionary biology. Here, at last, was the very stuff of inheritance into which was surely written the history of life, if only we knew how to decode it. Thus was born the field of molecular evolution, and as techniques became available to read DNA sequences and those of other biomolecules such as RNA and proteins, its pioneers came to believe that it would provide proof positive of Darwin's tree of life. The basic idea was simple: the more closely related two species are (or the more recently their branches on the tree split), the more alike their DNA, RNA and protein sequences ought to be.


It started well. The first molecules to be sequenced were RNAs found in ribosomes, the cell's protein-making machines. In the 1970s, by comparing RNA sequences from various plants, animals and microorganisms, molecular biologists began to sketch the outlines of a tree. This led to, among other successes, the unexpected discovery of a previously unknown major branch of the tree of life, the unicellular archaea, which were previously thought to be bacteria.


By the mid-1980s there was great optimism that molecular techniques would finally reveal the universal tree of life in all its glory. Ironically, the opposite happened.


Decades later. through continual exploration and testing of DNA it would found to be an erroneous theory:

Tal Dagan and William Martin at the Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, Germany, who pointed out that in numerical terms a core of 31 genes is almost insignificant, representing just 1 per cent of a typical bacterial genome and more like 0.1 per cent of an animal's. That hardly constitutes a mighty oak or even a feeble sapling - more like a tiny twig completely buried by a giant web. Dagan dubbed Bork's result "the tree of 1 per cent" and argued that the study inadvertently provided some of the best evidence yet that the tree-of-life concept was redundant (Genome Biology, vol 7, p 118).


full article can be read here: www.newscientist.com...

That is just one of the things that Darwin was wrong about...
his idea of the "tree of life"



reply posted on 15-2-2009 @ 04:15 PM by burntheships
I do not recall saying that the lie: the theory of evolution took quick hold.
Despite years of research, we have not directly observed natural selection producing new species of say, finches, as Darwin believed it could. We do, however, see natural selection fine-tuning finch populations to help them survive in a cursed world, however I have not put all of my thinking out there yet as to how Darwin was wrong.

But consider this: Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born in the same year, on the same day: Feb. 12, 1809.

Just a coincidence?

Which man has benefitted the world more?

In the early 20th century, Christians warned that Darwinism was more than just a theory.They though it was an ideology that would have implications for real human lives. And so it did.

The triumph of social Darwinism can be seen everywhere in the eugenics movement of Planned Parenthood to the greedy wall street elite, legalized abortion, to the death camps of Auschwitz and beyond. I personally do not see how Darwin has brought any good at all to mankind.

On the otherhand, while they are exact coevals, I see how Lincoln has brought good to mankind. The Gettysburg Address. "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." The Abolition of Slavery

How does the Abolition of Slavery compare to the Theory of Evolution by natural selection?

I did not pull this out of thin air...rather shortly before I posted the thread, I came across the information about the date they were born...and much more!


reply posted on 15-2-2009 @ 10:11 PM by burntheships
While you are correct in stating that Lincoln was key in slavery abolishment in America...I can not help but think that other nations eventually took notice.

While some nations do not practice or legalize slavery today, still shamefully so, some nations do!

Africa, along with many other nations still do. Mali, Niger, Sudan. All of them...and more.

en.wikipedia.org...

A system exists now by which Arab Muslims -- the bidanes -- own black slaves, the haratines.[4] An estimated 90,000 black Mauritanians remain essentially enslaved to Arab/Berber owners.[5] The ruling bidanes (the name means literally white-skinned people) are descendants of the Sanhaja Berbers and Beni Hassan Arab tribes who emigrated to northwest Africa and present-day Western Sahara and Mauritania during the Middle Ages.[6] According to some estimates, up to 600,000 black Mauritanians, or 20% of the population, are still enslaved, many of them used as bonded labour.[7] Slavery in Mauritania was finally criminalized in August 2007.[8] Malouma Messoud, a former Muslim slave has explained her enslavement to a religious leader:




reply posted on 15-2-2009 @ 10:24 PM by nj2day
Originally posted by burntheships
Despite years of research, we have not directly observed natural selection producing new species of say, finches, as Darwin believed it could.


You seem to forget the fact we have seen a few different species evolve... in a lab none the less... I think perhaps you should read up on the research they did involving fruit flies...

We do, however, see natural selection fine-tuning finch populations to help them survive in a cursed world,


Yes, we see this as well... along with speciation. do some reading... seriously.

however I have not put all of my thinking out there yet as to how Darwin was wrong.


And it doesn't seem like your going to offer much valid evidence either... just talking points and argumentative fallicies...

The triumph of social Darwinism can be seen everywhere


Social Darwinism has absolutely nothing to do with Darwin's theory... Social Darwinism instead, was a means of rationalization adopted by the privileged, so they wouldn't have to feel so guilty about ignoring the less fortunate.... this has absolutely nothing to do with biology, or Charles Darwin's theory...

I personally do not see how Darwin has brought any good at all to mankind.


LOL well... Darwin wasn't trying to bring "good" to mankind... instead, he was explaining scientific observations... There's a difference... now, if you would like to examine how evolution has benifitted mankind... that's another discussion... one where we could start with the domestication of every single domestic animal we have with us today...

How does the Abolition of Slavery compare to the Theory of Evolution by natural selection?


Seriously... you're comparing apples and oranges man... Scientists are not politicians...

This is the same as saying Explain how the discovery of antibiotics compares with our constitution....

see... it just doesn't make any sense to compare the two.


reply posted on 15-2-2009 @ 10:32 PM by burntheships
reply to post by nj2day


Seriously, you can not be serious about the domestication of animals bit?

Lincoln's work was different. It centered on his interaction with man.
Darwins centered on his interaction with animals.

So yes...thier work was different, but they were nontheless peers. They both became famous for thier work. They both dedicated thier lives to the work they believed in. It is just this that seperates the two men.
The Cause they believed in!


reply posted on 15-2-2009 @ 10:40 PM by nj2day
Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by nj2day


Seriously, you can not be serious about the domestication of animals bit?


yes, I am serious... although it doesn't show natural selection pressures, it does show evolution with man-made selection pressures imposed... some of the domestic animals are so far gone from their feral forms, that scientists aren't exactly sure what species they evolved from...


Lincoln's work was different. It centered on his interaction with man.
Darwins centered on his interaction with animals.


Darwin centered on his observations in nature to explain how species come into existence. This includes man...

So yes...thier work was different, but they were nontheless peers. They both became famous for thier work. They both dedicated thier lives to the work they believed in. It is just this that seperates the two men.
The Cause they believed in!


Using this logic, you can also say that Lincoln and Jack the ripper were peers...

You should read a detailed book on lincoln as well... His abolition of slavery was more of a political stunt than what he actually believed... He realized that by freeing the slaves in the north, he could entice them to abandon their homes in the south, and flee to the north... thus crippling the southern war effort... and bolstering the unions recruitment efforts for the ongoing war...

History isn't as black and white as your textbooks tell you... Take it from a Public History major


reply posted on 15-2-2009 @ 10:57 PM by burntheships
Originally posted by nj2day
Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by nj2day


Seriously, you can not be serious about the domestication of animals bit?


yes, I am serious... although it doesn't show natural selection pressures, it does show evolution with man-made selection pressures imposed... some of the domestic animals are so far gone from their feral forms, that scientists aren't exactly sure what species they evolved from...


Lincoln's work was different. It centered on his interaction with man.
Darwins centered on his interaction with animals.


Darwin centered on his observations in nature to explain how species come into existence. This includes man...

So yes...thier work was different, but they were nontheless peers. They both became famous for thier work. They both dedicated thier lives to the work they believed in. It is just this that seperates the two men.
The Cause they believed in!


Using this logic, you can also say that Lincoln and Jack the ripper were peers...



Well you are comical about the animal thing...LOL! You are really comapring a kiwi fruit to a pumkin seed!

And Abraham Lincoln was not a rapist. Sorry,,,Jack was in his prime in 1888, Lincoln was born in 1809. One man was famous for good deeds and a lifetime of service to humanity. One man was infamous for his hatred of women and perversion!





[edit on 15-2-2009 by burntheships]


reply posted on 15-2-2009 @ 11:15 PM by nj2day
Well you are comical about the animal thing...LOL! You are really comapring a kiwi fruit to a pumkin seed!


This is sheer ad homenim. Perhaps you could offer an actual argument up? instead of just trying to ridicule me?

And Abraham Lincoln was not a rapist.


Neither was Jack

Sorry,,,Jack was in his prime in 1888, Lincoln was born in 1809.One man was famous for good deeds and a lifetime of service to humanity. One man was infamous for his hatred of women and preversion!


Actually, Jack the ripper had a HUGE impact on victorian society. His killing spree actually grabbed the attention of the ruling class. It wasn't until his time in Wwhitechapel that the plight of the extreme "unfortunates" was brought to the attention of the people who could do something about it.

It was also the first time when a coroner leading an inquest, actually stretched his authority to include modus operandi, criminal profiling, and crime scene photography. Most people don't know this... but the "Kelly" murder was the first time in history that photographs were taken of a murder scene.

So, vast improvements in criminology, new ways of conducting investigations, relief for the "unfortunates" in Whitechapel... seems like Jack the Ripper might have done more good than you give him credit for.

Remember... It's not the duty of history to determine morality or right/wrong behavior... Its up to history to accurately reflect the facts.

It's the author who puts the bias, and the reader who applies the current moral zeitgeist to history.

Like I said... maybe you need to read up on Lincoln a little bit... and from source materials... NOT from a compendium, or any other source of singular authorship.




[edit on 15-2-2009 by nj2day]


reply posted on 15-2-2009 @ 11:40 PM by burntheships
Originally posted by nj2day
Well you are comical about the animal thing...LOL! You are really comapring a kiwi fruit to a pumkin seed!


This is sheer ad homenim. Perhaps you could offer an actual argument up? instead of just trying to ridicule me?

And Abraham Lincoln was not a rapist.


Neither was Jack

Sorry,,,Jack was in his prime in 1888, Lincoln was born in 1809.One man was famous for good deeds and a lifetime of service to humanity. One man was infamous for his hatred of women and preversion!


Actually, Jack the ripper had a HUGE impact on victorian society. His killing spree actually grabbed the attention of the ruling class. It wasn't until his time in Wwhitechapel that the plight of the extreme "unfortunates" was brought to the attention of the people who could do something about it.

It was also the first time when a coroner leading an inquest, actually stretched his authority to include modus operandi, criminal profiling, and crime scene photography. Most people don't know this... but the "Kelly" murder was the first time in history that photographs were taken of a murder scene.

So, vast improvements in criminology, new ways of conducting investigations, relief for the "unfortunates" in Whitechapel... seems like Jack the Ripper might have done more good than you give him credit for.

Remember... It's not the duty of history to determine morality or right/wrong behavior... Its up to history to accurately reflect the facts.

It's the author who puts the bias, and the reader who applies the current moral zeitgeist to history.


Theories suggest that the victims first were strangled, in order to silence them, which may explain the reported lack of blood at the crime scenes. The removal of internal organs from three of the victims led some officials at the time of the murders to propose that the killer possessed anatomical or surgical knowledge.[


Yea whoever the slimeball was he did nothing for humanity. But good of you to pcik one of the lowest slimeballs in history, and try to hold him up to Lincoln. And like I said in my first or second post...you are a teacher in the school system? And we wonder what happened to the children? With teachers like you who needs communism or socialism or any other ism!


reply posted on 15-2-2009 @ 11:50 PM by nj2day

Theories suggest that the victims first were strangled, in order to silence them, which may explain the reported lack of blood at the crime scenes. The removal of internal organs from three of the victims led some officials at the time of the murders to propose that the killer possessed anatomical or surgical knowledge.[


most of what was contained in your quote has been proven wrong...

Yea whoever the slimeball was he did nothing for humanity.


Whatever his motives are, it is undeniable that he did indeed contribute quite a bit to society. The fields of forensics and criminal profiling wouldn't really exist today if it wasn't for him.

But good of you to pcik one of the lowest slimeballs in history, and try to hold him up to Lincoln.


I never said I was holding him up against lincoln... I was suggesting that your comparison is greatly flawed. I also pointed out that your knowledge of history is completely lacking, but you chose to ignore where I point that out in my own subtle way.

And like I said in my first or second post...you are a teacher in the school system? And we wonder what happened to the children?


Never said I was a teacher... I said I was a public history major. Your response shows that you don't even know what that is... Instead you launch ad-hominem? now that's not very "sporting" is it?

With teachers like you who needs communism or socialism or any other ism!


Why is communism or socialism bad? is it because its what you've been taught? or have you actually read up on the subjects? most people who sling those words around don't even know what they mean.

I'm not supporting either communism or socialism, but I can tell you that your distain for a concept you prabably don't know anything about is precisely the kind of blinders you can not have in place when studying history...

Let me guess? next you're going to trumpet democracy? Even though the U.S. isn't a democracy? (we're a republic in case you were cloudy on the matter).

Anyway, I would take my original suggestion, and get out there, read some source materials... and think about where your opinions come from...

Too many people in the world are "taught" what their opinions should be... and don't even bother to take the time to search for their own ideas.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 19 days ago with 24 member flags
"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
The meaning or point of existence or life
  Posted 12 days ago with 2 member flags
Sand Castles and Science
  Posted 10 days ago with 2 member flags