Are there transitional fossils?

[xianghua]

Fact of the matter is, the tetrapod tracks youre referring to are right in the ball park, found with other fossils of the fish to amphibian sequence in the late Devonian.

but they found to be older then their suppose transitional fossils. so this fossil found in the wrong place. period.

Bottom line is, you have no explanation for the prediction made.

because there is no prediction here. the fossils say otherwise- the advance form (tetrapod) appeared before the less advance form (tiktaalik). again: a fail prediction. actually some evidence suggest that the first tetrapod appeared about 40 my before the tiktaalik. so it's a 40 my gap between evolutionery prediction and reality.

 

[Jimmy D]

but they found to be older then their suppose transitional fossils. so this fossil found in the wrong place. period.

because there is no prediction here. the fossils say otherwise- the advance form (tetrapod) appeared before the less advance form (tiktaalik). again: a fail prediction. actually some evidence suggest that the first tetrapod appeared about 40 my before the tiktaalik. so it's a 40 my gap between evolutionery prediction and reality.

The definition of "transitional fossil" has been explained so many times in this thread, as has this specific issue.

Therefore one of two conclusions can be drawn from the above post and neither of them are particularly flattering.

 

[Jimmy D]

but the fossils showing us something else. where is the prediction then? by the way: creation model also predict transitional objects to be found. a jeep for instance is a transitional between a car and a truck.

What specifically does the "creation model" predict?

 

[Herman Hedning]

What specifically does the "creation model" predict?

Apparently that cars reproduce sexually.

 

[Jimmy D]

creation model also predict transitional objects to be found. a jeep for instance is a transitional between a car and a truck.

Why would there be transitional objects if the "creation model" is true? Transition is the process of change. By it's very nature special creation doesn't require change. Please explain.

 

[Job 33:6]

but they found to be older then their suppose transitional fossils. so this fossil found in the wrong place. period.

because there is no prediction here. the fossils say otherwise- the advance form (tetrapod) appeared before the less advance form (tiktaalik). again: a fail prediction. actually some evidence suggest that the first tetrapod appeared about 40 my before the tiktaalik. so it's a 40 my gap between evolutionery prediction and reality.

First off, the difference isn't 40 million, its closer to 20 million. Second, the fossil succession spans over 600-650 million years (only including complex larger animals, it spans much further back if you include Precambrian organisms). When you find a discrepancy spanning 20 million years, what youre looking at is akin to fine tuning of a single string of a musical instrument.

Ever tune a guitar? You start by loosening or tightening the strings from the headstick, then you fine tune them on the bridge. Your argument is comparable to saying...that because people are in the process of fine tuning the A string, the instrument therefore cannot be tuned and there is no order to the sounds a guitar makes.

On the contrary, whether the A is slightly sharp or slightly flat, doesn't take away from the fact that the strings still have their order EADGBE and that there is still an order in the sounds they make (hence how the prediction was made).

Further beyond that, by admitting that tetrapod tracks exist that are 395 million years old, youre accepting that early tetrapods appeared in the mid to late Devonian, which is precisely what advocates of the fossil succession are arguing. Youre digging your own grave.

 

[xianghua]

The fossils were also crushed into pieces before being stuck back together in that position, and the bones that weren't crumbled mostly aren't birdlike (with the skull being the closest to having avian features).

ok. but how that skull is so similar to a bird if this is a 210 my fossil (even a mix of fossils)?

What I was referring to is that the bones of the foot were found with the body they belong to.

do you have any reference that they dont found this near other fossils? thanks.

You ignore and choose not to address my statements about how it could be used to disprove evolution quite easily, while continuing to assert that the fossils could be in any order and it would still somehow serve as evidence for evolution. I'll quit commenting on your incorrect assertion when you stop making it, or finally decide to address the points I have made about it honestly.

ok. its easy: if we will find a mammal that date about 300my it will not falsified evolution at all. we can claim that this fossils somehow get into the wrong layer or we can claim for convergent evolution. some of the most similar creatures on earth are actually appeared in a different layers. we can also claim that the date is wrong because of contamination, or just push back the evolution of mammals. anything is possible.

 

[Job 33:6]

ok. its easy: if we will find a mammal that date about 300my it will not falsified evolution at all. we can claim that this fossils somehow get into the wrong layer or we can claim for convergent evolution. some of the most similar creatures on earth are actually appeared in a different layers. we can also claim that the date is wrong because of contamination, or just push back the evolution of mammals. anything is possible.

If mammal fossils were found 300 million years ago, that would be an issue for the theory. But finding tetrapod tracks in the middle to late Devonian is so close to where other tetrapod tracks are found, that it isn't an issue.

 

[pshun2404]

My point stands: science only gets political when politics stands in its way.

-_- the definition of what a species is has changed over time to make the categorization more useful and accurate to reality. That's the entire point of scientific progress. I'm sorry that the precise definition of species isn't as cut and dry as you were taught in high school, but that's a personal problem, not science's problem.

Then it should be really easy for you demonstrate beyond an assertion.

The initial reaction to evolution was outrage from the scientific community. It was loathed. This is why the Scopes trial in the US occurred in 1925. That's about 66 years AFTER Origin of Species was published.

So sayeth you, in your personal opinion. That species change over time is the observation, and evolution is an explanation of the process. However, your actual contention is likely with the observation itself rather than the theory that explains WHY and HOW it happens. That sounds like a personal problem to me, because that observation is not contestable.
Adolph Hitler banned evolution in classrooms and Origin of Species was on his burn list. I guarantee that YOU have a better understanding of evolution than Hitler did. Furthermore, Hitler is not, nor ever has been, the norm, genocides predate evolution (they even are mentioned in the bible).

Clarence Darrow was a lawyer, and his only connection to evolution is that he was on the side of "teach evolution in schools" during the Scopes trial. His upbringing and career otherwise had nothing to do with evolution. Also, he died in 1938, of course he was racist. Racism predates evolution.

Margaret Sanger has no connections with evolution at all, and she worked with communities of different races, so despite the time period she lived in, I'm not sure she was actually racist. I'm not shocked that you take issue with a person that founded organizations that eventually formed into Planned Parenthood, but there is not one bit of historical evidence connecting her to evolution at all. Additionally, plenty of people that are evolution supporters (as well as plenty of atheists) are pro-life. For example, Christopher Hitchens was very much pro-life.

Seriously, people were racist garbage long before evolution was a thing, and were even trying to abuse scientific studies to "demonstrate" that their race was superior to all others, even if it was with something as inane as the distance between the chin and belly button (I wish I was kidding). This was especially prominent in Europe for a while. Never quite caught on in other places, perhaps because having kids with people of other nationalities wasn't quite as taboo. They called the Irish primitive because they often didn't wear undergarments (which many couldn't afford).

My point stands: science only gets political when politics stands in its way.

“Science” does not have this problem only the ToE...and if you MUST continually assure its exclusive inclusion via legislation that should be a red flag to any rational person (we do not need this for physics or chemistry or 90% of Biology)...

This happens because the verifiable aspect are MIXED with the assumptive speculative aspects and all are taught as “true”!

the definition of what a species is has changed over time to make the categorization more useful and accurate to reality.

No it has not...it has “changed over time” to MAKE the “categorization more useful and accurate to” to the preconceived and ‘accepted as true’ HYPOTHESIS (not reality)...

You may not even know what actual reality is, because if you did you would know that materialism is utterly delusional.

The racist and sexist roots are undeniable.

Then it should be really easy for you demonstrate beyond an assertion.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world...The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." — Charles Darwin (1871) The Descent of Man, 1st edition, pages 168 -169.

"The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world" (Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I, 1888. New York D. Appleton and Company, pp.285-286)…

Thomas Huxley once wrote, “No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man.” (Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews, 1871)

The standard intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens” (Darwinian Anthropologist, Henry Osborne, “The Evolution of Human Races,”Natural History, Jan.-Feb. 1926).

Clearly one can see that even this post-Ota Benga Darwinian still believed whole heartedly that people of African descent are not viewed as being “homo-sapiens”, but are of at the least, an entirely different species of homo. And these are just a few followers now look at his family....

Charles Darwin’s son Leonard was an avid follower of his father’s work they had many conversations discussing the details and implications of his theory. After daddy passed, Leonard went on to co-found The Eugenics Society and became its President from 1911 through 1928 and remained on board in an honorary position until 1943.

In the American Philosophical Society, Dav, B27., on Leonard Darwin, we read a letter from the German Society for Race Hygiene sent to Leonard Darwin about attending the International Commission for Eugenics.

His grandson Charles Galton Darwin has his legacy as well. He was a Eugenics Society life fellow, vice-president 1939, director 1939, president 1953–1959, and remained on committee in 1960. On the late 30’s and early 40’s little Chuck was also the advisory editor (along with Josef Mengele’s mentor Von Verschuer) of the racist journal Mankind Quarterly.

Then in the near future I can cite the deceiver Heackel, Pleotz, and even Sanger...who readily published Hitler’s Mengele’s articles in her periodicals.

 

[pshun2404]

Now just for a touch of sexism...

In The Descent of Man he revealed his pseudo-scientific distain for women when he wrote, “The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman–whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands…We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well-illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on ‘Hereditary Genius,’ that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.”

In this excerpt from Darwin’s Letters he wrote to a friend regarding his brother Erasmus’s possible wedlock to the fair Harriet Martineau, a French female of doubtful purity (as far as Charles was concerned). In Letter 321 of the Darwin Correspondence Project, a publication of Darwin’s personal letters, he writes:

"Erasmus is just returned from driving out Miss Martineau…Our only protection from so admirable a sister-in-law is in her working him too hard. He begins to perceive, he shall be not much better than her '[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]'… Imagine poor Erasmus a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] to so philosophical & energetic a lady…How pale & woe begone he will look… She already takes him to task about his idleness…She is going someday to explain to him her notions about marriage…Perfect equality of rights is part of her doctrine. I much doubt whether it will be equality in practice. We must pray for our poor [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]

In every place you read (bless and do not curse) Darwin used the N word....

For sake of room I will continue in the next post...

 

[pshun2404]

Final for Sarah....

That species change over time is the observation, and evolution is an explanation of the process.

Indeed they do over and over, and as science has proven through observable facts and experimental tests, speciation (that which causes the changes) produces multiple variety in the same kind organism, and that is all (reptiles producing varieties of reptiles, birds producing varieties of birds, fish producing varieties of fish, bears to bears, apes to apes, and so on). Nothing more...definitely at work and definitely an evolutionary process just not the repeatedly taught mantra....

Adolph Hitler banned evolution in classrooms and Origin of Species was on his burn list

Please produce a real source not just some atheists OPINION or claim....as I did for you regarding the racist roots...

Clarence Darrow was a lawyer, and his only connection to evolution is that he was on the side of "teach evolution in schools" during the Scopes trial.

So sad so many have been brainwashed by the propaganda piece “Inherit the Wind”...the teaching of John Scopes were the principles (most still utterly speculative) of Hunter’s Civic Biology (Hence political biology) and it was full of unsupported speculations, racism, and missing link frauds....Darrow was just one of a number of highly paid pawns of the then quite Darwinian NY ACLU...

The propagandists political strategy works like this...challenge and create many court cases over and over...for every 20 or so lost they win one or two...after a number of years they can site those wins as precedent and make the exception APPEAR to be the rule. This is same POLITICAL strategy being used today o remove “In God we Trust” from our currency...one day it will win and then it will continually have to be re-legislated and defended in courts of law to keep the demand (of the minority athesits) in place. Again we never see this fervor in Physics, chemistry ,or real Biology...which is not hypothesis driven.

Margaret Sanger has no connections with evolution at all, and she worked with communities of different races, so despite the time period she lived in, I'm not sure she was actually racist.

Yet Eugenics educator Margaret Sanger’s periodical “The Birth Control Review” has been cited as saying:

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." She believed, "Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."

"Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives."

“We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…"

Blacks, Jews, handicapped, and very elderly people were all considered the unfit and defectives...she referred to them as “dysfunctional stock”...yup “stock’....euthanasia was the viable option (see the T-4 Euthanasia program) and we are not speaking of the propaganda we would all support for those in extreme pain on the throes of death who prefer to CHOOSE to go out with a bit of dignity...

 

[Job 33:6]

@pshun2404

Indeed they do over and over, and as science has proven through observable facts and experimental tests, speciation (that which causes the changes) produces multiple variety in the same kind organism, and that is all (reptiles producing varieties of reptiles, birds producing varieties of birds, fish producing varieties of fish.

In the case of tiktaalik which has bones allowing for the turning of its neck and eyes on the top of its head, while also having scales, gills and fins...

Fish do not have necks, nor heads like crocodiles, nor wrist bones. So what would you call tiktaalik? Would you call it a fish with amphibian traits but still not an amphibian?

You say that these animals only produce varieties of the same animal, but in a morphological sense, there is no clear line between a fish and amphibian, as there are fish that have amphibian traits that look similar to amphibians with fish traits.

So I guess what I am trying to ask is, in a morphological sense, where do you draw the line between the two?

This is a loaded question, as there is no correct answer.

The only way to not recognize transitionals would be to presume that God created and destroyed animals, which made it look as if one produced another In a sequence.

Then I would simply ask, why would God do that? Why created fish, then fish with amphibian traits, then amphibians with fish traits, then amphibians, in a sequence?

 

[xianghua]

as i said, i will focus in two main points to stay in focus.

Or you talking about a robotic machine shop on wheels that repairs itself and makes other robotic machine shops on wheels that repair themselves? I don't think something like that is even possible.

im talking about a car that made from organic components like dna and proteins that can produce other cars. like a living thing. do you think that such a car isnt evidence for design?

Uh, no, the heart and brain and other organs do not exist in a fertilized egg. But they are added one step at a time as the embryo develops. That is a picture of how evolution works: One step at a time. Biology can remain viable with proteins and functions added one step at a time.

not realy. the eye for instance contain about 40 different parts. during embryo development they arent functional till we get a full vision system. who is talking about embryo anyway? we are talking about a mature form that need to evolve.

 

[xianghua]

First off, the difference isn't 40 million, its closer to 20 million.

or even more according to this paper:

Rise of the Earliest Tetrapods: An Early Devonian Origin from Marine Environment

"According to our analysis this evolution occurred at about 397–416 MYA during the Early Devonian unlike previously thought."-

so the first tetrapod may date about 410my. when the tiktaalik is about 35 my younger. also remember that the tiktaalik suppose to be a transitional. so it's need to be even older then 410my.

according to this logic we can also push human back to 20-30my.

If mammal fossils were found 300 million years ago, that would be an issue for the theory.

not at all as i explained above.

 

[Job 33:6]

or even more according to this paper:

Rise of the Earliest Tetrapods: An Early Devonian Origin from Marine Environment

"According to our analysis this evolution occurred at about 397–416 MYA during the Early Devonian unlike previously thought."-

so the first tetrapod may date about 410my. when the tiktaalik is about 35 my younger. also remember that the tiktaalik suppose to be a transitional. so it's need to be even older then 410my.

according to this logic we can also push human back to 20-30my.



not at all as i explained above.

Irrelevant, check out my responses above. Youre citing a pro evolution source while trying to discredit evolution. Obviously you're doing something wrong.

 

[xianghua]

Fish do not have necks, nor heads like crocodiles,

have you heard about the alligator gar?:

Alligator gar - Wikipedia

some of it's traits are even more tetrapod-like then the tiktaalik.

 

[xianghua]

Irrelevant, check out my responses above. Youre citing a pro evolution source while trying to discredit evolution. Obviously you're doing something wrong.

so you where wrong here and have no answer. thanks for proving my point.

 

[Job 33:6]

have you heard about the alligator gar?:

Alligator gar - Wikipedia

some of it's traits are even more tetrapod-like then the tiktaalik.

Do you think this discredits the fossil succession? Still haven't heard a response on how the prediction was made in discovering tiktaalik.

Also, does this gar also have wrist bones and a flat head with eyes on top? No...

All of this is irrelevant

 

[Job 33:6]

so you where wrong here and have no answer. thanks for proving my point.

You have already been answered. Did you read my guitar analogy? Youre using a pro evolution source and you think you have discredited the fossil succession.

You really don't see how your thinking is incorrect on this one?

 

[PsychoSarah]

“Science” does not have this problem only the ToE...and if you MUST continually assure its exclusive inclusion via legislation that should be a red flag to any rational person (we do not need this for physics or chemistry or 90% of Biology)...

-_- there are laws in place for all the curriculum of public schools for any country. Math and history are just as legally required as science is. Furthermore, the public outrage at what is taught in schools is not even exclusive to science. In some states of the US, for example, the law states that the value of pi is 3. I am not kidding. Currently, people tend to ignore these various laws promoting ignorance. When evidence suggested the Earth was old, people were outraged, banging their bibles. Whenever ANY subject can be construed to go against religious teachings, people threw a huge fit. Sometimes ignorance won out, sometimes it lost.

This happens because the verifiable aspect are MIXED with the assumptive speculative aspects and all are taught as “true”!

You personally think that. However, as a person that has experienced public schooling, your assertions about evolution (as it is taught in schools) are incorrect. In middle school, it was OPTIONAL. I took AP biology in high school, and it BARELY got a mention. Most of my knowledge about evolution prior to college was because I pursued it out of personal interest. You think so many people can manage to be ignorant about the most basic evolutionary concepts in a society that pushed it down their throats? Don't be ridiculous. A large portion of public schools don't even follow the law, and don't teach it EVEN THOUGH LEGALLY, THEY HAVE TO. My fiance is from North Carolina. When instructors did bother to teach anything about evolution, they constantly followed it up with "but it's all wrong and the bible is true". So, what is actually being pushed down their throats is Christianity.

No it has not...it has “changed over time” to MAKE the “categorization more useful and accurate to” to the preconceived and ‘accepted as true’ HYPOTHESIS (not reality)...

-_- taxonomy is not evidence for evolution, and predates it. The founder of what would eventually become the modern taxonomy system was an astute creationist. In fact, he even denied the existence of carnivorous plants, because he viewed them as an abomination that would defy god's divine design. Additionally, the original kingdoms of classification were Animal, Vegetable, and Mineral. Freaking rocks were classified alongside living organisms in the past, and there was no kingdom level for prokaryotic organisms at all. That we classify living organisms on this planet is independent of evolution, though classifications of specific animals have changed due to DNA comparisons. Likewise, we wouldn't stop classifying organisms as species if evolution was disproven.

You may not even know what actual reality is, because if you did you would know that materialism is utterly delusional.

1. assuming that I am a materialist. I am entirely open to the prospect that there are aspects of the universe we cannot currently measure, and some which we might never be able to measure. I just don't make assumptions about what those things are, since by virtue of not being measurable, we can't determine that.

2. What "actual reality" is only extends, from our perspective, as far as what we can measure. While I do personally view that there is plenty we have yet to measure, and plenty we currently can't, it is pragmatic to consider that which measurably exists to be "real", and that which doesn't measurably exist "not real", since we can't determine the qualities of what we cannot observe. Anything we can't observe or measure is just conjecture at best, and pure fantasy at worst.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world...The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." — Charles Darwin (1871) The Descent of Man, 1st edition, pages 168 -169.

"The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world" (Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I, 1888. New York D. Appleton and Company, pp.285-286)

I wasn't denying that Darwin himself was racist. I kinda assume that by default for anyone that died prior to WWII. However, his writings on evolution don't mention human evolution very much, and the use of "races" in Origin of Species is never used to refer to humans (it's used roughly like species would be). You do realize that Darwin having racist roots doesn't make his theory inherently racist, right? Are you going to say that cell theory has racist roots too?

Thomas Huxley once wrote, “No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man.” (Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews, 1871)

1. demonstrate that Thomas Huxley WASN'T racist prior to being exposed to evolutionary theory.
2. demonstrate that evolutionary theory was what caused him to become racist.

The standard intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens

” (Darwinian Anthropologist, Henry Osborne, “The Evolution of Human Races,”Natural History, Jan.-Feb. 1926).

You do realize that if evolution implied racism, that it STILL WOULD, right? So where's the modern evolutionary racist? Why hasn't racism become more prevalent over time as evolution became more prevalent? The easy thing to realize is that racism and supporting evolution aren't correlated. Rather, these are independent from each other. Racist people that support evolution will often try to use it to justify their racism. Same goes with racists that are Christian creationists; they'll claim the bible supports their racism.

Clearly one can see that even this post-Ota Benga Darwinian still believed whole heartedly that people of African descent are not viewed as being “homo-sapiens”, but are of at the least, an entirely different species of homo. And these are just a few followers now look at his family....

Again, no shock that Darwin was racist, but you have to demonstrate that evolution made these people racist for your issue with evolution to be valid. People will abuse what they have to promote their ideology. People have always done this.

Charles Darwin’s son Leonard was an avid follower of his father’s work they had many conversations discussing the details and implications of his theory. After daddy passed, Leonard went on to co-found The Eugenics Society and became its President from 1911 through 1928 and remained on board in an honorary position until 1943.

Yes, eugenics, you know, that thing I keep mentioning sprouted up via misunderstanding evolution. Survival of the "fittest" just means that whatever lives to reproduce viable offspring is what ends up in a population. As long as a person is capable of surviving and reproducing, they meet all the basic requirements necessary to contribute POSITIVELY to the survival of our species. Those that are physically unable to reproduce simply won't, so there's no reason to kill them to remove them from the gene pool. They already aren't going to contribute to it.

Thanks to this lack of fundamental understanding of how evolution works, supporters of eugenics inadvertently harmed the gene pool by excluding some people the right to reproduce (until Hitler's actions in WWII came to light, and no one ever wanted to be associated with eugenics again).

In the American Philosophical Society, Dav, B27., on Leonard Darwin, we read a letter from the German Society for Race Hygiene sent to Leonard Darwin about attending the International Commission for Eugenics.

Again, misunderstanding evolution. Mixed race babies actually tend to be healthier than people purely descending from specific regions, as it reduces the risk of inheriting recessive diseases associated with being from a specific region, such as cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia.

Did you ever stop and think, "perhaps it is their racism creating bias in their scientific interpretations rather than the science contributing to their racism"?

His grandson Charles Galton Darwin has his legacy as well. He was a Eugenics Society life fellow, vice-president 1939, director 1939, president 1953–1959, and remained on committee in 1960. On the late 30’s and early 40’s little Chuck was also the advisory editor (along with Josef Mengele’s mentor Von Verschuer) of the racist journal Mankind Quarterly.

And all the people that were racist in the 1950's were evolution supporters... oh wait, they weren't, it was just a common thing in the population during that time period in general.

Then in the near future I can cite the deceiver Heackel, Pleotz, and even Sanger...who readily published Hitler’s Mengele’s articles in her periodicals.

I hope you aren't suggesting that Ernst Haeckel liked Adolf Hitler, seeing as Haekel died in 1919. Hitler wasn't even notable in terms of politics until a year or two later. Furthermore, Haeckel's drawings are irrelevant, since we use actual pictures of embryos and fetuses now. Additionally, his proposal that human and other animal embryos developed similarly is demonstrably correct. Were his methods flawed and biased? Absolutely. As it were, his basic conclusions ended up being correct despite that. It's an atypical sequence of events, but it is what it is. His drawings aren't used in up-to-date text books (we've had decent pictures of embryos in the womb since 1997), so why do people keep bringing him up? Are you foolishly assuming that the later evidence that confirmed Haeckel's suspicions was derived through as bad of a method as Haeckel used?

Thanks to you not providing a first name, I can't even look up who Pleotz is. I'm not familiar with the name.

Hitler was also Time magazine's man of the year in 1938, since he turned around Germany's failing economy during the Great Depression. People often forget that Hitler was extremely charismatic and well-spoken. It wasn't until the concentration camps began to be liberated that people outside of Germany realized what a monster he was. By the way, are you unaware that Planned Parenthood began to perform abortions 4 years after Margaret Sanger's death?

Additionally, as I read up on Margaret Sanger more, she actually REJECTED race and ethnicity as relevant in terms of eugenics. So, she was a supporter of eugenics THAT WASN'T RACIST. Furthermore, she never supported killing people for the sake of eugenics, and reacted negatively to what Hitler had done. She was also anti-Nazi, and I can't find any reliable sources that state she ever published an article by Hitler or Mengele. It seems highly unlikely that she would have published any work in regards to Mengele, since his work in no way stood out and was unrelated to her personal goals at the time.

Are their aspects to her ideology I find detestable? Absolutely, such as her support of the sterilization of the mentally challenged. However, I can find no connection to her ideology and evolution at all. In fact, she joint up with the eugenics crowd due to overlaping ideals that she had with them, such as that birth control should be available to anyone that could want it free of charge.