The "unified" theory of evolution

[AV1611VET]

Darwin was from England. He married his first cousin way back in 1839. Things were different back than in England. Moving forward to today, even today in England it is still legal to marry ones first cousin.

Yup -- science can take a hike, can't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe she was hot.

Well, she did compete with Octomom.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yup -- science can take a hike, can't it?

Science has nothing to do with the fact that in the 1800s, it was the cultural norm for cousin marriage.

And Darwin marrying his cousin does nothing to disprove or falsify the validity of the theory of evolution. Why do you keep bringing it up like it somehow does?

 

[David Lamb]

What Darwin did is prohibited in 24 states.

While I don't agree with Darwin's theory of evolution, I have to ask you which of those 24 states he lived in. I always believed he was British.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

While I don't agree with Darwin's theory of evolution, I have to ask you which of those 24 states he lived in. I always believed he was British.

It's legal where AV lives too, on Guam.

 

[Ophiolite]

It's legal where AV lives too, on Guam.

I didn't know that AV lived there, but it explains a lot. Clearly, @AV1611VET is experiencing the angst brought on by "taxation without representation".

 

[AV1611VET]

Science has nothing to do with the fact that in the 1800s, it was the cultural norm for cousin marriage.

When did science intervene and ban it "for good eugenic reasons"?

And Darwin marrying his cousin does nothing to disprove or falsify the validity of the theory of evolution.

If the Father of Evolution married his first cousin, then I'm sure at least some others had no qualms with marrying their first cousins.

Kinda like, if women in Europe are taking Thalidomide, I'm sure it's okay for women in America to take it.

Why do you keep bringing it up like it somehow does?

Yes, it has nothing to do with the mechanics of evolution.

But hey, if dad's doing it, it can't be bad ... can it?

 

[AV1611VET]

While I don't agree with Darwin's theory of evolution, I have to ask you which of those 24 states he lived in. I always believed he was British.

Did Darwin know something that those 24 states didn't?

Or ... as I suspect ... did others marry their first cousins -- (like The Father of Evolution did) -- and later start producing a generation of Thalid genetically disordered children?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's legal where AV lives too, on Guam.

Hey ... if it's legal, then it must be scientifically sound -- right?

After all, scientists know what's best for us, don't they?

 

[BCP1928]

When did science intervene and ban it "for good eugenic reasons"?



If the Father of Evolution married his first cousin, then I'm sure at least some others had no qualms with marrying their first cousins.

Kinda like, if women in Europe are taking Thalidomide, I'm sure it's okay for women in America to take it.



Yes, it has nothing to do with the mechanics of evolution.

But hey, if dad's doing it, it can't be bad ... can it?

People don't accept the theory of evolution just because Darwin said so. Scientists just verified his work and moved on.

 

[Ophiolite]

Sorry @AV1611VET I am losing your thread here. How exactly did marrying cousins cause the thalidomide disaster, the de-planeting of Pluto, or the Challenger catastrophe. Were the doctors, astronomers and engineers involved in these, all the product of cosanguinious relationships?

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry @AV1611VET I am losing your thread here. How exactly did marrying cousins cause the thalidomide disaster, the de-planeting of Pluto, or the Challenger catastrophe. Were the doctors, astronomers and engineers involved in these, all the product of cosanguinious relationships?

Cute.

 

[AV1611VET]

People don't accept the theory of evolution just because Darwin said so. Scientists just verified his work and moved on.

Verified it as right; or verified it as wrong?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

When did science intervene and ban it "for good eugenic reasons"?

Around the 1800s, though it wasn't banned by science it was banned by politicians. Though of course, the regular person at the time wouldn't really care, especially since over half of the US states still allow cousin marriage.
And you've still do nothing to explain why Darwin marrying his cousin somehow invalidates the theory of evolution.

If the Father of Evolution married his first cousin, then I'm sure at least some others had no qualms with marrying their first cousins.

Kinda like, if women in Europe are taking Thalidomide, I'm sure it's okay for women in America to take it.

The one does not follow the other at all. And you've still do nothing to explain why Darwin marrying his cousin somehow invalidates the theory of evolution.

Yes, it has nothing to do with the mechanics of evolution.

But hey, if dad's doing it, it can't be bad ... can it?

Yes, cousin marriage is a cultural thing, not a scientific and biological thing, even though science and biology have shown outright why cousin marriage is a bad thing for the gene pool.

And you've still do nothing to explain why Darwin marrying his cousin somehow invalidates the theory of evolution.

Hey ... if it's legal, then it must be scientifically sound -- right?

After all, scientists know what's best for us, don't they?

By and large, they try and do what they can. But people being people, what's good for the gander is often ignored outright by the goose.

And you've still do nothing to explain why Darwin marrying his cousin somehow invalidates the theory of evolution.

 

[BCP1928]

Verified it as right; or verified it as wrong?

Some of it was right and some of it was wrong. Scientists aren't in the business of sanctifying books, They want actual evidence.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Around the 1800s, though it wasn't banned by science it was banned by politicians. Though of course, the regular person at the time wouldn't really care, especially since over half of the US states still allow cousin marriage.
And you've still do nothing to explain why Darwin marrying his cousin somehow invalidates the theory of evolution.

Einstein also married his first cousin. This was their second marriages and occurred when they were 40 and there were no children. It has no impact on the validity of Einstein's work whether it was from before (like relativity) or later.

 

[AV1611VET]

And you've still do nothing to explain why Darwin marrying his cousin somehow invalidates the theory of evolution.

Darwin doesn't have to marry his cousin to invalidate the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution invalidates itself with missing links.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Putting aside the unnecessary added emphasis on theory:

Darwin doesn't have to marry his cousin to invalidate the theory of evolution.

You sure as heck have been seeming to treat it like it does, otherwise why else would you bring it up?

The theory of evolution invalidates itself with missing links.

It really doesn't though and it's been explain multiple times to why it doesn't. You just don't care to listen and learn.

 

[AV1611VET]

You sure as heck have been seeming to treat it like it does, otherwise why else would you bring it up?

In POST 35, Darwin was used to attack Lee Strobel.

I'm now calling Darwin out as either a hypocrite, or as an ignorant scientist.

(I could use Bible terminology to describe him, but I won't. Especially since I believe he went to Heaven when he died.)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In POST 35, Darwin was used to attack Lee Strobel.

I'm now calling Darwin out as either a hypocrite, or as an ignorant scientist.

(I could use Bible terminology to describe him, but I won't. Especially since I believe he went to Heaven when he died.)

If you read post 35 as an attack, then that's on you and no-one else.