The Origin of the Species

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
User avatar
weatherkid
Registered User
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:00 am
Location: maryland, United States
Contact:

The Origin of the Species

Post by weatherkid »

The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
How come no one wants to tell the real name of the Origin of the Species? Is it because the full title is so politically incorrect??

What does "favoured races" mean, does that mean Charles Darwin was racist? There is only one race, that is called the Human Race. Charles Darwin is a devout Communist

Why is he looked up to as a great Scientist?

Why doesn't anyone see both sides of the story in the public sprectum?
User avatar
Brf
Support Team Member
Support Team Member
Posts: 52219
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 7:47 pm
Location: {postrow.POSTER_FROM}
Contact:

Re: The Origin of the Species

Post by Brf »

weatherkid wrote:How come no one wants to tell the real name of the Origin of the Species?
It is because it is too long.

Why does nobody call Rhode Island by its real name of The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations?
ToonArmy
Former Team Member
Posts: 4608
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 5:29 pm
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Name: Chris Smith
Contact:

Re: The Origin of the Species

Post by ToonArmy »

weatherkid wrote:What does "favoured races" mean, does that mean Charles Darwin was racist? There is only one race, that is called the Human Race.
Nice going stirring the pot, you have the wrong definition of 'race'.
race in wiktionary wrote: race (countable and uncountable; plural races)
  1. A large group of people distinguished from others on the basis of a common heritage.
  2. A large group of people distinguished from others on the basis of common, genetically linked, physical characteristics, such as skin color or hair type.
  3. (controversial usage) One of the categories from the many subcategorizations of the human species.
  4. (biology) A population geographically separated from others of its species that develops significantly different characteristics; informal for subspecies.
  5. A breed or strain of domesticated animal.
  6. (figuratively) A category or species of something that has emerged or evolved from an older one (with an implied parallel to animal breeding or evolutionary science).
weatherkid wrote:Charles Darwin is a devout Communist
Care to back up defamatory statements with sources?
Chris SmithGitHub
User avatar
Phil
Former Team Member
Posts: 10403
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:11 am
Name: Phil Crumm
Contact:

Re: The Origin of the Species

Post by Phil »

weatherkid wrote:
Charles Darwin is a devout Communist
Erm, Charles Darwin was already in his 40s before the Communist Manifesto was even published. He was dead long before it gained any popularity.
Moving on, with the wind. | My Corner of the Web
User avatar
Lumpy Burgertushie
Registered User
Posts: 68471
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 3:11 am
Contact:

Re: The Origin of the Species

Post by Lumpy Burgertushie »

Why is he looked up to as a great Scientist?
because he offered up scientific theories and principles that have moved civilization forward and helped us to understand who we are and the world around us. what better definition of "great scientist" do you need?
Why doesn't anyone see both sides of the story in the public sprectum?
seems like most everyone that has responded to your post, has done a much better job of that than you have.


robert
User avatar
bobbus74
Registered User
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:33 am

Re: The Origin of the Species

Post by bobbus74 »

weatherkid wrote: Why is he looked up to as a great Scientist?
Yeah, I'm sure you would have taught him a thing or two. What with your excellent research and all...
ckwalsh
Former Team Member
Posts: 1837
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:50 am
Location: Seattle, USA
Name: Cullen Walsh
Contact:

Re: The Origin of the Species

Post by ckwalsh »

bobbus74 wrote:
weatherkid wrote: Why is he looked up to as a great Scientist?
Yeah, I'm sure you would have taught him a thing or two. What with your excellent research and all...
Challenges to others opinions are welcome here. However, attacking other posters is not. I'll admit, it is a fine line, but each of the proceeding posts have challenged the ideas of the OP or asked for clarification, while this has not.

As a note for all posters, please keep the distinction in mind.
Where to post what | Forum Rules | The Dos and Don'ts of General Discussion
In Seattle and want to meet, chat, or have a coffee? Drop me a PM.
User avatar
weatherkid
Registered User
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:00 am
Location: maryland, United States
Contact:

Re: The Origin of the Species

Post by weatherkid »

Weatherkid wrote:Why is he looked up to as a great scientist?
Lumpy Burgertushie wrote: because he offered up scientific theories and principles that have moved civilization forward and helped us to understand who we are and the world around us. what better definition of "great scientist" do you need?

favoured races mean that some people are better than others, if man believes that he is better than someone else, he then believes he has the "right" to take away the 'unfavoured race' e.g. Nazism e.g. Josef Stalin. Adolf Hitler thought he was, in this case, the "favoured race" while the Jews were the "unfavoured" race. This led to the massacre of over 6 million Jews.

I would be very careful before calling a person like Charles Darwin a "great Scientist"

Charles Darwin's wacky theory has led to the death of millions and has no proof. I once heard a saying:

"You can take a Evolutionist to evidence but you can't make him think"

p.s. Everything works, and is in place if you believe the Genesis account of creation and the Bible account of the flood. It takes a lot more faith to believe in Evolution
Last edited by weatherkid on Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ToonArmy
Former Team Member
Posts: 4608
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 5:29 pm
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Name: Chris Smith
Contact:

Re: The Origin of the Species

Post by ToonArmy »

weatherkid wrote:favoured races mean that some people are better than others, if man believes that he is better than someone else, he then believes he has the "right" to take away the 'unfavoured race' e.g. Nazism e.g. Josef Stalin. Adolf Hitler thought he was, in this case, the "favoured race" while the Jews were the "unfavoured" race. This led to the massacre of over 6 million Jews.
ToonArmy wrote:(biology) A population geographically separated from others of its species that develops significantly different characteristics; informal for subspecies.
Based on that definition of race I find it hard to associate Darwin with genocide.
Chris SmithGitHub
User avatar
Winjeel
Registered User
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 10:57 am
Location: out and about in Japan
Contact:

Re: The Origin of the Species

Post by Winjeel »

weatherkid wrote:
The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
How come no one wants to tell the real name of the Origin of the Species? Is it because the full title is so politically incorrect??

What does "favoured races" mean, does that mean Charles Darwin was racist? There is only one race, that is called the Human Race. Charles Darwin is a devout Communist

Why is he looked up to as a great Scientist?

Why doesn't anyone see both sides of the story in the public sprectum?
Firstly, that is the full title of the first edition, but later editions uses just "The Origin of Species" (according to wikipedia). Also, there was no such concept of political correctness. Racial sensitivity was perhaps quite limited at that time. And toonarmy got that point on the other definition of 'race'. Also, it's not conceivable to think of Darwin as being a communist, I don't think there were strong supporters of Marxism in those days, and I don't know if the word communism existed in Darwin's time, if it did, I doubt it existed in English.

The reason, I suppose, why he's looked up as being a great scientist is because he thought differently. He researched, he gathered evidence, and thought long and hard about things. He got bits of information, and I think Wallace helped him, and together they came up with a coherent idea. There were those who were against him, which leads me to your final question, "see[ing] both sides...", not sure that there were just 'two sides', as the word 'both' implies. There was Darwin, Wallace and company, there was of course the church and its supporters within the scientific community, and Lamarck and his supporters. Lamarck's theories explained changes in animals anatomy which gave rise to the animals we have today, but it fell far short of the length that Darwin and Wallace went to. Lamarck, obviously, enjoyed the prestige he got, so I guess he opposed this new idea from that English guy, Darwin. As it turns out, after initial non-acceptance from the wider scientific community, Darwin's theory has found a huge amount of support in time (and more being added day by day), there had been adjustments to it, and expanded explanations on his arguments, but no one supports Lamarck's idea anymore, but that took time. Why is he looked up to? I guess because Darwin embodied the ideal that the scientific community strived for: objective credibility.
User avatar
reptileguy
Registered User
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:54 pm
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Origin of the Species

Post by reptileguy »

weatherkid wrote: favoured races mean that some people are better than others, if man believes that he is better than someone else, he then believes he has the "right" to take away the 'unfavoured race' e.g. Nazism e.g. Josef Stalin. Adolf Hitler thought he was, in this case, the "favoured race" while the Jews were the "unfavoured" race. This led to the massacre of over 6 million Jews.
Maybe the title was shortened because it was misunderstood. Darwin does not write about human races at all in On the origin of species, except for a small paragraph about the development of languages.
weatherkid wrote: Why doesn't anyone see both sides of the story in the public sprectum?
Let's look at both sides of Darwin's story:
On one side, he was one of the greatest scientists in history.
On the other side, he was a theologian who believed that creation is a continuous process.
User avatar
EXreaction
Former Team Member
Posts: 5666
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 9:31 pm
Location: Wisconsin, U.S.
Name: Nathan

Re: The Origin of the Species

Post by EXreaction »

Honestly, I am not sure why I am bothering with this. You clearly can't comprehend what evolution is about or use any common sense, but as I said previously:
EXreaction wrote:Evolution has changed nothing except further our understanding of the world. Racism and massacres from racism have been going on for far longer than recorded text. Abortion has been recorded in text for over 3,500 years and likely has been going on for much longer than that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion
According to Chinese folklore, the legendary Emperor Shennong prescribed the use of mercury to induce abortions nearly 5000 years ago.
Evolution has nothing to do with racism. As humans moved further north and out of the hot climates our skin just started to lose it's dark color. Since people who lived in the equatorial area or had relatively recent ancestors in that area likely have had their entire line of ancestors from that region, their skin needed to stay dark to protect them from the harsh sunlight.

Also, Judaism is not a race, it is a religion. Which has absolutely zero to do with evolution or race for that matter. But it isn't at all surprising that you didn't understand that. :roll:
weatherkid wrote:Charles Darwin's wacky theory has led to the death of millions and has no proof. I once heard a saying:

"You can take a Evolutionist to evidence but you can't make him think"

p.s. Everything works, and is in place if you believe the Genesis account of creation and the Bible account of the flood. It takes a lot more faith to believe in Evolution
No proof? You once heard a saying eh? Why is it you can not do any thinking for yourself? Evolution has so much supporting evidence it is considered fact by the far, far majority of scientists.
User avatar
darcie
Community Team Member
Community Team Member
Posts: 5543
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:52 am
Location: Davis, California
Name: Darcie Griffin
Contact:

Re: The Origin of the Species

Post by darcie »

In an effort to slightly derail the mounting tension...
What is your feeling on a combination of Evolution and Creation? It seems obvious to most that there is evidence of all species evolving over time. But, for those that also believe in a creator (or even those who don't I suppose), what are your feelings about the six days the world was created in being literal 24 hour days, or six figurative days? How do reconcile the changing of species and natural selection with the bible's account of creation?
phpBB on Facebook | Site Rules | Former Community Team leader
User avatar
EXreaction
Former Team Member
Posts: 5666
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 9:31 pm
Location: Wisconsin, U.S.
Name: Nathan

Re: The Origin of the Species

Post by EXreaction »

darcie wrote:In an effort to slightly derail the mounting tension...
What is your feeling on a combination of Evolution and Creation? It seems obvious to most that there is evidence of all species evolving over time. But, for those that also believe in a creator (or even those who don't I suppose), what are your feelings about the six days the world was created in being literal 24 hour days, or six figurative days? How do reconcile the changing of species and natural selection with the bible's account of creation?
Are you asking me? :P

Although it is completely possible that some other being created the universe, there is zero evidence either way to prove it. The problem I have with the bible is just the number of terrible things that "good" god does to the people that he "loves". What kind of god that would care at all about us allow people like those who start wars to make money exist? On top of that, most people who call themselves Christians have absolutely zero of the values that Christ had. You know about how they were supposed to be kind to all, accept what others believe, do to their neighbor as they would do to themselves? Where did that go when Christians take it on themselves to go after Jews, Muslims, Homosexuals, Atheists?
User avatar
darcie
Community Team Member
Community Team Member
Posts: 5543
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:52 am
Location: Davis, California
Name: Darcie Griffin
Contact:

Re: The Origin of the Species

Post by darcie »

EXreaction wrote:Are you asking me? :P
The question was posed to all.

The idea behind finding evidence is a difficult one, as having faith can sometimes be a matter of believing without a concrete reason to do so. :P

I understand the questions you are posing here, as they are common ones asked by non-believers. And realize I'm not a theologian here by any means, but maybe I can answer a bit. There are stories toward the beginning of the bible of God punishing people for disobeying. It is similar to how a parent needs to discipline their children to teach them. But obviously having the strict laws wasn't really working. So he sent Jesus to make a new agreement with the people of the world. Everyone on Earth has free will. You can choose to start wars spread hatred or whatever else. Or you can choose to follow him. You have the power to make this decision. But what happens at the end will be affected by the choices you have made here.

And, yes, even people claiming to be Christians can be hypocritical. That is because humans are flawed. We make mistakes. We don't always do things the right way. And some people have taken their following of God to a place that excludes others instead of helping them. And, unfortunately, some of these people tend to be the more vocal and public people that get heard by the rest of the world. But not all Christians are hypocrites, and the true Christ follower would not hate others for being different from themselves. :)
phpBB on Facebook | Site Rules | Former Community Team leader
Locked

Return to “General Discussion”