Originally posted by bootsnspurs33
I am AMAZED at the sheer volume of words you've used, to demonstrate your lack of knowledge …
Irony, thy name is bootsnspurs33, volume two…
I’m going to break your mischaracterization of his educational history down year by year to show how you’re either completely misinformed or are
Darwin's 1st year @ Edinborough he jumped around so much they almost made him take it again (anatomy,geology,& "beetle collecting" …
This is a complete mischaracterization of what happened. He was sent to Edinburgh by his father, who hoped he would become a doctor. Instead, he hated
the lectures and was distressed by the surgical aspect. So he bailed on his classes and spent his time learning taxidermy, complete with its
anatomical teachings, instead. Oh, and the entomology (as much as you'd like to belittle it so you can pretend it doesn't count as science) took
year 2, he called his doldrom (wasn't satisfied w/ his studies).
Yes, he was still completely dissatisfied with his medical studies. So be bailed on his classes, again, and joined the Plinian Society, a natural
history group. He studied the anatomy and life cycle of marine invertebrates and got to present some of his findings at one of the group’s meetings.
He also spent some time learning botany at this point.
year 3, theology & NATURAL history.
Heh, yeah… theology. His dad got sick of him “wasting” his education on non-medical fields of study, so he pulled Charles out of Edinburgh and
stuck him in Christ’s College with the hope he’d at least become a parson. Only he still hated the course of study that was being chosen for him
and this is when he picked up his penchant for entomology. He actually got some of his work published in Illustrations of British Entomology. If
you’d like to claim that he studied natural history
instead of natural philosophy, that’s
fine by me – natural history is the scientific study of plants and animals.
He did NOT have a degree in natural philosophy, he was called a philosopher because he studied theology.
This doesn’t make him any less a scientist in his day. Newton, Hooke, Boyle, Galileo, Cassini, Darwin … all men of science before people were
labeled as scientists. But the only one you seem to have a problem with is Darwin. Two thumbs up for obvious hypocrisy.
It is also VERY clear IF you would read his book instead of just saying you have that he considered the different human races as being either
more or less evolved than others w/ blacks being almost sub human to him.
You’re confusing Darwin’s views on societal evolution vs biological evolution. Of course he believed that some societies were more advanced than
others. But one of the key debates in this area of science in Darwin's time was whether or not the different human races were different species or
not. Darwin opposed the racist doctrine of polygenism and believed that all human beings are the same species. He questioned whether race was really
even a useful classification. Keep in mind that he was in the minority in these beliefs during his time. So if you're looking to accuse someone of
being a racist, maybe you shouldn't point to the guy that believed that race in terms of differentiating humans from one another wasn’t even a
valid concept. Maybe you should point to other anthropologists and biologists of mid to late 1800's who disagreed with Darwin.
From Darwin’s The Descent of Man:
Now when naturalists observe a close agreement in numerous small details of habits, tastes, and dispositions between two or more domestic races,
or between nearly-allied natural forms, they use this fact as an argument that they are descended from a common progenitor who was thus endowed; and
consequently that all should be classed under the same species. The same argument may be applied with much force to the races of man.
Darwin was in the minority for having these beliefs.
As for there being evidence for & of evolution, only if you are DELIBERATELY trying to decieve other's or have been decieved by others by
switching from micro-evolution to macro-evolution as it suits you.
Trying to force a fictitious divide between microevolution and macroevolution is a typical creationist tactic and quite a dishonest one at that. It
was recognized decades ago that they are the same process viewed on different scales. The only reason it ever gets dragged into a conversation is so
creationists can move the goalposts regarding what constitutes macroevolution to suit their needs. What's next? You going to claim that we've never
Now, i'm sure you'll come back w/ yet another meaningless tirade full of verbage and empty of intelligence or you will resort to name
calling, your mindless blather bores me, & either way you'll still be wrong.
Sorry if your attention span isn’t long enough, but I’m replying with references and facts that directly counter your assertions. So keep
finishing your posts with little parades of emoticons to distract yourself from the lack of actual content in your replies beyond the character