What is the end goal for creationists these days?

[dmmesdale]

Really you should be directing your ire towards the Reverent Robert Malthus who provided the key element for Darwin's theory. That's the Reverend Robert Malthus, Christian minister who arguably, more than any other, created the mind set among the governing elite that was responsible for the deaths of one million Irish in the Great Famine. And that was a full decade before Darwin published On the Origin of Species. So climb off your agenda driven, high horse and stop twisting facts to suit your delusions.

The facts are not being twisted and you have not demonstrated they are. Its a debate forum, not an empty accusation forum. Can you put together a case? I have not seen one yet. Not from you or the other two, i engaged.

Darwin did call the indigenous inhabitants of the regions he visited 'savages.' Darwin believed Black skinned people were inferior to White skinned Northern Euros. These are all facts, easily verified in his writings and not unusual for his time. Non Euros unable to be elevated to the status of civilized Euros. Mentally and morally limited, disease prone, defective and stuck in an early stage of bio-evolution. Not only obsolete but dangerous thru race mixing, corruption etc. Congenital by race.

Under those circumstances, it would be logically applicable to prevent population increase and promote extinction measures taken for granted in his writings. That is exactly what the Nazi's and American progressives did and promoted prior to WW2. Clearly, the goal of the Nazi's under Hitler was the extinction of the Jews considered inferior to the Germans. These are the facts not in dispute. Nothing unusual about extinction according to your side of the debate. That being since yours asserts 99.9% of all species now extinct. Well if that is true then what really is the problem? They decided to be proactive and apply their understanding of biology. Get rid of the defectives so the superior can advance. That is why Hess wrote National Socialism is applied biology.

 

[Ophiolite]

I notice you have completly failed to address the role of Malthus.

Since it is Christmas I shall offer you a Christmas gift. I shall adress two of the points you have raised:
1. Your defamatory remarks concerning Darwin's view of "the natives".
2. The very definite, some might say sinister, others perhaps even vile, twisting of the facts.

Since you have been dismissive (without the justification, evidence, argument, or case construction you demand of others) of responses provided thus far, preparation of your gift could take some time. It certainly won't be ready for Christmas, but I assure you - illness and death excepted - that I shall have it to you before Christmas 2018.

Side note: my understanding is that this is a discussion forum, not a debate forum. If it were a debate forum I would be arguing against evolution since I find the current anti-evolution posts seriously deficient in almost every regard.

 

[Speedwell]

The facts are not being twisted and you have not demonstrated they are. Its a debate forum, not an empty accusation forum. Can you put together a case? I have not seen one yet. Not from you or the other two, i engaged.

Darwin did call the indigenous inhabitants of the regions he visited 'savages.' Darwin believed Black skinned people were inferior to White skinned Northern Euros. These are all facts, easily verified in his writings and not unusual for his time. Non Euros unable to be elevated to the status of civilized Euros. Mentally and morally limited, disease prone, defective and stuck in an early stage of bio-evolution. Not only obsolete but dangerous thru race mixing, corruption etc. Congenital by race.

Under those circumstances, it would be logically applicable to prevent population increase and promote extinction measures taken for granted in his writings. That is exactly what the Nazi's and American progressives did and promoted prior to WW2. Clearly, the goal of the Nazi's under Hitler was the extinction of the Jews considered inferior to the Germans. These are the facts not in dispute. Nothing unusual about extinction according to your side of the debate. That being since yours asserts 99.9% of all species now extinct. Well if that is true then what really is the problem? They decided to be proactive and apply their understanding of biology. Get rid of the defectives so the superior can advance. That is why Hess wrote National Socialism is applied biology.

And so these Nazis justified their bigoted ignorance and moral failure with what they took to be science. At the same time in the Soviet Union Stalin was doing much the same thing. However, the Soviet Union had officially rejected Darwinism. Stalin was justifying his bigoted ignorance and moral failure with different science.

 

[USincognito]

It is commentary but not propaganda.

I disagree.

Keep going until, ''the end, in most cases, being promptly determined by the inroads of conquering tribes.''

p.71

The Idea of Race

The bogus quote and propagandistic comments were taken out of context in order to suggest nefarious motives on Darwin's part. That's simply a fact that can either be owned up to, or hand waved away. It's not going to change by tossing out red herrings.

He wrote about extinction.

Indeed. He was discussing how it happens, not encouraging it. Some seem unable to discern the difference between descriptive and prescriptive.

The context of my 621 was about forced sterilization of non-Euro women here prior to WW2 by progressives.

Darwin never wrote about force sterilization so the actions of American eugenecists have noting to do with him.

Garbage.

No, any selective breeding program is the opposite of evolution. Period.

Humans are natural and do select.

No, just no. That's not how this works. The natural in natural selection is the environment. When humans engage in any selective breeding that is artificial selection and therefore nothing to do with evolution (other than helping to suggest natural selection to Darwin).

Perhaps you don't know the difference between emotional and factual.

1. Please don't flame me.
2. The whole "Darwin was a racist" meme is purely emotional and not based in fact. Actually I'll qualify that last part. He had the same opinions of the non-Europeans that every other European had at the time. That said, while Darwin was a abolitionist at the time Origin was being published Americans were gearing up to wage war on each other to preserve their right to own other humans as property. That is factual.

Not misapplied.

"Yes it is" is not a valid argument.

Well they certainly did try to wipe out the Jews in Europe. (Extinction) Did they succeed in Germany? Poland?

Non sequitur. I was talking about how regardless of anyone misapplying evolution does not change the fact the fact that it occurred. Double non sequitur because Darwin never suggested killing Jews in Europe.

More empty accusations. They applied Darwinism according to his own clear writings. If you are saying the Nazi's misapplied then make your case because as it is the Nazi's clearly and rationally applied Darwinism according to his clear dictates.

Another non sequitur. I was talking about the misapplication of evolution does not change fact that the theory of evolution accurately describes the history of life on earth. Also factually incorrect because Darwin and Haeckel were banned in Nazi Germany and as I demonstrated above, genocide is artificial selection and thus not evolution.

 

[USincognito]

Darwin did call the indigenous inhabitants of the regions he visited 'savages.' Darwin believed Black skinned people were inferior to White skinned Northern Euros. {snip}

As did every other European and white American. As I informed you, while Darwin was abolitionist, at the time Origin was published Americans were getting ready to wage war on each other so they could keep black skinned people as slaves. This was after the Baptists in America had broken in half over the issue of slavery (the Southern Baptists felt slavery was ordained by God).

That is why Hess wrote National Socialism is applied biology.

1. Please cite any reference to Darwin in Hess, Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich's writings.
2. The language used to marginalize the Jews biologically was that of them being a social disease. One needing to be disinfected from the world. As such, the Nazi biological ideology owes more to Joseph Lister than to Charles Darwin.

 

[dmmesdale]

I disagree. The bogus quote and propagandistic comments were taken out of context in order to suggest nefarious motives on Darwin's part.

Fact free opinion. You back it up with nothing.

Some seem unable to discern the difference between descriptive and prescriptive.

Please don't flame me. LOL! See how that works.

Darwin never wrote about force sterilization so the actions of American eugenecists have noting to do with him.

He wrote about extinction and others applied thru sterilization processes targeting non Euros. They applied Darwin. They took it off the page. You have no point

No, any selective breeding program is the opposite of evolution. Period.

Self-serving opinion does not equal fact.

No, just no. That's not how this works.

Prove it.

The natural in natural selection is the environment.

Humans not part of the environment? Since when?

When humans engage in any selective breeding that is artificial selection

Ignores humans are part of the environment and human intervention accomplishes the same thing. It is nothing more than another self-serving rationalization. Incidental nit and cherry picking. The evolution process does not care how it happens.

and therefore nothing to do with evolution (other than helping to suggest natural selection to Darwin).

There you go conflating opinion with fact. There are all kinds of ways species go extinct and extinction by other types is not ruled out by Darwin. Those are the facts, not in dispute. For example.

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated'' How, by other ''savages.''

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

How are the more civilized going to exterminate and replace absent killing off the savages? How bout forced sterilization of the females, for one? Not the same as the Nazi gas chambers, far less efficient, but not all places have Hitler as the Dictator. Let me ask you something. How do you exterminate rats without rat poison or traps which kill off rats? How do you exterminate insect infestation without poison of some kind which kills them off? If Euro rats kill off Australian rats is that artificial selection? Like i said your case is weak to nonexistent.

1. Please don't flame me.

Let's go back and review. This is what you wrote.

I don't know why Creationists think this emotional and false slander helps them other than rhetorically.

My response.

Perhaps you don't know the difference between emotional and factual. You can't make a rational case so you vilify. Empty accusations not subs for rational cases. False slander (?) presupposes true slander. What's the difference? It is a fact the goal of the Nazis was to wipe out the Jews in Europe in part because they were considered subhuman, corruptors of the gene pool etc.

Your edit (cherry pick) of my response.

Perhaps you don't know the difference between emotional and factual.
-----------------------
So your accusing creationists false slander is not flamming? What else do you say about creationists? It is a level playing field here. Not one set of rules for your home team and another for the visitors. No double standards, dishonest edited quotes. At the very least, you dish it out, you get it back.

2. The whole "Darwin was a racist" meme is purely emotional and not based in fact.

Here is a fact. Savages is racist by any standard.

Actually I'll qualify that last part. He had the same opinions of the non-Europeans that every other European had at the time. That said, while Darwin was a abolitionist at the time Origin was being published Americans were gearing up to wage war on each other to preserve their right to own other humans as property. That is factual.

The real cause of the civil war was the attack of Fort Sumpter, not slavery. Darwin, the abolitionist was incidental to the fact Darwin paved the road for 20th-century race wars, extinction attempts by Germans over Jews, congenitally unfit by race. All sorts of applications and scientific justifications for extinction attempts based on race.

Non sequitur. I was talking about how regardless of anyone misapplying evolution

You have not proved it was misapplied. Your case is weak and contradicted by Darwin, himself.

Double non sequitur because Darwin never suggested killing Jews in Europe.

He did predict races would extinct other races as a natural part of the evolutionary process. Others simply applied what Darwin predicted.

 

[dmmesdale]

As did every other European and white American.

Not in dispute.

As I informed you, while Darwin was abolitionist,

Yes and William Powell not an anarchist, never believe anyone would follow his instructions to make bombs and blow up things. Darwin provided a science validation for race wars. Matter of fact Darwin evolution would predict lesser and more developed races. Various stages. Biological inequality. The idea humans are equal is anti science. Flat Earth. So, which is it? You pick up one end, you pick up the other. Since you are the resident Darwin expert then which races are lesser and which are more developed? It could be argued Darwin was a proto-fascist in the German application sense under the Nazi's.

1. Please cite any reference to Darwin in Hess, Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich's writings.

Already gave you a quote under Hess which alludes to Darwin. National Socialism applied biology. I could do more if they wrote extensively but facts exist to be ignored by Darwin apologists. It would be a waste of my time to research their writings. You can always offer payment. If you expect me to do it for free well you have another thing coming.

2. The language used to marginalize the Jews biologically was that of them being a social disease. One needing to be disinfected from the world. As such, the Nazi biological ideology owes more to Joseph Lister than to Charles Darwin.

This presupposes Nazi biology owes to Darwin. That is what I have been saying all along. Glad you came around even if you minimize the influence of Darwin.

Top six humans and bottom six apes. #1 Euros and #6 Africans. There is your applied Darwin which presupposes biological inequality. Note also the one step between the lowest human and ape. 7 to 6. The steps between the lowest human and the highest man is from 6 to 1. Negros are one step away from apes while Euros are 6 steps.

 

[USincognito]

The real cause of the civil war was the attack of Fort Sumpter, not slavery.

O.k. I think we're done here.

 

[Astrophile]

Matter of fact Darwin evolution would predict lesser and more developed races. Various stages. Biological inequality. The idea humans are equal is anti science. Flat Earth. So, which is it? You pick up one end, you pick up the other. Since you are the resident Darwin expert then which races are lesser and which are more developed? It could be argued Darwin was a proto-fascist in the German application sense under the Nazi's.

This is completely wrong. Any book on evolution will tell you that all living things are equally evolved, and that there is no such thing as a less or more developed race. A tapeworm is as much evolved as, for example, a bird of paradise. You appear to have a picture of evolution as a ladder, with different species or races on higher or lower rungs. It is more accurate to think of evolution as a tree or a bush, with every living species at the end of its own twig.

By the way, if you are looking for real racism you should read The Negro a Beast: Or in the Image of God; The Reasoner of the Age, the Revelator of the Century! The Bible as It Is! The Negro and His Relation to the Human Family! The Negro Not the Son of Ham, by Charles Carroll, published by the American Book and Bible House, St. Louis, Missouri (1900). The first words of the book, immediately after the title, are 'The Negro a beast, but created with articulate speech, and hands, that he may be of service to his master - the White man.' As you will see if you read the book - "The negro a beast"; or, "In the image of God"; the reasoner of the age, the revelator of the century! The Bible as it is! The negro and his relation to the human family! ... The negro not the son of Ham .. - the author was a Bible-believing Christian and a convinced anti-evolutionist, as well as being a virulent racist. I suppose that modern Christians have abandoned the opinions of Professor Carroll, and it would be unfair to use his racism as an excuse for condemning or rejecting Christianity, but it is equally unfair to use Darwin's racist views, which were normal for his time, as grounds for rejecting evolution.

 

[dmmesdale]

This is completely wrong. Any book on evolution will tell you that all living things are equally evolved, and that there is no such thing as a less or more developed race.

That is more a sign of the times and would not necessarily be a biological fact assuming we are from an apelike common ancestor. Also if the process is step by step then the stage development could be unequal. None of it accounts for the obvious differences between the races. Why Africans still live in primitive standards while the Euros are more advanced culturally as a whole. They can do intelligence testing by race and have and noted differences. There are positive and negative differences. Blacks better suited for athletics overall.

You appear to have a picture of evolution as a ladder, with different species or races on higher or lower rungs. It is more accurate to think of evolution as a tree or a bush, with every living species at the end of its own twig.

It is presented as step by step from a common ancestor. If it is a race then not everyone is in the same spot or not everyone would cross the finish line at the same time. I am simply asking who is at the head of the pack?

By the way, if you are looking for real racism you should read The Negro a Beast: Or in the Image of God; The Reasoner of the Age, the Revelator of the Century! The Bible as It Is! The Negro and His Relation to the Human Family! The Negro Not the Son of Ham, by Charles Carroll, published by the American Book and Bible House, St. Louis, Missouri (1900). The first words of the book, immediately after the title, are 'The Negro a beast, but created with articulate speech, and hands, that he may be of service to his master - the White man.' As you will see if you read the book - "The negro a beast"; or, "In the image of God"; the reasoner of the age, the revelator of the century! The Bible as it is! The negro and his relation to the human family! ... The negro not the son of Ham .. - the author was a Bible-believing Christian and a convinced anti-evolutionist, as well as being a virulent racist.

I have never met a bible believer who argued for such things since it would not be tolerated in most churches. I don't think they would have much of a case based on the source documents. Everyone knows they can take the Bible and misuse it to say or justify anything.

I suppose that modern Christians have abandoned the opinions of Professor Carroll, and it would be unfair to use his racism as an excuse for condemning or rejecting Christianity, but it is equally unfair to use Darwin's racist views, which were normal for his time, as grounds for rejecting evolution.

My argument being racism is a coherent if not pernicious application of Darwinism. It is in fact properly applied Darwinism. While your apologetic assuming equality is anti biological Darwinist. Flat Earth. We would rationally expect certain groups to be closer to their ape-like ancestor and others more removed. It is your group who depict humans as big-brained apes, not us.

Another logical outcome being moral relativism. Hitler was neither good nor bad. He simply failed because of bad decision making. It did not mean he was wrong about his views on race or right. At least according to their understanding of Darwin and the times. In their view, nothing wrong with race wars.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My argument being racism is a coherent if not pernicious application of Darwinism. It is in fact properly applied Darwinism. While your apologetic assuming equality is anti biological Darwinist. Flat Earth. We would rationally expect certain groups to be closer to their ape-like ancestor and others more removed. It is your group who depict humans as big-brained apes, not us.

Another logical outcome being moral relativism. Hitler was neither good nor bad. He simply failed because of bad decision making. It did not mean he was wrong about his views on race or right. At least according to their understanding of Darwin and the times. In their view, nothing wrong with race wars.

Yeah, no. You're just wrong. Horribly and completely wrong. The fact that you had to swing from an incredibly insipid view on what you think Darwinian evolution entails to morality, shows that you understand nothing about evolution.

 

[dmmesdale]

Yeah, no. You're just wrong. Horribly and completely wrong. The fact that you had to swing from an incredibly insipid view on what you think Darwinian evolution entails to morality, shows that you understand nothing about evolution.

This is a debate forum and am not interested in opinions. If you have a case, make it. From Darwin. Please no nauseating appeals to outrage as counterfeits.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is a debate forum and am not interested in opinions. If you have a case, make it. From Darwin. Please no nauseating appeals to outrage as counterfeits.

Funny, since all we've had from you is opinions and nauseating appeals to outrage as well, along with very poor reading skills and just outright ignorance about Darwinian evolution.
You can stop with the faux intellectualism.

 

[bhsmte]

This is a debate forum and am not interested in opinions. If you have a case, make it. From Darwin. Please no nauseating appeals to outrage as counterfeits.

Lots of projection here.

 

[Astrophile]

That is more a sign of the times and would not necessarily be a biological fact assuming we are from an apelike common ancestor. Also if the process is step by step then the stage development could be unequal.

I think that you are still misunderstanding how evolution works. Evolution does not have long-term goals; it is not a matter of living things evolving towards some universal objective. Evolution by natural selection has the effect of making living things better adapted to the environment in which they live. If a parent species splits into two daughter species, one of which is very different from the parent species whereas the other is only slightly different from the parent (as you say, 'the stage development could be unequal'), that does not mean that the first daughter species is 'more evolved' or 'more advanced' than the second. Both have the same length of evolutionary history, and each may be equally well adapted to the environment where it lives.

None of it accounts for the obvious differences between the races. Why Africans still live in primitive standards while the Euros are more advanced culturally as a whole. They can do intelligence testing by race and have and noted differences. There are positive and negative differences. Blacks better suited for athletics overall.

You are looking at this through European eyes, and using only only one standard of measurement. If you were to ask some Africans, they might say that they are more advanced culturally and that it is Euros who are primitive. Even if there are racial differences in intelligence (a debatable point), that does not mean that Africans are automatically inferior to Europeans or that they are less well adapted to African environments than Europeans are to European environments. Your argument is no better than that of scientists like Cuvier, who said that Europeans are more beautiful than Africans, without bothering to ask some Africans for their opinion or considering that African people might have different standards of beauty from Europeans.

It is presented as step by step from a common ancestor. If it is a race then not everyone is in the same spot or not everyone would cross the finish line at the same time. I am simply asking who is at the head of the pack?

It is not a race, and there is no finishing line; that is the whole point. Species of living things diverge from a common ancestor to produce new species, but one cannot say that any of the descendant species are 'more evolved' or 'less evolved' than any of the others. To modify your analogy of a race, the descendants of the common ancestor are running along different tracks and heading for different finishing lines; there is no pack with one species at the head.

You should look at Darwin's diagram of speciation (the 'tree of life') in Chapter 4 of The Origin of Species. The species a10, f10 and m10 have diverged from a common ancestor and no longer interbreed, but they have the same length of evolutionary history and they are merely different; none of them is more 'advanced' than the other.

I have never met a bible believer who argued for such things since it would not be tolerated in most churches. I don't think they would have much of a case based on the source documents. Everyone knows they can take the Bible and misuse it to say or justify anything.

Unfortunately, you appear to be wrong even on this point, as I found out by googling 'Christian Identity'. According to https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity,

A seminal influence on the Christian Identity movement's views on pre-Adamism was a book published in 1900 by

Charles Carroll titled The Negro a Beast or In the Image of God?. In the book Carroll concluded that Adam only gave birth to the White race and the White race was made in the image and likeness of God, while Negros are pre-Adamite beasts who could not possibly have been made in God's image and likeness because they are beast-like, immoral and ugly.[48] Carroll claimed that the pre-Adamite races such as blacks did not have souls. Carroll believed that race mixing was an insult to God because it spoiled His racial plan of creation.

Of course, I accept that most Christian churches would reject the opinions of Christian Identity and Charles Carroll, but that does not change the fact that Carroll's book is still influential among a minority of Christians nearly 120 years after it was first published. Also, Carroll's book, from beginning to end, is dedicated to showing that Negroes are soul-less beasts, not made in the image and likeness of God, and created only to serve the White Man. The Descent of Man says comparatively little about human races, and in Chapter VII ('On the Races of Man') Darwin is at pains to show that all humans belong to the same species and are descended from the same common ancestor; the sub-headings of the chapter include, 'Numerous points of resemblance in body and mind between the most distinct races of man', and 'Each race not descended from a single pair'.

By the way, if, as you say, 'Everyone knows they can take the Bible and misuse it to say or justify anything', the Bible cannot be much use as a guide to morality. To say that people who use the Bible to justify something that you or I disapprove of (such as racism) are misusing it is to beg the question; these people would say (and in fact Charles Carroll did say, in chapter 10) that we are misusing the Bible to justify our opposition to racism.

My argument being racism is a coherent if not pernicious application of Darwinism. It is in fact properly applied Darwinism. While your apologetic assuming equality is anti biological Darwinist. Flat Earth. We would rationally expect certain groups to be closer to their ape-like ancestor and others more removed. It is your group who depict humans as big-brained apes, not us.

Again, you are wrong here. If human races actually exist at the present time, they divided less than 100,000 years ago, less than half the time since the first appearance of the species Homo sapiens and <2% of the time since our ancestors diverged from the ancestors of chimpanzees and bonobos. Genetically, all human races must be the same distance from our simian cousins.

You seem to be still thinking of evolution as a ladder, with the different races arranged on higher or lower rungs, rather than as a tree, with the races occupying the tips of the twigs on one branch of the tree. If one starts from any 'racial twig', one has to go back exactly the same distance to the fork that marks the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. This analogy may help you to understand why all human races are the same distance from the apes.

 

[dmmesdale]

By the way, if, as you say, 'Everyone knows they can take the Bible and misuse it to say or justify anything', the Bible cannot be much use as a guide to morality.

Properly understood and used it can. And even i have problems with a lot of it. It's pacifism for one. Let them rip you off. Respectfully disagree since if they rip me off they will rip off another.

To say that people who use the Bible to justify something that you or I disapprove of (such as racism)

I have a transcendent basis while you do not. I am required to treat people in a certain fixed manner as image and glory of God with natural rights from God which transcends humanity. Godless nature does not owe humanity anything.

are misusing it is to beg the question; these people would say (and in fact, Charles Carroll did say, in chapter 10) that we are misusing the Bible to justify our opposition to racism.

The abuse of a thing does not invalidate its legit use and atheists typically reject the Bible unless they can distort the Bible. Are you claiming common ground with Carroll? Atheists reject theological arguments until they use them. A double standard. For one Christian Theism interprets the Old thru the lens of the New but even if we go by the Old there are many examples of slave liberation in the Old. Slavery being a natural condition of godless man whereas men rule men by means of force. That is slavery. Ours is rule of law, not king is law or king can do no wrong. Natural rights of men from God applies to all men (females included) everywhere at all times. Whereas we have responsibilities obligations to nature, fellow men, including children and God. We are esp obligated to God for the well being of children and the otherwise helpless. That includes telling them the truth about their real identity and place in creation.

Again, you are wrong here. If human races actually exist at the present time, they divided less than 100,000 years ago, less than half the time since the first appearance of the species Homo sapiens and <2% of the time since our ancestors diverged from the ancestors of chimpanzees and bonobos. Genetically, all human races must be the same distance from our simian cousins.

Homo Sapiens appeared 300 K years ago according to this. World’s oldest Homo sapiens fossils found in Morocco | Science | AAAS

You seem to be still thinking of evolution as a ladder, with the different races arranged on higher or lower rungs,

That is Darwin. Euros at the top and Negros at the bottom. I am not going to repeat the Darwin quotes.

rather than as a tree, with the races occupying the tips of the twigs on one branch of the tree. If one starts from any 'racial twig', one has to go back exactly the same distance to the fork that marks the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. This analogy may help you to understand why all human races are the same distance from the apes.

Does not mean they are all the same distance or developed at the same rate. If you wish to say the Aborigines who lived in the jungle developed at the same rate as the Euros who lived in far more civilized surroundings then why the different living standards and why the failure to adapt to different environments? Here is an assessment from an evo. Quote. [Darwin historian anti-creationist.]

Peter Bowler: (09:00:36:23) … they hoped that they will be able to educate the various races of man kind in the arts of civilisation but there was always this nagging problem of is it going to be possible. And one thing that’s characteristic of the general direction of European’s thought during the 19th century is there were increasingly harder line taken on that which we see reflected in Darwin himself.

That by the time he writes The Descent of Man in 1871 it’s pretty clear that he by that time shares the growing suspicion or conviction of many Europeans. The nonwhite races simply do not have the capacity to be elevated properly into civilised human beings that they are mentally and morally at a more limited level. In a sense they are stuck at an early stage in the biological evolution of the human species.

(09:01:42:06) So their way of life may offer us a fossilized relic of what our own ancestors lived like in the distant prehistoric past. But now Darwin and many of his contemporaries are beginning to realize that what they needed to claim that they are biologically relics of the past. They are in fact equivalent to earlier stages in the ascent from the apes who have been preserved in isolated locations, preserved with those earlier levels of mental and moral development.
------------------------
Clearly, Darwin had at least a two-tier view of races. The civilized and the savages whereas the former would extinct the latter. So why is Darwin wrong and the moderns right? Darwinism assumes biological inequality. If you are arguing for equality of races then you are stealing from Theism.

“If … various checks … do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has occurred too often in the history of the world. We must remember that progress is no invariable rule.” Darwin

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That is Darwin. Euros at the top and Negros at the bottom. I am not going to repeat the Darwin quotes.

What quote? Show us.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Darwin did call the indigenous inhabitants of the regions he visited 'savages.'

Him and everyone else.

Darwin believed Black skinned people were inferior to White skinned Northern Euros.

He also believed that inferiority was the result of societal, not biological, influences.

Any reason you chose not to mention that half of the truth?

 

[dmmesdale]

Him and everyone else.
He also believed that inferiority was the result of societal, not biological, influences.

Any reason you chose not to mention that half of the truth?

Don't buy it.

The true objection to slavery is not that it is unjust to the inferior but that it corrupts the superior. There is only one sane and logical thing to be done with a really inferior race, and that is to exterminate it. H G Wells.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Don't buy it.

Nobody expects you to.

The true objection to slavery is not that it is unjust to the inferior but that it corrupts the superior. There is only one sane and logical thing to be done with a really inferior race, and that is to exterminate it. H G Wells.

No matter how much you may agree with Wells, you still haven't shown that Darwin did. Considering he didn't, you have quite the challenge.