If this information has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, then Charles Darwin has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
As I stated earlier, the ToE explains things like the sorting of the fossil record, variation of species, and the fact that animals have so many genes in common. Please tell me what this has to do with racism or eugenics.
Yet, you deny that these events ever happened, you deny that these relationships exist
Please find me a post here in which I have denied any of these things. I said they were
irrelevant.
I have not questioned the validity of evolution within this thread. The validity of evolution is irrelevant to this discussion as you have been told repeatedly.
Can you explain what your purpose is, then, in slinging mud at Darwin and all of these other people? Is it just a coincidence that they happen to be evolutionists? If your point is not that they were evil and so were their ideas, then what
is the point of this thread?
while you insist that evolution as a premise is true and provide no hard evidence except links back to opinions on the matter at another webboard.
Evidence for evolution. Books have been written about this. It's been extensively discussed here. But I will briefly summarise some of it if you wish.
Fossil animals fit in the tree of life. We find many transitional forms in the fossil record.
The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically.
Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions. We call this homology.
The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies.
The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection.
If you would like to discuss any of these things further, let me know. I'd also like you to tell me why you seem to think that any of these things make a case to justify racism or eugenics.
