Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Holding their feet to the fire ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by JonF View Post
    IOW you don't know what he means.
    Either comment on the OP with integrity or return to your cartoons on TV.

    Jorge

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      Selective breeding is about genetics. That selective breeding (in effect, eugenics) was practiced for centuries before the underlying principles were known doesn't change what was being done.
      You're confusing genetics with heredity. They are related, but not the same thing. If they were, then you would have to put evolution as the same thing too, which would undercut the argument you are making here. After all, natural selection is a form of selective breeding(then there's HMS_Beagle who argued that natural and artificial selection are actually the same thing). Then there's the fact that heredity was known long before eugenics ever existed. Eugenics strangely popped up in 1869, only a decade after Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species. What kept people from thinking of applying it to themselves for so long?

      Besides, you are missing the main principle upon which eugenics rests, the fact that having removed ourselves from much of natural selection, we are now degenerating. Only by subjecting ourselves to a form of artificial selection will we be able to remain fit enough to survive.

      Darwin admitted that this was a problem, and spoke out of both sides of his mouth on what to do about it("overwhelming evil" in one sentence, a whole paragraph detailing the evils of not doing it, and giving "scientific" justification for the latter, while only an emotional plea for the former). He then encouraged every eugenicist he knew, endorsing, and even citing their works as science(and no, he wasn't arguing against them either). He even praised the depraved works of people like Haeckel, and mirrored such arguments in his own work, The Descent of Man, which he said would never have been necessary had Ernst Haeckel's "History of Creation" been written sooner. He said that his own views were confirmed in Haeckel's works, which were heavily based in eugenics. In fact, the argument about the Spartans that rogue06 tried to use to deflect this issue away from Charles Darwin, was an argument that he mirrored from Haeckel in "The Descent of Man".

      In short, after all my study of what Charles Darwin wrote, I can come to only one conclusion. He was a sexist, racist, eugenicist pig, as well as a two faced politician*. On anything that he wrote that was controversial, he would pretend to take the less controversial position, but quite clearly give the weight of evidence and science towards the more extreme position, but he did so in a sly way, like with the "aid we feel compelled to give", and the "overwhelming evil" of not giving such aid.

      *This all comes from reading his own words, both in his popular works, and in his correspondences to those who wrote on similar topics, as well as what they had to say in their works on the subjects.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        I have stated more times than I can recall that there is a SCIENCE of evolution and then there is an IDEOLOGY of Evolution. The IDEOLOGY is part of the greater Materialistic metaphysic/worldview/religion. I have repeatedly stated that the SCIENCE is valid (allele frequencies ... etc). No one (certainly not I) is disputing the SCIENCE. It is the IDEOLOGY that is the poison being pumped into society with people like yourself serving the pawn-role as distributors of said poison.

        Now, you have your one warning. If your contributions will only be destructive and non-responsive, then stay off this thread. The next time I will formally ask the Moderators to boot you off.

        Jorge
        But what you call the IDEOLOGY of evolution does not obviate the SCIENCE of evolution.

        So simple a caveman can get it.

        Can you dig it, Man?

        K54

        Comment


        • #34
          Quick note of clarification:

          There is obviously no need to understand the chemical processes of genetics to do eugenics.

          Selection by phenotype was used since the beginning of the Neolithic to produce varieties of animals and plants more desirable to humans. And IIRC, selective breeding was used to produce more desirable slaves. There was OBVIOUSLY no need to understand genotype, anymore than the Romans needed to understand Newton's laws in order to build a catapult.

          Geesh...

          K54
          Last edited by klaus54; 09-01-2014, 11:49 AM. Reason: dyslexia

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            Selective breeding is about genetics. That selective breeding (in effect, eugenics) was practiced for centuries before the underlying principles were known doesn't change what was being done.
            You need to clarify a cause and effect here concerning the Theory of Evolution, and 'what is being done.'
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              You need to clarify a cause and effect here concerning the Theory of Evolution, and 'what is being done.'
              I believe Tab's point here is that there IS no cause-and-effect via the theory of biological evolution since the "eugenic" principles were known (and applied in artificial selection)
              millennia before Mendel's discovery of particulate inheritance.

              K54

              Comment


              • #37
                What was being done: a rough and ready form of genetic selection. With the principles of the process being understood, certain people used the understanding of those principles to manufacture an excuse for applying the principles to humans and "cull the herd"

                Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                I believe Tab's point here is that there IS no cause-and-effect via the theory of biological evolution since the "eugenic" principles were known (and applied in artificial selection)
                millennia before Mendel's discovery of particulate inheritance.

                K54
                That too - and so much more succinctly stated than I could manage.
                sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                  But what you call the IDEOLOGY of evolution does not obviate the SCIENCE of evolution.

                  So simple a caveman can get it.

                  Can you dig it, Man?

                  K54
                  Hadn't I BOOTED you off this thread, Santa Klaus?

                  Meh ... maybe you wrote the above post before getting the BOOT (?).

                  In any event, and for the edification of others, I never claimed otherwise. Allele frequencies in populations do indeed change over time -- just as scientific evolution claims. No one denies that. And these changes are reflected in the phenotype of the individuals of that population - that is also true. Santa keeps trying to (dishonestly) accuse me of saying/promoting things that I never have. Bad Santa!

                  BUT - and this is the part that Santa Klaus and others refuse to accept because it demolishes their cherished beliefs - the Evolutionary Paradigm-Ideology (which serves a Materialistic worldview/metaphysic/religion), is then intermixed with the science and fed to the unsuspecting masses as "ALL SCIENCE". THERE'S where their fraud is - a fraud that is then blindly and fervently propagated by the useful-idiots Evo-Faithful.

                  Their agenda is accomplished employing bald-face lies and deceptions. My OP illustrates this with a contemporaneous example of these deceptions - "Eugenics Quarterly" changed to "Social Biology". How obvious is that?

                  In addition, you should read some of the stuff published therein --- ALL OF IT USING ("scientific") EVOLUTION as the "scientific" justification for what they promote. I listed the titles of several of the articles just to provide an idea of the type of stuff that goes on there.

                  That was my thesis - that Evolution (the science mixed in with the ideology and then ALL called "science") is used to "scientifically" JUSTIFY atrocities such as (in this case) Eugenics (but also euthanasia, abortion, genocide, ... and so on). My thesis stands rock solid!

                  Yet, specimens like Rogue06, Santa Klaus, Beagle Boy, Roy and others CONTINUE with their denials, Denials, DENIALS. Like I said, you can't make this stuff up!

                  Jorge

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

                    If you followed the eugenics movement you would quickly discover that genetics played the largest role not evolution but cussing and spitting and blaming Gregor Mendel doesn't fit in with your agenda so you conveniently skip over that part.
                    I wish to delve into this a bit further.

                    Eugenics really reached its height during the 1920s and that the big push for it during this time didn't come from "Darwinism" (this was during a time that was actually toward the end of a period known as the Eclipse of Darwinism which ran from roughly 1880s to 1930) but from genetics and the emergence of "Mendelism."

                    For instance Harry Hamilton Laughlin, who was among the most active individuals in influencing American eugenics policy in the first half of the 20th century (especially in forced sterilization policies and described as "among the most racist and anti-Semitic of early twentieth-century eugenicists"), became interested in eugenics through breeding experiments and the works of Gregor Johann Mendel[1] -- specifically what is called Mendelian inheritance.

                    Laughlin was superintendent in charge of the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) from its origin in 1910 until 1921 and director from 1921 until either 1939 or 1940 as well as president of the American Eugenics Society 1927-28, and associate editor of the Eugenical News from 1916 to 1939. He was also awarded an honorary medical degree by the Nazi-controlled University of Heidelberg in 1936 for his work behalf of the “science of racial cleansing.”

                    Laughlin was friends with Charles Benedict Davenport, who founded the ERO and an early American researcher into Mendelian inheritance. Initially skeptical of the validity of Mendelian genetics he became convinced through his own research involving animal breeding experiments.

                    Davenport became one of the most prominent figures of the American eugenics movement (sometimes referred to its standard bearer) and was directly involved in the sterilization of approximately 60,000 "unfit" Americans.

                    His works strongly influenced Nazi racial supremacists and while he didn't approve of how they governed, Davenport kept up connections with various Nazi institutions and publications, both before and during World War II.

                    So two of America's most notorious eugenicists, aside from their Nazi connections, were influenced not by Darwin and the ToE but by the genetic research of Gregor Mendel.[2]

                    But don't expect YECs to denounce Mendel as being directly responsible for eugenics, forced sterilization... He is listed as one "The World's Greatest Creation Scientists" by David F. Coppedge who frequently writes for the Institute for Creation Research (ICR).

                    Henry Morris praised him as being "a creationist and rejected Darwin's evolutionary ideas, although he was quite familiar with them."[3]

                    But it doesn't matter how much he influenced the eugenics movement they will continue to target Darwin even though Mendel's research would later be incorporated into the ToE when population genetics revealed that Mendelian genetics was consistent with natural selection and gradual evolution and became the cornerstone of the modern or neo-Darwinian evolutionary synthesis.

                    Anyhow, let's return to how Gregor Mendel's work in genetics was used by eugenicists to support their beliefs...

                    The American Breeders Association (ABA) was established in 1903 and was one of the first scientific organizations in the U. S. that recognized the importance of Mendel's laws, as well as the first scientific body to support eugenic research.

                    Further, the American Eugenics Society (AES) which was formed in 1923 used state fairs to popularize eugenics with exhibits prominently displaying illustrations of Mendel's laws and calculated the societal costs of continued breeding by "hereditary defectives."


                    From their exhibit at the 1926 Sesquicentennial Exposition in Philadelphia with "Mendel's theater"
                    in the center and a display showing how Mendelian genetics explains guinea pig coat color to the right

                    Similarly a chart displayed at the Kansas Free Fair in 1929 by the AES purported to illustrate the "laws" of Mendelian inheritance in human beings, declaring that, "Unfit human traits such as feeblemindedness, epilepsy, criminality, insanity, alcoholism, pauperism, and many others run in families and are inherited in exactly the same way as color in guinea pigs."

                    A different chart at that Fair claimed that if you crossed a "pure" parent with another "pure" parent the result would be "normal" children whereas crossing an "abnormal" with another "abnormal" produced "abnormal" children and crossing a "pure" parent with an "abnormal" resulted in children that would be "normal but tainted; some grandchildren abnormal" -- all said to be based upon Mendelian genetics.

                    As an aside the AES also claimed that the Bible supported eugenics stating that, "The Bible has much to say for eugenics. It tells us that men do not gather grapes from thorns and figs from thistles."








                    1. To be clear, just because Mendel's work inspired prominent eugenicists does not mean that Mendel himself in any way endorsed or supported eugenics. And to say that evolution or Mendel's contribution to genetics were responsible for eugenics (which has roots going back thousands of years to ancient Greece and Rome) is as nonsensical as blaming Auschwitz on the disciplines of Chemistry and Engineering. To claim otherwise would be an example of the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy

                    2. "In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity," by Daniel J. Kevles is an excellent source to start with for those interested in the prominent influence that Mendel and genetics had upon American eugenicists

                    3. Morris is playing fast and lose with the truth because apparently from Mendel's own writings, are quotes in which he describes Darwin's Theory as "fascinating" and "with much to be said for it".

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Another much overlooked facet of any discussion on eugenics was the prominent role that many supporters of evolutionary theory played in demonstrating that the eugenic program of "purification" wasn't even scientifically feasible, besides being (in Darwin's words) "an overwhelming evil."

                      One such was Reginald Crundall Punnett, a geneticist who has given his name to the Punnett Square method of presenting fitness values of alleles and still used by biologists to predict the probability of possible genotypes of offspring.

                      In 1917, Punnett calculated how many generations it would take to reduce what was termed “feeblemindedness” if everyone so diagnosed were sterilized in each generation. He concluded that to reduce the frequency from 1/100 to 1/1000 would require 22 generations, and to 1/10,000 would require 90 generations. To put this into perspective, 22 generations takes us back to before the Black Death reached Europe.

                      Another was Thomas Hunt Morgan, an evolutionary biologist and geneticist who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1933 for discoveries explaining the role that the chromosome plays in heredity.

                      In 1915 he became a strong critic of eugenics when supporters kept declaring that personality traits, intelligence and behavior patterns were genetically determined whereas his own research demonstrated that the more complex the trait the more complex the interaction between heredity and the environment. As a result Morgan resigned his membership on the Committee of Animal Breeding within the ABA and insisted that they remove his name from the Association's Journal of Heredity.

                      During his acceptance of his Nobel Prize he said that "the complexity of the genetic composition of man makes it somewhat hazardous to apply only the simpler rules of Mendelian inheritance; for, the development of many inherited characters depends both on the presence of modifying factors and on the external environment for their expression."

                      It was evolutionists like Morgan and Punnett pointed out that the racial theories of eugenicists were as scientifically unsound as they were morally objectionable.

                      Another important figure in this debate, although more on the periphery, was Franz Uri Boas, the "Father of American Anthropology," especially his feud with the conservationist Madison Grant.

                      Grant was an ardent supporter of eugenics (being director of the American Eugenics Society, a founding member of the Galton Society, and one of the eight members of the International Committee of Eugenics) and instrumental in the passing and prosecution of several anti-miscegenation laws (such as the notorious Racial Integrity Act of 1924 in the state of Virginia, where he sought to codify his particular version of the "one-drop rule" into law). In 1916 he wrote "The Passing of the Great Race" a detailed treatise on racial hygiene that expounds the belief in Nordic superiority and which Hitler wrote him and proclaimed, "The book is my Bible."

                      Grant's chief opponent and rival was Franz Boas, who supported evolutionary theory (and wrote of his deep indebtedness to Darwin[1]) and ridiculed the idea of orthogenesis and cultural/social evolution. Grant tried for years to get Boas fired from his position at Columbia University but in the end Boas was the victory having wrested control of the American Anthropological Association from Grant and his supporters (Grant joined with Charles B. Davenport to form the Galton Society as an alternative).

                      While early on Boas thought that eugenics might have some limited merit saying that "The attempt to suppress those defective classes whose deficiencies can be proved by rigid methods to be due to hereditary causes, and to prevent unions that will unavoidably lead to the birth of disease-stricken progeny, is the proper field of eugenics" he cautioned in 1916 that "Eugenics is not a panacea that will cure human ills, it is rather a dangerous sword that may turn its edge against those who rely on its strength."

                      Later his position started shifting toward opposition toward eugenics as can be seen in his 1928 book "Anthropology and Modern Life," where he dedicated an entire chapter to eugenics and questioned its conclusions stating that eugenists must empirically determine “without bias” what are and aren't inherited traits and expressed skeptism that they could ever attain that type of information.

                      In "Race and Democratic Society" a work published after his death Boas declared that "The behavior of an individual is determined not by his racial affiliation, but by the character of his ancestry and his cultural environment" as well as "No one has ever proved that a human being, through his descent from a certain group of people, must of necessity have certain mental characteristics."

                      There were of course others such as Hermann Muller, who had worked in Morgan's lab and won 1946 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. He delivered a speech at the Eugenics Conference of 1932 where he took them to task for its simplistic definition of 'unfit,' declaring that "genetic worth is a practically continuous variant, and there is no hard and fast line between the fit and the unfit, nor does relative fitness in the great majority of individuals depend on one or a few pre-specified genes."

                      It appears that by the mid 1920s evolutionists were questioning and objecting to eugenics pointing out that supporters relied on simplistic and faulty assumptions about heredity -- although one fair criticism would be that they weren't doing it strenuously enough. Still, by the time Hitler came around, Darwinists had also shown that it wouldn't work.










                      1. In 1888 he declared that "the development of ethnology is largely due to the general recognition of the principle of biological evolution" and in a 1909 unpublished lecture, Boas wrote: "I hope I may have succeeded in presenting to you, however imperfectly, the currents of thought due to the work of the immortal Darwin which have helped to make anthropology what it is at the present time."

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Jorge View Post


                        (snip the usual steaming pile)


                        Jorge
                        There goes Jorge using his own made up definitions again then boo-hoo-hooing because no one else will agree with them.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          Hadn't I BOOTED you off this thread, Santa Klaus?

                          Meh ... maybe you wrote the above post before getting the BOOT (?).

                          In any event, and for the edification of others, I never claimed otherwise. Allele frequencies in populations do indeed change over time -- just as scientific evolution claims. No one denies that. And these changes are reflected in the phenotype of the individuals of that population - that is also true. Santa keeps trying to (dishonestly) accuse me of saying/promoting things that I never have. Bad Santa!

                          BUT - and this is the part that Santa Klaus and others refuse to accept because it demolishes their cherished beliefs - the Evolutionary Paradigm-Ideology (which serves a Materialistic worldview/metaphysic/religion), is then intermixed with the science and fed to the unsuspecting masses as "ALL SCIENCE". THERE'S where their fraud is - a fraud that is then blindly and fervently propagated by the useful-idiots Evo-Faithful.

                          Their agenda is accomplished employing bald-face lies and deceptions. My OP illustrates this with a contemporaneous example of these deceptions - "Eugenics Quarterly" changed to "Social Biology". How obvious is that?

                          In addition, you should read some of the stuff published therein --- ALL OF IT USING ("scientific") EVOLUTION as the "scientific" justification for what they promote. I listed the titles of several of the articles just to provide an idea of the type of stuff that goes on there.

                          That was my thesis - that Evolution (the science mixed in with the ideology and then ALL called "science") is used to "scientifically" JUSTIFY atrocities such as (in this case) Eugenics (but also euthanasia, abortion, genocide, ... and so on). My thesis stands rock solid!

                          Yet, specimens like Rogue06, Santa Klaus, Beagle Boy, Roy and others CONTINUE with their denials, Denials, DENIALS. Like I said, you can't make this stuff up!

                          Jorge
                          Then why are you posting this garbage in the Natural Science forum instead of some fundamentalist theological forum where you'll get no one to call you on your obvious category error and is/ought fallacy??!!

                          The science of evolution is the science of evolution. If you want to attack its science, go right ahead and good luck with that, but this deceitful tack does not support Biblical "scientific" Creationism in any way, shape, or form.

                          Enjoy blowing noisemakers at your little party.

                          K54

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post


                            1. To be clear, just because Mendel's work inspired prominent eugenicists does not mean that Mendel himself in any way endorsed or supported eugenics. And to say that evolution or Mendel's contribution to genetics were responsible for eugenics (which has roots going back thousands of years to ancient Greece and Rome) is as nonsensical as blaming Auschwitz on the disciplines of Chemistry and Engineering. To claim otherwise would be an example of the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy
                            Perhaps a bit of the historical forebears of eugenics is in order.

                            Neither Darwin or Galton, nor anyone else from the 19th Century, started what would be called "eugenics." It's roots stretch much further back. Humans have been practicing what would later be called eugenics since the realization that traits are inherited, which was obviously noticed long before Darwin or any of his contemporaries.

                            Nearly 2400 years ago, Plato in his book "Republic," which he regarded as a blueprint for the organization of an ideal society, expressed a profound interest in eugenics as a means of supplying the city state with the finest possible progeny.

                            Plato believed that the procreation of children should be monitored and controlled by the state and advocated that the leaders of his Republic practice eugenics on their subjects in order to achieve this.

                            However, Plato understood this form of government control would likely be rejected and resisted so he proposed that it be accomplished through a lottery system for selecting mates that would be fixed so that the government leaders could maintain a pretense that they are being married at random.

                            Mates would be selected by a "marriage number" in which the quality of the individual would be thoroughly scrutinized, and persons of high numbers would only be allowed to procreate with other persons of high numbers thus ensuring "judicious matings." In theory, this would lead to predictable results and the race would be strengthened by improved children.

                            He justified it by stating that that's what you do when you breed domestic animals yet Plato acknowledged the failure of the "marriage number" system since "gold soul" persons could still produce "bronze soul" children.

                            Many historians think Plato was influenced by what he saw going on in the city-state of Sparta.

                            The actual constitution of Sparta included eugenic measures where by law every new-born child was brought to the Council Hall and examined. Any deemed unfit and useless by the city elders were taken to a chasm on the slopes of Mount Taygetus a few miles outside the center of Sparta known as the Apothetae -- the “Deposits” -- and cast into it.

                            According to Allen G. Roper’s essay "Ancient Eugenics," the ancient Spartans believed that "it was better for the child and the city that one not born from the beginning to comeliness and strength should not live." This is precisely what Plutarch recorded about them in his "Lives”:

                            Source: Lives: Lycurgus, the Father of the Spartans


                            "Whenever a child was born, it was taken to a council of elders for examination. If the baby was in any way defective, the elders dropped it into a chasm. Such a child, in the opinion of the Spartans, should not be permitted to live."


                            Source

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            Even Conservapedia recognizes that "The Spartans in ancient Greece practiced a primitive form of eugenics, wherein babies which were judged to be too 'weak' or 'sickly' would be left to die," although throwing them into a chasm wasn't exactly just leaving them to die.

                            Infanticide was common throughout the rest of ancient Greece as well. Unlike in Sparta where boys were subject to infanticide more often, in the rest of Greece it was the girls who suffered this fate in higher numbers. They were usually abandoned on mountainsides to die of thirst, exposure or predation often wrapped in a piece of cloth or left in a basket where a very few fortunate ones were rescued by shepherd’s and woodsmen (a possibility those cast into the Apothetae didn’t have).

                            And things weren't really a whole lot different in ancient Rome either. For example, the Fourth of the Twelve tables of Roman Law (known as the "Duodecim Tabulae"), the core of the Roman Republic’s constitution and established in its early days, deformed children must be put to death: "Cito necatus insignis ad deformitatem puer esto" ("If a child is born with a deformity he shall be killed").

                            Additionally, it appears that Roman patriarchs had the right to dispose of infants at they saw fit (including healthy ones), often by taking any undesired newborn and drowning them in the Tiber River. This practice openly continued up until the Christianization of the Roman Empire.

                            Yet unfortunately infanticide as eugenics didn't stop there. According to William L. Langer, exposure in the Middle Ages "was practiced on gigantic scale with absolute impunity, noticed by writers with most frigid indifference." Unlike other European regions, in the Middle Ages the German mother had the right to expose the newborn. In Gotland, Sweden, children were also sacrificed. The point being whether sanctioned or not the leaving of deformed or sick babies in the woods or on a mountainside to die was a practice for many ancient cultures.

                            Finally, in the High Middle Ages, abandoning unwanted children finally eclipsed infanticide. Unwanted children were left at the door of church or abbey, and the clergy was assumed to take care of their upbringing.

                            But that was hardly the end of eugenical practice. For instance the entire concept of royal bloodlines is founded in eugenics and that continues even today as monarchs still select "suitable" mates from "good families."


                            Returning to Sparta and eugenics, they, and not Darwin or evolutionary theory, were the inspiration for the Nazis who took eugenical practices to the extreme turning it into outright genocide.

                            In his "Zweites Buch" ("Second Book"), an unedited transcript of Hitler's thoughts on foreign policy written in 1928 after "Mein Kampf," Hitler himself cited the Greek city state of Sparta as his inspiration, adding that he considered Sparta to be the first "Völkisch State":

                            Source: Adolph Hitler, "Zweites Buch"


                            "Sparta must be regarded as the first Völkisch State. The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children in consequence of birth control or through abortions, in order subsequently to breed a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses."

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            Hitler explicitly recommended that Germany should imitate the Spartans by limiting "the number allowed to live". He added that "The Spartans were once capable of such a wise measure... The subjugation of 350,000 Helots by 6,000 Spartans was only possible because of the racial superiority of the Spartans."

                            Hitler praised the Spartans saying that they had created "the first racialist state." During the invasion of the U.S.S.R. he saw that country's citizens as Helots to his Spartans: "They came as conquerors, and they took everything."

                            This thought is echoed in "Der Generalplan Ost" ("Master Plan East"), the Nazi plan for the colonization of Eastern Europe, where it is stated that "the Germans would have to assume the position of the Spartiates, while ... the Russians were the Helots."

                            It should also be noted that Heinrich Himmler, the infamous Reichsführer of the SS and one of those most directly responsible for the Holocaust, also called Nazi Germany the "new Sparta."

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Sorry to butt in again, by it's relevant to bring up the OT Hebrews' view of physical deformities leading to proscription from the Priesthood.

                              Source: http://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/hbd/view.cgi?n=1617


                              One difficulty in studying Bible passages about disabilities and deformities arises from the fact that people during Bible times connected virtue and physical wellness. One general view toward disabilities and deformities was that these afflictions were sent by God as punishment for sin (Deuteronomy 32:39; John 9:2). Some disabilities and deformities were believed to have resulted from demonic activity (Mark 9:17). Jesus brought God's kingdom in which people with deformities and disabilities were accepted and could be healed.

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              K54

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                Another much overlooked facet of any discussion on eugenics was the prominent role that many supporters of evolutionary theory played in demonstrating that the eugenic program of "purification" wasn't even scientifically feasible, besides being (in Darwin's words) "an overwhelming evil."

                                One such was Reginald Crundall Punnett, a geneticist who has given his name to the Punnett Square method of presenting fitness values of alleles and still used by biologists to predict the probability of possible genotypes of offspring.

                                In 1917, Punnett calculated how many generations it would take to reduce what was termed “feeblemindedness” if everyone so diagnosed were sterilized in each generation. He concluded that to reduce the frequency from 1/100 to 1/1000 would require 22 generations, and to 1/10,000 would require 90 generations. To put this into perspective, 22 generations takes us back to before the Black Death reached Europe.

                                Another was Thomas Hunt Morgan, an evolutionary biologist and geneticist who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1933 for discoveries explaining the role that the chromosome plays in heredity.

                                In 1915 he became a strong critic of eugenics when supporters kept declaring that personality traits, intelligence and behavior patterns were genetically determined whereas his own research demonstrated that the more complex the trait the more complex the interaction between heredity and the environment. As a result Morgan resigned his membership on the Committee of Animal Breeding within the ABA and insisted that they remove his name from the Association's Journal of Heredity.

                                During his acceptance of his Nobel Prize he said that "the complexity of the genetic composition of man makes it somewhat hazardous to apply only the simpler rules of Mendelian inheritance; for, the development of many inherited characters depends both on the presence of modifying factors and on the external environment for their expression."

                                It was evolutionists like Morgan and Punnett pointed out that the racial theories of eugenicists were as scientifically unsound as they were morally objectionable.

                                Another important figure in this debate, although more on the periphery, was Franz Uri Boas, the "Father of American Anthropology," especially his feud with the conservationist Madison Grant.

                                Grant was an ardent supporter of eugenics (being director of the American Eugenics Society, a founding member of the Galton Society, and one of the eight members of the International Committee of Eugenics) and instrumental in the passing and prosecution of several anti-miscegenation laws (such as the notorious Racial Integrity Act of 1924 in the state of Virginia, where he sought to codify his particular version of the "one-drop rule" into law). In 1916 he wrote "The Passing of the Great Race" a detailed treatise on racial hygiene that expounds the belief in Nordic superiority and which Hitler wrote him and proclaimed, "The book is my Bible."

                                Grant's chief opponent and rival was Franz Boas, who supported evolutionary theory (and wrote of his deep indebtedness to Darwin[1]) and ridiculed the idea of orthogenesis and cultural/social evolution. Grant tried for years to get Boas fired from his position at Columbia University but in the end Boas was the victory having wrested control of the American Anthropological Association from Grant and his supporters (Grant joined with Charles B. Davenport to form the Galton Society as an alternative).

                                While early on Boas thought that eugenics might have some limited merit saying that "The attempt to suppress those defective classes whose deficiencies can be proved by rigid methods to be due to hereditary causes, and to prevent unions that will unavoidably lead to the birth of disease-stricken progeny, is the proper field of eugenics" he cautioned in 1916 that "Eugenics is not a panacea that will cure human ills, it is rather a dangerous sword that may turn its edge against those who rely on its strength."

                                Later his position started shifting toward opposition toward eugenics as can be seen in his 1928 book "Anthropology and Modern Life," where he dedicated an entire chapter to eugenics and questioned its conclusions stating that eugenists must empirically determine “without bias” what are and aren't inherited traits and expressed skeptism that they could ever attain that type of information.

                                In "Race and Democratic Society" a work published after his death Boas declared that "The behavior of an individual is determined not by his racial affiliation, but by the character of his ancestry and his cultural environment" as well as "No one has ever proved that a human being, through his descent from a certain group of people, must of necessity have certain mental characteristics."

                                There were of course others such as Hermann Muller, who had worked in Morgan's lab and won 1946 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. He delivered a speech at the Eugenics Conference of 1932 where he took them to task for its simplistic definition of 'unfit,' declaring that "genetic worth is a practically continuous variant, and there is no hard and fast line between the fit and the unfit, nor does relative fitness in the great majority of individuals depend on one or a few pre-specified genes."

                                It appears that by the mid 1920s evolutionists were questioning and objecting to eugenics pointing out that supporters relied on simplistic and faulty assumptions about heredity -- although one fair criticism would be that they weren't doing it strenuously enough. Still, by the time Hitler came around, Darwinists had also shown that it wouldn't work.










                                1. In 1888 he declared that "the development of ethnology is largely due to the general recognition of the principle of biological evolution" and in a 1909 unpublished lecture, Boas wrote: "I hope I may have succeeded in presenting to you, however imperfectly, the currents of thought due to the work of the immortal Darwin which have helped to make anthropology what it is at the present time."
                                Just between us (I'll keep it quiet ... sssshhhhh!), are you a PAID propagandist for the Evolution Club of America? Truth be told, if you aren't then you should be. It's been a while since I had seen a Theistic Evolutionist employ as much time and effort to defend Evolutionism from the (OBVIOUS!) evidence against it that I've presented here. BTW, I remind you that I speak of Evolution, not evolution, and you must remember what the difference between these two is.

                                Just for the heck and fun of it, and to counteract some of the selective, one-sided, voluminous Elephant-Hurling propaganda that Rogue06 has been posting, I now post a "few" (hehe) tidbits -- enjoy!

                                The First International Eugenics Conference took place in London in 1912. It was organized by the British Eugenics Education Society and dedicated to Francis Galton who had died a year earlier. Major Leonard Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin, was presiding. In the final address, Major Darwin extolled eugenics as the practical application of the principle of evolution (Bruinius, Harry. Better For All the World. The Secret History of Forced Sterilization and America's Quest for Racial Purity. A. A. Knopf, New York, 2006. ISBN 0-375-41371-5).

                                You think, just maybe, that Major Darwin was thoroughly familiar with Evolution?
                                And that underlined part ... sure does sound a lot like Jorge's thesis in this thread.

                                The Second International Eugenics Conference was held in New York in 1921, Alexander Graham Bell was the honorary president. The principal guest speaker, Major Leonard Darwin, advocated eugenic measures that needed to be taken, namely the "elimination of the unfit", the discouragement of large families in the "ill-endowed", and the encouragement of large families in the "well-endowed". (reference: New York Times, September 25, 1921).

                                Huh - "elimination of the unfit" once again by Major Darwin. Sure does sound a lot like what Jorge has been saying here, namely, the direct, logical application of a fundamental Darwinian Principle.

                                The Third International Eugenics Conference was also held in New York in 1932. Major Darwin, then 88 years old, was unable to attend. He sent a report that was read by Sir Ronald Fisher. On August 23, 1932, The New York Times reported, “‘Eugenic reforms must be adopted within the next hundred years if civilization is to go on’, was the message of Major Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin, founder of the modern theory of evolution, read last night at the Third International Congress of Eugenics, which opened yesterday at the American Museum of Natural History.”

                                Shortly after this Third Eugenics Congress, the Nazi government began to implemented eugenics according to the recommendations made by H. H. Laughlin and Ernst Rüdin. The Nazis pointed to eugenics practices in other European countries and the leadership that had been provided by the United States. Thus was initiated the process to rid “the unfit” from German society – the Holocaust was born. [Laughlin was the Director of the Eugenics Record Office in New York from its inception in 1910 to its closing in 1939 and was among the most active individuals influencing American eugenics policy including compulsory sterilization legislation.]

                                Once again we see "the unfit". If that doesn't sound like an application of "survival of the fittest" by doing away with "the unfit" - a fundamental Darwinian Principle - then I guess nothing does.


                                In April of 1932 Margaret Sanger advocated an option "to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation [i.e., concentration camps] or sterilization." (from ‘A Plan For Peace’, Birth Control Review, 1932).

                                Dr. Paul Popenoe was a researcher, a leader in the U.S. eugenics movement, author of the most widely used American eugenics text and editor of the Journal of Heredity. Margaret Sanger enthusiastically supported his ideas and practices. In the April 1933 Birth Control Review [edited my Margaret Sanger from 1917 through 1938) Popenoe wrote, “Eugenic sterilization is one of the many indispensable measures in any modern program of social welfare … Eugenic sterilization represents one such step that is practicable, humanitarian, and certain in its results.”

                                As if it needed saying, both Sanger and Popenoe were fervent Dawinists upholding the foundational Darwinian Principle of "survival of the fittest" by, among other things, limiting/eliminating the "inferior" of the species.

                                Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) had it roots at an “birth control clinic” founded by Margaret Sanger. When Sanger began in 1921, she called it the American Birth Control League. This organization targeted the control of reproduction of "inferiors" within society. The name was changed to PPFA in 1942. ‘Planned Parenthood’ certainly does sound much nicer and more inviting than ‘Birth Control League’, doesn’t it? I mean, don’t all good, responsible people want to “plan” being parents? Here is yet another example (like "Eugenics Quarterly" to "Social Biology") of how they use deception to conceal their true agenda. Hey, Evo-Faithful, is any of this sinking in? You are exposed ... your gig is out in the open!



                                Again, the connection between Darwinism and eugenics is utterly undeniable, except to a "special" few.

                                See, Rogue06 - I too can "Hurl Elephants" and my elephants are much bigger than yours.

                                Jorge

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Barry Desborough, 07-30-2021, 10:19 AM
                                16 responses
                                80 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 07-27-2021, 09:39 AM
                                27 responses
                                104 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 07-25-2021, 08:57 AM
                                0 responses
                                16 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 07-23-2021, 06:14 PM
                                1 response
                                16 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 07-22-2021, 07:50 AM
                                1 response
                                19 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X