You are sure? 100% positive? I guess all this time and I cannot name one item either... I am well aware of implications of suppositions in medicine and psycholgy/psychiatry but those suppositions are being based on philosophies of social darwinism rather than scientific fact.

All this time and all of your posts Linda, and not a single shred of real evidence, something a person could hold in their hand or observe without argument and say, look there it is! That is the problem with your 'evidence'. it is not substantial evidence.

I am well aware also of the fact that like Lysenko, whoever how many more, there were plenty of other scientists contemporary with Darwin whose work in actuality seems to deserve more acclaim than darwin's and that exactly is the problem too. I assume that studies which showed ...Some of his plants were wildly successful during their first year, but then they'd revert right back where they started. The genes he denied could exist kept coming back to haunt him... then, were buried because that is a widely known and well proven fact within biology by now concerning mutations and adaptations of all sorts, but it doesn't help darwin's theory of evolution. The Huxley connection working again.

If you read the Argyll papers in the Huxley files you get a very clear understanding of the situation. Argyll called Darwinsim 'scientific terror' and that does appear to be where it led. It's also extremely difficult to overlook the fact that the only things Darwin's children and grandchildren became known for were their contributions in eugenics.

I should restate the view that the only thing that keeps sticking it's head up is racism and eugenics.

That should read, hubris, racism and eugenics.

ok then, later.