Grappling with Darwin

There's a new book claiming that adaptation in humans happens on the order of centuries, not eons. Freepers both decry evolution and eugenics while also loving them some superior race theories. It's as confused as you can get.

ek_hornbeck knows evolution means some people are better.

A lot of Leftists claim to admire Darwin, and yet adhere to very anti-Darwinian notions of human equality (both among individuals and among groups of people) and blank slate models for the human mind. I guess they believe that human beings evolved, but then evolution just stopped and we all became equal.

Let us play count the fallacies in this colloquy from ClearCase_guy

I note the author says nothing about whether evolution as described proceeds forwards or backwards. My belief is that it is becoming retrograde and much of what formerly passed as “advanced civilization” is actually going backwards. And yes, it can definitely go quickly.

Second Law of Thermodynamics says you’re on to something.

1. Evolution does not have a direction. 2. The Second Law of thermodynamics would not have much to do with the advancement of society 3. re: Second Law, you forgot about the sun

LoneRangerMassachusetts provides a pretty quality false choice.

Does the Negro fail because he has dumb genes or is it that he accepts the culture of sustenance of the War on Poverty pursuing non intellectual pastimes.

LearsFool is pretty sure evolution directly lead to eugenics.

Most Darwinists know next to nothing about the man, nor what he wrote, nor why.

Wasn’t it Galton, Darwin’s cousin, whose views form the basis of eugenics? And of course Darwin himself claimed that most races are not evolving, and should therefore be weeded out of the gene pool, lest evolution march backward “into the swirling mists of the dawnless past.”

This gave the elitists - for the first time in history - a SCIENTIFIC basis for exercising rule over the unwashed masses.

Darwin’s bomb is not unexploded. Most people just don’t hear it.

Bravada has no idea what race meant to Darwin.

Always wishing there would be some discussion on the full title of Darwin’s book, “The Origin of Species and The Preservation of Favoured Races.” If that were an open topic, liberal evolutionists would be forced to deal with their hypocrisy and the textbooks re-written. Unfortunately it’s not going to happen.

The actual first title was: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

Harmless Teddy Bear - Confucions, the Jews of the Far East!

Yes, specifically the Vietnamese in recent years, the Koreans and the Japanese. But like the Chinese, their cultures are Confucian. That's the critical factor IMHO.

You are correct. And the big ideas of Confucius are strong families, cultivation of knowledge and morality.

These are very similar to the big ideas of Judaism.

When you study successful cultures they tend to have those three big ideas in common.

Genetically they may be as different as you can get. But their ideas converge.

jameslalor knows if you think schizophrenia is hereditary, you must think some races are less intelligent.

ignoring biological differences, refusing to discuss them, does not serve any useful purpose; it compounds human suffering and retards real progress. Further, ignoring biological differences DELAYS or PREVENTS the formation and adoption of rational, reasonable, moral principles to guide medical intervention. We CAN address biological differences between individuals and populations in a moral and rational manner without resorting to eugenics and extermination camps, as I pointed out with the example of schizophrenia, and it is very important that we adopt guiding frameworks that encourage this rational and moral approach before medical technology advances beyond the point where we can shape its widespread use and acceptance.

By delaying a moral discussion about the biological forces underlying human behavior, and how those forces may differ between populations, you are paradoxically encouraging a resurgence of eugenicist thought. Better to address uncomfortable truths now before they get too loud for the majority to ignore, and better yet to establish a moral framework for medical intervention BEFORE genetic screening and manipulation become common enough and cheap enough for individual customers and medicos to develop their own beliefs about how such performance enhancing technology should be used.

A rare sight on Free Republic, Reeses is a straight-up antisemite:

AshkeNAZI roughly means "German", which implies a German / Jewish hybrid. Jews are taking the credit for this brand of brain architecture however the German "rocket scientists" of yore had something to do with it.

Germany has been a hotspot of envy and tribal warfare for a long time, the product being higher IQ. The German language has several words to describe subtle variations of envy. The Germans mounted "envy heads", monster faces over their doors, to scare away the envious with evil intent. The Jews are also a product of tribal warfare envy for thousands of years.

About half the Jews in Europe were killed during WWII. In general, with many exceptions, the ghetto dwellers died disproportionally while the Einsteins tended to get away. That's why Jews in America today have the reputation of being pretty smart and not welfare takers. Possibly WWII resulted in the largest amount of human evolution to occur the last 100 years, yet that evolutionary jump and its mechanism cannot be investigated by any academic that wishes to remain employed.

LoneRangerMassachusetts thinks Islam makes you stupid:

You go on to talk about the low IQ's of Arabs. What you should do is look at the IQ's of Christian Arabs versus those of Muslim Arabs. Churchill got tossed out of the White Hut. I suspect because of his well publicized view of Islam.