Many famous and powerful families have been renowned for their pairing of close relatives, including the Hapsburgs and some ancient Egyptian pharaohs, and marrying relatives—both close and distant—was in general more common historically when groups were smaller and more isolated. But by Darwin's time it was already assumed that "consanguineous marriages lead to deafness & dumbness, blindness [etc.],"
Originally posted by epsilon69
Quite ironic that the founding father of modern eugenics was himself throughly inbred. You see for many generations the Darwins only bred with the Wedgewood family. This is clearly documented. Charles even married his first cousin with who he had children. He questioned if his close genetic relationship with her caused his children to be weak, because of course he believe in planned breeding to "improve" his families genetics.
Scientific american article on it here.
Many famous and powerful families have been renowned for their pairing of close relatives, including the Hapsburgs and some ancient Egyptian pharaohs, and marrying relatives—both close and distant—was in general more common historically when groups were smaller and more isolated. But by Darwin's time it was already assumed that "consanguineous marriages lead to deafness & dumbness, blindness [etc.],"
Originally posted by ROBERT3
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
You can simulate the early Earth conditions that led to the 'Creation of Life'?
I congratulate you!
If you can't, but you believe another can, then how can you tell if their simulation is accurate or nonsense?
You can't know--neither can I.
You simply placed faith in others. So did Darwin--faith in the concept that intermediate forms would be found.
Dawkins places faith in the concept that we will discover abiogenesis.
However, my lack of faith in these attempts means nothing. If someone creates life, then they will do it regardless of my lack of faith.
Similarly, the concept of God is not related to our faith. If there is a Creator, his 'being' is unrelated to our faith or our existence. I 'believe' that it is a mistake to confuse Narcissism for objective reality.
Originally posted by ROBERT3
reply to post by MrXYZ
I am trying to understand your need to constantly make reference to a book written by men as proof of it's incorrectness. (Origin of Species was also written by men.)
Why just take on board Darwin's ideas without critically assessing them.
Remember, Darwin was a Theologian, a follower of William Paley (Fundamental Creationist), who turned his back on this.
He suffered pain and loss in his life--three dead children and daily incapacity.
Referring back to Darwins intellectual and religious roots, Judas Iscariot did the same thing. So, in a milder fashion did Job, King David, Solomon ... etc.
He still sits in the 'Biblical' tradition of those who turn away/backslide/apostasize.
Darwin makes great claims about how complex objects, which appear to be created, could come to be without being created.
This is of interest to a wide range of individuals. Not just atheists or 'Scientists', but artists, engineers, craftsmen.
I have worked with my hands in the past, and I engage in 'creative' activity through painting, media work etc.
Darwins (and all atheistic) claims are puzzling and challenging, because it goes against everything that I do, everthing I see and everything I use.
Riddicule is unworthy, yet so many atheists stoop to this. What has it to do with scientific rigour?
Darwin had dignity. His followers have little it seems.
