START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
Culture & Lifestyle

Rave

Darwin’s Plantation – Die Ni^^er Die!

Posted 27 months ago|337 comments|4,866 views
Shhhsh! Don't Say It So loud!
VIDEOS
ADDITIONAL IMAGES
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
Written by
November 24th, 1859 is a day that will live in infamy.

On that day a work of so-called scientific literature hit the stands. It was a treatise that is still considered the foundation of evolutionary biology to too many even today. This monument to the "advancement" of science and civilization was titled: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" by Charles Darwin.

In a day and age when we are speaking of tolerance and equality, this book is still the foundation of scientific anthropology and carries the same weight as any supposed sacred text on the planet.

Another book which came not that long after was titled "The Descent of Man." Again, written by that deity of modern science, a man whose theories and postulations are beyond reproach or criticism, Mr. Charles Darwin.

A quote:

"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 civilised 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."

What's sad is that there are still folks out there who actually have swallowed this bunk. Swallowed it. Swallowed hook, line, sinker, the fisherman, his boots, and the boat.

I believe this is a very appropriate post for Black History Month.

Black History Month itself is a simple designation and a celebration during the month of February which some today will still call unnecessary or not important. Not important even in light of the crap some still have to endure based on the "scientific" postulations of a man who was racist to the core.

And we wonder why we can't all get along. No mystery.

Thanks for reading,

HN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9KJOtQcl...
Public Enemy – I Don't Want to Called Yo Ni**a

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQX3k4DiA...
Cameo – Skin I'm In

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q70O_p9dk...
Living Colour – Funny Vibe
UPDATE - 27 months ago
Darwin was not the father of racism. I never said he was.

However, the man was a racist supremacist and believed certain races were inferior and others superior. Quite a few folks picked up on it and millions are now dead because of it.

Those are the ugly facts and that is the point I am making regardless of all the bunny trails and tangents that have now attached themselves to this post.

Millions are dead based upon the postulations of a racist who taught as science the inferiority of certain folks. Plain and simple.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
27 months ago: Sounds like the LDS history too...
27 months ago: TB - Do you think this one will make Google News?
27 months ago: Huey,

I think you may well have connected too many disgusting dots...
...but made a huge point... against the educational history as well...

I have had to re-write a couple for a few reasons and the administrator had some good points. Find a few quotes (cut and paste with reffs. but keep them short) that support your doc. and make it over 500 words... it seemed to help. Dig deeper, and blast the truth, even if it is uncomfortable!
27 months ago: Or you might want to shorten your posts, loose the reffs. and write about sports, movie reviews or electronics... and you will be sure to get in with Google...
oh, post about 5-10 at a time... that might help too!
27 months ago: Or I could compromise the truth, tickle the ears of the audience, and post about general trivialities that don't offend anyone. That's the ticket!

I don't think so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QhuBIkPX...

Homey don't play that.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
Content Removed by owlafaye
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
Content Removed by owlafaye
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
22 months ago: On that day a work of so-called scientific literature hit the stands. It was a treatise that is still considered the foundation of evolutionary biology to many even today. This monument to the "advancement" of science and civilization was titled: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" by Charles Darwin.

How true Huey, how true!
27 months ago: I must be hitting the nail on the head. Reminds me of the Sex Ed piece I recently posted.

No contrarian comments, yet I know there are people out here who will read this that are staunch Darwinians. Figured a slap like this might bring them out of the closet, but I don't think they want to embarrass themselves.

I say, if the shoe fits, wear it.
27 months ago: Well, you read the book... "resist the devil and he will flee from you!" James 4:7
27 months ago: Wow! You mean the infantcide of millions of babies is a plan? Are you smoking something that needs a federal tax stamp? When exactly did Black History month begin? Not to be rude. It's a real question. I would like to know why the numbers of Black infantcide are not included as a method required to break free of the chains of bondage. How many have been flushed since the first Black History month? Is that not also a part of Black History?

Darwin sucks.

Huey. I know you won't take it wrong coming from this cracker.
That is the difference between the "mainstream" and the honest folk.

I can tell you what I think without you taking it as being "talked down" to.

There is the difference.

I think you should have used the entire N-word in your title. You think the site would have deleted it? HUH? Ni^^er as opposed to Nigger? Does it not in fact lessen the effect? Why sugar coat it?
27 months ago: Wow! You think? I would like to know why the infantcide of millions of babies are not listed as an acheivement to breaking free of the bondage.

When did it really start?

Next time don't sugar coat the word. We know that Ni^^er is meant to be Nigger. You think the sugar coating makes it acceptable? I know you won't take that suggestion from the sites most racist cracker the wrong way.

Darwin? Huh? Try the modern version.

Progressives.
27 months ago: Sorry, the first post had a RR error when posting. So I wrote the second one. I'll leave both of them so the Darwinists have something to flag.
27 months ago: TCG - were both eye to eye on the infanticide issue. It's disgusting and what makes it worse is that there are those in the black community that have still not figured it out. There are even others that support it and destroy their own people in the process. Not even a single twinge of conscience or remorse to bother them either. Makes me mad.

The most dangerous place for a baby to be is in a mother's womb. When we look at people of color the danger of snuffing out an unborn life gets even more likely and more imminent. The people need to be educated and this madness has to stop.

As far as my editing the title, I hear where you are coming from but I just don't like that word. I was using it for shock value but I included it in that "censored" form because I knew the possibility of it getting flagged. I wanted to make sure this message to got out. This is too important to sit on.

Also, I didn't want anyone to think that I endorse the use of that word. It's degrading and offensive and I would be glad to see it stricken from the language of everyone but I'm not naive enough to believe that it will happen any time soon.

You know me well and you know where this is leading. Stay tuned.

As always, thanks for your input.
27 months ago: 10-4 brother.

For those of you that are too lazy...

Search ... Rev, Clenard H Childress Jr ... and ... Blackgenocide ...

or visit...

http://www.blackgenocide.org/home.html

Peace on the Souls of the Unwanted Unborn...
Content Removed by Stan Five
27 months ago: Hear, hear for your anti-racist senitments, Huey.

Excellent.

However, it may be that you are not on familiar terms with Charles Darwin's actual work or its significance.

This might help you. http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/d...
27 months ago: Hi Stan.

The link contains a lot of words but does not rebutt in the least my post.
27 months ago: I look forward to reading your careful analysis of that article. I really would like to know what you have to say about the points raised in it.

Darwin, was just a man, but he did cary out science, the beauty of which is that it can be challenged, and improved upon, or discarded due to contrary evidence. George Washington Carver did the same thing.

However, our understaning of the domestication of animals, the creation of agricultural crops species such as wheat, our knowledge of inheritance, disease and DNA, and the commonality of life and particularly, the commonality of all mankind, all owe much to Darwin and to Carver

Africa is the origin of the human species. We know this, thanks to work that Darwin started. Darwin discovered things which were not known before his time. Ignorant racists often choose not to read him but pretend they know what he discovered.

I don't care whether anyone reveres Darwin or dislikes him. Big deal. Misrepresenting his work because ignorant racists say its all about abusing particular ethnicities is only promoting ignorance. You know that their are African scientists, who work in biology and genetics, right? Are they racists? They don't throw away Darwin because of how a gang of ignorant racists misrepresent science.

"As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. If, indeed, such men are separated from him by great differences in appearance or habits, experience unfortunately shews us how long it is, before we look at them as our fellow-creatures."
- Charles Darwin
27 months ago: I don't recall George Washington Carver publishing works that fly in the face of modern genetics.

As far as critiquing the article, I scanned the entire thing and found nothing new.

Also, arguments against the person are fallacious. It's not the racists that look for ways to critique Darwin, it's the exact opposite.

Darwin should be read in the light of modern science. It shows it up for what is is. Good try but still ends up postulating genetic impossibilities and a total ignorance of many scientific facts.

Not a real fault of Darwin but an indictment of those who take his work in this day and age as the irrefutable gospel truth.

At least Stan, you research. Most folk out there swallow stuff without even thinking.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
22 months ago: Huey is not on familiar terms with much of anything in life actually. He is on very familiar terms with all that is in his life actually.

It comes in through a funnel and goes out his keyhole. The insularity of the tunnel Huey lives in gives him all the characteristics of a duck in the rain when it comes to a shower of knowledge.

HE WILL NOT CHANGE! Mark my word - laughter.
22 months ago: 0wlafaye,

See that's the thing about a man that is not wishy-washy and fickle... a man of character like Huey doesn't have to change... BTW if that's all you got... have a nice day !:]
27 months ago: Great piece and great food for thought too!
27 months ago: Hello SmartyGirl.

Thanks for stopping by.
Content Removed by smartygirl
27 months ago: I remember reading about Darwin's thought process before writing his famous work. Darwin wanted to go into the ministry but felt ill-equipped because he found himself doubting the existence of God. Here is the kicker. He didn't doubt God because he saw eloquence in natural selection but because he came from a family of really bad corrupt people. He could not see divine justice allowing people like his family members to live while the innocent died and so he concluded that it was illogical to conclude there is anything like divine justice, let alone a divine figure head.

His experience in the Galapagos ironically enough was a much needed excuse for his own troubled and warped point of view. His view on race and ethnic supremacy was common to most intellectuals and religious figure heads of his day. In actuality most modern people today either put out of their minds or are unaware of how much of our modern culture stems from ugly origins. Ford was a Nazi sympathizer and even helped fund distribution of Nazi propaganda here in the US.
27 months ago: Huey, I wonder if they can tell us the long title of Darwin's book? You know the one that isn't on the published version.

Its full title was ''On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Orig...

I wonder if they know who Galton is and his relationship to Darwin?
I wonder if they know who Sanger, et al, is and the relation to Hitler, et al?
I have to wonder....

Here is the link for Maffa 21...

http://tinyurl.com/498qfph

The bigger question is...
Does the black community realize that it is the white conservatives that are protesting abortion the most?
Why is that?
27 months ago: I'm not expecting you to read the book you are talking about, TCG, but you could read the wikipedia article you referred to.

I quote:

"Here the term "races" is used as an alternative for "varieties" and does not carry the modern connotation of human races—the first use in the book refers to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage" and proceeds to a discussion of "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants"
27 months ago: Actually Stan. The Wiki link was directed towards the long title of the book.

Did you watch Maafa 21? I posted the link.

What is the relationship of Galton and Darwin?

What is the relationship of Galton and Eugenics?

What is the relationship to Eugenics and Abortion?

What is the relationship to Abortion and Liberals?
27 months ago: Thank you. Watching it now.
27 months ago: Varieties? Is that the new Progressive term? How Eugenic.
27 months ago: What is the relationship of Galton and Darwin? Galton was Charles Darwin's half-cousin.
What is the relationship of Galton and Eugenics? Galton was a leading proponent of Eugenics.
What is the relationship to Eugenics and Abortion? Abortion is the termination of a preganancy, such as may be the choice of a pregant woman. However, forced or coerced abortion and sterilization according to ethnicity or disease is a mechanism advocated by Nazis and Eugenicists and racists to wipe out ethnicities and congential diseases.
What is the relationship to Abortion and Liberals? Many Liberals believe that it is a woman's choice, based on her assesment of her needs and the interests of the potential child, to carry a preganancy to birth.
27 months ago: From this movie, I gather that slavery was carried out for hundreds of years on a wholesale scale, by American Christians, for financial gain. It seems that slavery started before Darwin was born and ended after his time.

Later, a man who was related to Charles Darwin, his half-cousin, Francis Galton, wished to wipe out what he thought of as inferior races and the "mentally feeble", etc. Many Eugenicists were not racists, but wished to eliminated congenital diseases, by personal choice. Then a mass of racist idiots got on board with a whole lot of stupid, evil schemes. The same people who enslaved Africans, and didn't like Jews - KKK, other morons, Nazis. To give their schemes their aura of science, some of them claimed it was advocated by Darwin, most never having read him.

Then, years later, some people who wished to criminalize abortion decided that they could push their case by portraying any people not opposed to abortion by personal choice as akin to racists, KKK and Nazis.

I note that Dr Martin Luther King had nothing but the highest praise for the planned parenthood people being vilified in this video. Is he a racist? I'm with Reverend Martin Luther King.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-u...

Take home message: Women who have abortions are not Nazis or Eugenicists. However, as a piece of propaganda, the video is effective for the ill-informed, I'm sure. They could have made the same documentary and ended with telling us that condoms are Nazi, Darwinist abominations.
27 months ago: Dr. Martin Luther King and his Sanger Award?

That is your best argument that Planned Parenthood is helping the Black Community?

Too bad. If Dr. King was alive today he would be calling for the masses to stop the murder of all unborn children.

You seem to think that the unborn have no Constitutional rights.
27 months ago: Do you really think Dr King would be as smart, logical, and well-read, as you if he were alive today?
27 months ago: As me? Nice jab.
27 months ago: I watched the whole movie. Are you going to read " On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
22 months ago: Of course it is effective for the ill-informed...the LIES are quite obvious to the informed but point out the facts and the ill-informed here just pass. They will never be confused by the facts...laughter
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
22 months ago: Correct...they are merely a fetus and none of your business.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
22 months ago: Correct...they are merely a fetus and none of your business.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
22 months ago: Correct...they are merely a fetus and none of your business.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
22 months ago: Correct...they are merely a fetus and none of your business.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
22 months ago: Correct...they are merely a fetus and none of your business.
22 months ago: 0wlafaye,

Get your free copy of Darwin on Trial, you are going to need it...
you can get the free PDF by pressing the blue (Read Free E-book Now) button...
http://talebooks.com/index.php?option=co...
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: http://news.discovery.com/archaeology/oldest-human-israel-101228.html
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: Whether or nor Darwin was a maleficent racist, or whether he just held the commonly accepted elite view that the caucasian race was superior to all other races, he was still a racist.

"The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three *races* that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate."

"Nevertheless the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind."
27 months ago: "Those who look tenderly at the slave owner, and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put themselves into the position of the latter; what a cheerless prospect, with not even a hope of change! picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little children -- those objects which nature urges even the slave to call his own -- being torn from you and sold like beasts to the first bidder! And these deeds are done and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbours as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that his Will be done on earth! It makes one's blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty:"
- The Voyage of the Beagle; Charles Darwin, 1839

In a letter to Thomas Wentworth Higginson, who formed and led the first black regiment in the American Civil War, Darwin wrote:

"My wife has just finished reading aloud your 'Life with a Black Regiment,' and you must allow me to thank you heartily for the very great pleasure which it has in many ways given us. I always thought well of the negroes, from the little which I have seen of them; and I have been delighted to have my vague impressions confirmed, and their character and mental powers so ably discussed. "
27 months ago: So, in contrast to the Christians before Darwin who promoted that
Various popular beliefs about humans during the 1800s included the beliefs that:

*Whites, Blacks, American Indians, and Asians are all different species
*The races are static and created by God, and should thus never be mixed
*There are superior and inferior races and the superior whites have the right to dominate the inferior blacks and Indians
*There are distinct delineations between the races
*Different races are not related to each other
*Interbreeding of races leads to degeneration
*God originally created civilization and whites have stayed true to God, thus maintaining civilization, but the darker races have degenerated and lost civilization as they have become more savage and further from the word of God
*Darker races are descendants of Canaan (Ham's Curse), the darker their skin the more inherently sinful they are


Darwin gave rise to the understanding that

*People cannot be classified as different species
*All races are related and have a common ancestry
*All people come from "savage" origins
*The different races have much more in common than was widely believed
*The mental capabilities of all races are virtually the same and there is greater variation within races than between races
*Different races of people can interbreed and there is no concern for ill effects
*Culture, not biology, accounted for the greatest differences between the races
*Races are not distinct, but rather they blend together

Meaning that we must all agree that Darwin was, ahem, a terrible racist - probably the inventor of racism, whom we must roundly condemn, whether we've done any study of his work or not.

Also, throw out the science.

Same with George Washington Carver.

see http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/d...
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: "In what terms should we think of these beings, nonhuman yet possessing so very many human-like characteristics? How should we treat them? Surely we should treat them with the same consideration and kindness as we show to other humans; and as we recognize human rights, so too should we recognize the rights of the great


apes? Yes." Jane Goodall (surprise ending)

So, as you can see, you don't have to be pro-slavery to be a racist. You don't have to be mean and cruel to others you consider yourself to superior to.
27 months ago: "We had several quarrels; for instance, early in the voyage at Bahia, in Brazil, he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he had just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered "No." I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answer of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything? This made him excessively angry, and he said that as I doubted his word we could not live any longer together."
- Charles Darwin; The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/d...
27 months ago: So, just to recap, Darwin was vehemently opposed to slavery. Carry on.
27 months ago: And you know what they call people who denigrate opponents of slavery.
27 months ago: "Most black writers discerned a more direct connection between racial prejudice and the antievolution movement. In their view white southerners opposed evolution because it implied a common heritage for the races and therefore threatened white supremacy. In the volatile racial atmosphere of the 1920s South, the logic of evolutionary thought seemed to point in the direction of racial kinship and intermarriage. Black observers interpreted antievolutionism as a white attempt to quash such implications and thereby to preserve the campaign for racial separation that had begun in the 1880s"
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/d...
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: I personally abhor laboratory testing on mice and rats. Does that mean I consider them my equal?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: "Most black writers discerned a more direct connection between racial prejudice and the antievolution movement. "


That makes no logical sense. If man evolved from another (not necessarily lower) species, we would all have a common ancestor. If man was created by God in the fashion widely accepted at the time, then we would all still have what? A common ancestor.
27 months ago: Well, if you are not in favour of laboratory testing on rats and mice, I won't try to promote the idea that you are. Simple enough?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: I didn't see anyone saying Darwin was in favor of slavery, only that he considered some races superior to others.
27 months ago: The "pro-life" propaganda video blames Darwin for institutional racism that promotes slavery, genocide and Nazism.

A weak and ignorant argument it is, but it's mainly there in order to link abortion by choice to Nazi eugenics.

Darwin didn't think that any so called "race" was morally superior to another.

Darwin opposed the subjugation of anyone based on ethnicity.

In conclusion, as an intellectual, Darwin was a conscientious scientist, a practical and moral opponent of racism, and a compassionate man, well ahead of his time.

God, on the other hand, as revealed through his Bible has long been a proponent of genocide, slavery and chosen races, when it suited Him.

Christian slavers and racists didn't like the fact that the shared ancestry of man linked them to Africans whom they considered considered beneath them, and hence deserving of slavery, and they demonised Darwin for this very reason.

It's on the historical record.

If you can manage to keep blaming Darwin for racism, or singling him out as being some sort of unusually racist person, I'll keep listening with interest, with one eyebrow raised.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: I just want to run with this one a little more.

"Black observers interpreted antievolutionism as a white attempt to quash such implications and thereby to preserve the campaign for racial separation that had begun in the 1880s"

It seems to me that the white racists during the slave era would be more in favor of evolution than creationism. Why? With creationism, all men would track their ancestry back to Adam and Eve. With evolution, different species of man (races) could be conjectured to have sprung from different branches of the evolutionary tree. Then, the supremacist could state that his ancestors evolved more efficiently and more fully than those of the "inferior" races.
27 months ago: Stan,

God has never been a proponent of genocide, but has been the one who has killed millions in judgement. Like a policeman who kills someone righteously as a last resort, as they are holding someone hostage. Yes, and He will preside over millions, and their torture in hell as fitting for their foolishness for not accepting the Way out.... Jesus. But the ignorant, NOT the rebellious or stupid, he doesn't judge them by what they don't know; being "blind" as Jesus said... have no sin.

Now as to Darwin, one cannot assess him as stupid, because his intelligent works betray him as negligent, rather than incompetent. One could defend him and say that he only was using the tools given at the time... yet that would betray his ability to reason, given that he postulated human evolution solely from fantasy devoid of ANY evidence. One would have to say then that he had a motive for his deceptive theory.

God on the other hand allowed slavery, and even gave rules for the treatment, payment, and the release of them after so many years. Never did God tell his people to mistreat slaves. They did at times... yet slavery was actually a deliverance from sure death and annihilation of their particular race or family line. God made no bones about the death destruction of a people given to child sacrifice or the worship of lying "deities" ...simply as a warning to all who survived. But if you read the New Testament, Jesus delivered those like those who were destroyed in the Flood, to an eternity with Him in heaven... while others he lets live, lie, and deceive... with no "penalty" here for a worse end in the final judgement.

In your opinions, you spent most of your time quoting one author or another, because you were possibly too humble to share your own, or you were working up the nerve to come out of the closet with your own free-thought and make Darwin out to be mans savior. Darwin was a scientist, I'll give him that, but he took a leap of faith to his own judgement and that of millions since ...and the following of him as their prophet, has diminished life of not mere races alone... but that of millions of living and unborn.

To call Darwin a racist, is like calling Jeffrey Dahmer a liar. True but understated. Darwin is worshiped as the one who gave a pseudo intelligent replacement for God, and in doing so he condemned to death, and destruction the very human fabric that values life period. Darwin's theoretical teachings have been the basis for every abortion to every sexually transmitted disease; from child abuse to substance abuse... his teachings are the foundation that makes mankind out to me an animal without responsibility or accountability.

So for you to **** Darwin as "a conscientious scientist, a practical and moral opponent of racism, and a compassionate man, well ahead of his time" makes you out to be either ignorant or deceptive. Either you have no command over your faculties or you deliberately avoid the facts. The God of the Bible has an eternity to "make it up to" those so used for His examples(as He stated)... however, those who prejudge their Creator and call Him a liar... persuading millions to forsake their only hope, will also have an eternity to be truly educated, and receive their just reward and due payment.

"In that day the books will be opened"
...I doubt one of them will be... "The Origins of Species!"
27 months ago: I don't know what **** happened there, I typed "have" ??? Maybe divine emphasis???
27 months ago: For anyone taking the "moral high-ground" against slavery... one should firs make sure he doesn't himself support the practice, by purchasing items produced in sweatshops, or by countries grossly violating human rights.
27 months ago: TB - Very well said.
27 months ago: Sure Darwin is not entirely responsible for the teachings he made possible, he will bear his part, as we do ours.... like Hitler... one can't blame him for all the things done in his name, but if it had not been for his influence.....
27 months ago: Yep.
27 months ago: According to your long post above, you did just that, blamed Darwin for the things done in his name and if I miss my guess by a mile or two, all because you don't believe in evolution.

Take the Bible out of the equation and try again.
27 months ago: Hey Six,

It's more like Darwinian Evolution of man, doesn't have a chimp to stand on... furthermore it has degraded the value of human life to expendable. Better?
Content Removed by Huey Newton
27 months ago: It's not a matter of if Darwin was a racist of a more peculiar type than any other. Its just a fact that he was in fact a white supremacist and no matter how much others wish it were otherwise or try to deny it that changes nothing.

It is also true that he spoke out of both sides of his mouth. When it was expedient all of a sudden blacks were okay with him. Sounds like a lot folk I know today.

Darwin was not personally responsible for the acts and deeds that folks did in his name or based on his flawed postulations. It's however unfortunate that many over the years have latched onto his pseudo-science which relegates certain people groups to the lower rung of the evolutionary ladder and used it as a legitimate excuse to kill millions of people. That's word.
27 months ago: Also, I never said there was nothing to be gained from studying Darwin's work.

However much of his theory, while some is of substance, is quite flawed and completely unsupported by genetics and other more actual and credible scientific theories.

To quote an occasional ally here..."I call it like I see it."
27 months ago: I guess he didn't grasp the thought process and meaning of...

"Varieties? Is that the new Progressive term? How Eugenic."

Is that not how it starts? Cleansing the terminology.

HOW EUGENIC
27 months ago: So, you've read the book, now?
27 months ago: In Darwin's view, which you are free to agree with or not, and as I understand it, "favoured races" are those species or varieties of plants and animals that have been favoured by survival and have propagated. For example, the tyranosaurus rex is no longer a favoured race. The common house fly is a currently favoured race.

It's not like he was approving or dissaproving of the animals and plants that were extinct or survived.
27 months ago: Where can I find a copy with the original long title?

BTW. When making a fist you should not tuck your thumb into your @$$.
Not only does it hurt your @$$ it breaks your thumb as well.

Can you figure that one out? You are genetically superior? Aren't you one of the chosen varieties looking to cull out the weeds?
27 months ago: This is what you are looking for. http://darwin-online.org.uk/ or specifically http://darwin-online.org.uk/pdf/1859_Ori...

You will notice that the "full title" doesn't fit on the cover, it's only inside the book.

It's not like Darwin stopped talking about "favoured races" and the short title is designed to hide what the book is about. I think it might be that it was shortened for the same reason that other book titles are shortened. The long title is unwieldy and hard to read, write and remember. Long titles are common for scientific publications, but unpopular for popular books.

For example, Darwin's book known "Fertilisation of Orchids"

has

"On the various contrivances by which British and foreign orchids are fertilised by insects, and on the good effects of intercrossing".

Not easy to remember when you are ordering it at the book shop, or even to fit on to the cover.

PS, that's not a picture of my hand, it's just a random picture off the internet. But I'm glad to have the benefit of your knowledge and experience on the matter. ;)
27 months ago: If you look at the first edition of 1859 and the the 1876 edition (the last edition by Darwin, I think)- there doesn't seem to be any difference in way the title is presented - short title on the cover, full title inside.

The anti-abortion video game me a different impression, probably designed to make their case, but it seems like it might have been an intentionally deceptive misrepresentation.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/pdf/1859_Ori... vs http://darwin-online.org.uk/pdf/1876_Ori...

1859. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray. [1st ed.] Text Image PDF F373 Francis Darwin's annotated copy: Image PDF

1860. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray. [2d ed.] Text Image PDF F376

1860. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. New York: D. Appleton. [1st American ed.] Image PDF F377

1861. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray. 3d ed. Text Image PDF F381

1866. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray. 4th ed. Text Image PDF F385

1869. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray. 5th ed. Text Image PDF F387

1872. The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray. 6th ed. Text Image PDF F391

1876. The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray. 6th ed., with additions and corrections. Text Image PDF F401 (final text)

27 months ago: The full title doesn't fit on the cover? Huh? You are kidding right?

Is the cover smaller that the pages inside the book?

Long titles are common for scientific publications, but unpopular for popular books?

Like fiction?
27 months ago: Try to keep up, TCG.
27 months ago: Here is someone who says it much better than me.

"The speaker in the documentary also makes one big implication from the full title of Charles Darwin's famous book The Origin of Species. The full title is this: On the Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection; or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Their implication is that the title was shortened to avoid political issues.

This is partly true. The title was originally shortened in future editions because the original title is quite long. As the book and its ideas were discussed, it tended to be referred to by its better-known shorter title. Now as language changed over time, the shorter title became preferred as the use of the phrase "favoured races" certainly would have been controversial, and a scientific text explaining a theory has no place in political or social arenas.

One thing that few realize is that before negative connotations became associated with the word "race", that word tended to be used interchangeably with either "species" or "breeds". By the phrase "preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life", Darwin means the same as another common interpretation of natural selection, "survival of the fittest".

Further, the documentary tries to tie Darwin to eugenics, the bastardization of evolution by Darwin's half-cousin Francis Galton. Eugenics is based on an argument, born in 1865 by Galton, that statistical analysis showed that moral and mental traits could be inherited (only partly true, according to more modern research) and that principles of animal breeding could apply to humans.

While Darwin agreed that compassion for the less fortunate, weak, and sick in society plays against natural selection and the population benefits natural selection provides, he also said that withholding such compassion and aid could endanger us further by "breeding away" (my words, not Darwin's) the instinct of sympathy and our willingness to educate each other, two things which have, undoubtedly, advanced human civilization much faster and farther than the forces of evolution alone could have taken us.

If I can point out these falsehoods in the documentary even before it has lapsed 10 minutes, what else might I find if I were to analyze the entire 2:20 minutes of footage and commentary? Given just this, the rest of the documentary should obviously be taken with a grain of salt and a hurricane's air of skepticism — i.e. research what they present and see how accurate it is for yourself."

http://www.kennethballard.com/?p=29
27 months ago: Try to answer the question, Stanley.

Like fiction?
27 months ago: In the olden days, books did not have photographically printed covers. Here a picture of the spine, where the title appears. http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/sc...


You're not making a sly dig at "The Bible" are you?
27 months ago: Let me help you with your reply...

The long title of "The Bible" is...

"The Holy Bible"

Sorry, bad example.
27 months ago: Ok. I laughed.
27 months ago: dang I'm good!
27 months ago: Wouldn't that be the old term? And those that came later made it "races".
27 months ago: Think TCG, over a hundred years ago people considered the cost of EVERYTHING when they did something. Each letter on the cover was probably charged for and many times the author had to pay the cost of getting a book published, add that to the long, scientific title and you have a reason to shorten it to something more affordable.

Was there an ulterior motive as suggested? Probably not.
27 months ago: Aren't longer titles an over compensation.....
27 months ago: This ain't about sports cars and big belt buckles.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
22 months ago: I am sure the title is designed to hide what the book is all about Stan...paranoia is rampant in the tiny minds of the posters here.
22 months ago: Stan? Why is there a period after Darwin on the cover? Is his name a one word sentence or is there a meaning to that period.

Look at page 12 under Hybrids.

"Fertility of varieties when crossed and of their MONGREL offsring not universal - Hybrids and MONGRELS compared independently of their fertility"

Mongrels?
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
22 months ago: Congratulations to "The Cypress Gang" He discovered a period after Darwin's name in the book title and of course, this negates any and all claims by Darwinists.

Mongrelism goes way back in your family eh Cypress? Are you Prince Cypress a pretender or did you scratch out all the evidence in your family genealogical record?

Does your mommy know that you are playing on the computer?
22 months ago: Olagay? Is that your best insult? You might need lessons. I won't charge you for this one.

Olagay? Does you Mother know for sure which of her 6 brothers or 18 first cousins is your Father?

You Mongrel you.....
27 months ago: While I might have different opinions, I've really enjoyed out sincere discussions, Huey, Truthbary, OOTB, and TCG.
Content Removed by Huey Newton
27 months ago: Stan,

I admire your guts.

Just sincerely think about and consider the points we've raised.

Respect.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: Stan, Same here. It really helps to be able to test a belief against a well spoken, well argued "opponent". That's what I love about this place. Even though we disagree on this one, next time we're just as likely to agree on a different subject.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
22 months ago: @Stan: Wink Wink Wink

The insane laughter of the brilliant ruminating on the Ignorant utterances of a bunch of fundies...laughter
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago: Insane? Definitely. Brilliant? That's a hoot. Thanks for the chuckle.
27 months ago: Where's Altruist???
27 months ago: Stan,

Let's break this down.

Is there one race of folk or are there many?

Are we all human or are we human yet some humans superior to others (sub-human yet human or non-human) based upon genetics and natural selection?

Are we all equals with regard to humanity and genetics or are some folks hopelessly inferior? Not necessarily because of any fault of their own but because of their own genetic predisposition and their failure to evolve at the rate of other people groups?

No candy coating, where are you at?
27 months ago: We are one species, sub-divided by races based on body configuration determined by DNA characteristics inherited from our ancestors.

How does that sound?
27 months ago: Forgot to mention. The rest of your questions are racist points of differentiation and not worthy of answers.
27 months ago: Correct. And those racist point of differentiation come form the Darwin camp and others of that ilk.
27 months ago: In my view there is one race of humanity. That's it plain and simple.

But if you want some extra thoughts.

I believe in equality of membership in human society. Some people think murderers for example, don't have a place in society. Maybe so, but that's a different issue.

If I go to the olympics, I'm hopelessly inferior. But, that's not what we are talking about. Obviously some people have more ability in some field than others. Some people are mentally or physically handicapped.

I feel a kinship, empathy, sympathy, love and respect for all people.

People call ethnicities "races" but that that's not a good term.

I abhor racism. Can't stand it.

It's real backward in my view for people say or think - "Oh, you're this race, so you think such and such, and you believe such and such."

People say things like "Chinese people are short". Well, ain't Sun Mingming Chinese?

People say "Indians are religious". Jawaharlal Nehru, wasn't he Indian and atheist?

Etc. etc.

Neither "ethnicity" or "race" means much when you are talking about an individual human being.

I recognize inheritance, genetics, bloodtypes, hair color, and other such characteristics. But, I'm not going to make a value judgment about such things. Like MLK said "content of character" is the thing. And I can mostly forgive failings in that.
27 months ago: "Neither "ethnicity" or "race" means much when you are talking about an individual human being."

You have more wisdom than most. And that is definitely NOT Darwinian thinking.
27 months ago: That's very kind, Huey and means a lot to me.
27 months ago: I hope I don't upset people by talking about animals when we are also talking about people, but people apart from being people, are also mortal animals.

This is what upset a lot of people in what Darwin had to say, but it's not going to be much news to anyone that a veterinarian does the same sort of things as a physician.

Anyhow, I wanted to mention this to illustrate some of my thoughts on ethnicities.

20,000 years ago there was no such thing as a German Shepard (Alsatian) dog. There was no such thing as a Chihuahua. There was no such thing as an Irish Wolfhound. There was no such thing as a Poodle. Most of these "species", "races", "breeds" or varieties are quite recent. But they all share a heritage with older, wild dogs.

All these animals look very different from each other, just as people whose ancestors grew up in different parts of the world look different.

However, you bring all these breeds of dogs together today, and they still speak "dog language". They sniff each others rear ends, they fight, they make puppoes. They all have the "spirit" (I'm not using that word in a supernatural sense" of a "dog".

Likewise, a modern day African might not look like a modern day Norweigian. You might have to go back a long time to find a common ancestor, but they do have common ancestors. And they can get along like a house on fire.
27 months ago: By "puppoes" I mean "puppies". And this is a nice picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wilde_...

Dogs, left to their own devices, don't give a damn for "pure breeding".
27 months ago: But Stan, that's not what the Bible says! Creation, creation, creation! The fossil record is a lie created by God to fool man; evolution is a fallacy that Darwin helped bring to light.

Just pulling some chains before I go offline in a couple of days. Fear not I will return in a few weeks.

Darwin had his failings but the general idea behind his research still has validity, even in this day and age.

As for the theory mentioned before that Nazism, genocide, abortion and any number of possibly negative acts carried out by man on man were all based or started by Darwin's work. Well, I've got some land in Arizona that is beach front property, want to buy in?

And your story about dog breeds, well some just will not believe it.

Keep 'em honest!
27 months ago: Nice thoughts, Six.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: But nobody has proved that the so-called fossil record is even correct. Carbon dating is flawed in its very premise.
27 months ago: Welcome aboard Six!
27 months ago: Thanks Huey! Been a long time and I will be absent again soon. Got to get that internet hookup at the house before I lose my mind!!!
27 months ago: Thanks Stan! I'm not as educated as many on this site, just opinionated and I do know how to read. This is one subject I do like to discuss now and then so hope some of my thoughts will make sense to our readers.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
22 months ago: @sixholdens You are one of the very few people here that has a good grip on reality.

These folks have always conducted a "Whack Ward" here at Rant & Rave.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: We can track back dogs to the feral dogs. Why can't we track back our own ancestors? It seems like the more recent ones needed to put us in the evolutionary loop are the ones we can't find. Modern man has been "scientifically" dated back to 200,000 years or 400,000 years, depending upon which scientists you listen to. But oddly enough, we can't find find any proof beyond that. Now, a new discovery of a 47 million year old skeleton puts us in the lemur family. That should make the anti-ape descent crowd breathe a sigh of relief.
27 months ago: "Why can't we track back our own ancestors?" You mean my Mom and Dad? Them's fightin words! ;)

Well, we can. You don't want every individual by name do you?

And while "carbon dating" can only go back so far, other techniques go further.

Just like you won't find all my ancestors, you are not going to be able to track back the development of all those domestic dog breeds by fossil. You probably won't find me a transitional Poodle-Shi-tzu ancestor. By this logic you will have to allow the possibility some of those dog breeds were spontaneously created by God in recent times ;).

My Mom and Dad had parents, and they had parents, and they had parents. Some long time back, they had parents who were a bit more robust perhaps, because the conditions of life back then didn't favor us soft-living folk. Things were harsh and the weak people died before they could produce offspring. A lot of things were trying to kill them and eat them, I suppose.

Old layers of fossil have human remains in them. more robust than us. But, you go back far enough in the fossil record however, and you won't find anything that looks like people.

Old layers have small organisims and no mammals. Newer layers have dinosaurs and no people. Even newer layers have apes and hominids. Newer than that, are more advanced hominids. Newer than that are modern humans, much like ourselves.

In Africa, the remains of people are real old, but not as old as the dinosaurs. There are old fossils of similar species to humans. They're obviously related to us, but not quite the same. In Australia, human remains are not more than 40,000 or so years old. The dinosaur fossils in Australia and Africa are millions of years old.

If you think the Dinosuar layers with no people are newer than the people layers with no Dinosaurs, then you've got some splaining to do.

You'll need to read this before you get back to me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric...
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: I already am familiar with the science.
http://creationwiki.org/Radiometric_dati...
27 months ago: Oh, a "special" wikipedia. I'll read it. You read the one for general consumption.
27 months ago: Sometimes my car speedometer is wrong, too.
27 months ago: And you know it was Scientists, Paleontologists, and others who identify cause for error and anomolies in identifying the age of rocks, and correct their assessments based on these discoveries? The people who study evolution are the people who, for the most part, provide the science in these creationist science sites.

Not the people who think all rocks are 6,00 years old.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: I read the theories behind radiometric dating in school. Like I said before, a whole list of assumptions have to accepted as fact for radioactive half- life dating to be considered accurate. Do you know of any double blind studies that can definitively prove the validity of radiometric dating?
27 months ago: From the sound of it, you require proof that nothing is infallible.

Shall we bring the Bible into question as something that can't be proved? Not here ok? Sometimes you have to have a little faith in the methods of scientific examination, same as you have to have faith that what you believe from your understanding of the Bible is also valid.

Until a better method is developed, then all bets are off.
27 months ago: Oh, ye of little faith.

Next, you will be wanting me to personally prove Biblical creation, the flood, and the resurrection, with double-blind studies and all that science nonsense.

Yes, creationists write a whole lot of ignorant nonsense, clutching at straws, insisting on impossible, and irrelevant standards that they don't apply to themselves.

You can read the literature on the validity of radiometric dating. You can discover how the various dating processes form a consistent picture. It's worth studying.

Surely some creation scientist has done the "double-blind study" to demonstrate the invalidity of attempting to work our how old a fossil is.
27 months ago: Different species evolve at different rates. Also forced breeding for traits speeds change. I'm no expert but I do have ideas.
27 months ago: Dogs have always been dogs, fish have always been fish, birds have always been birds.

I though this was over but let's go!
27 months ago: Only in a narrow view of the evolution of the species. If your version was true, then after the massive planetwide die offs of millions of species, we would be looking at only a few hundred left alive today, and it's happended more than once.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago:
Why only a few hundred? Did someone count the species that were left after the mass extinctions?
27 months ago: I wasn't there! Could have been a few thousand, luck of the draw I guess. Anyway if you believe what the archeologist have discovered and the timelines they have created from the data, massive wipeouts occur fairly often and then new species begin to appear. Takes millions of years but it happens.
27 months ago: And yes they did count them, what they could via that fossil record.
27 months ago: BTW - the only race is human.

http://www.rantrave.com/Rant/Racism-Is-I...

Any objections?
27 months ago: Huey,

You got the knack for picking interesting discussions, props!

As to evolution within species I agree... but not from one to another, if there was evidence I would accept that too. There simply is none.
27 months ago: There is none that you will believe. Correct? You require a living, right in front of you example or disbelief is the name of the game.

And you also believe in the Bible's version of the Earth's "creation".

Nothing like conviction.
27 months ago: Six,

Dead or alive, if you have a transitional animal I'm a believer!
27 months ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
27 months ago: There is no creatures alive today that are transitioning into anything else. There never have been any and the fossil record bears it our regardless of how they try to spin it.

For instance, for a scale to turn into a feather there would need to be a transition.

Where is it?

There should be multitudes of examples if the supposed metamorphosis actually took place. Can't find it because it does not exist and thus has never been proven.
27 months ago: Frogs have always been frogs. Fish have always been fish. Birds have always been birds. Dogs have always been dogs. Period.

I have seen no worthy or substantive evidence or sound arguments to the contrary.
27 months ago: I thought the government was working with the Aliens to build a new species.

What if Darwin was wrong because Aliens have been genetically modifying humans for hundreds of thousands of years? Might explain the missing missing link.
27 months ago: "For instance, for a scale to turn into a feather there would need to be a transition. "

Get ready to be amazed.

Check these out before you say too much more. http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/top1...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13...

You will definitely be interested in http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13...

PS. You've got to go a long way between a fish and a bird. I assume you know that.

You can read about the earliest discovered dinosaurs with feathers here. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8273938.stm


There would have to be multitudes of examples of poodle/great dane fossils if you want me to believe those things are related, too.

Water dwelling animals - some have scales, sharks are a bit different. Amphibians - a transitional intermediate. Land dwelling animals - some have scales. Some have hair. Some have insect wings. Some have feathery wings. Some have feathery wings that can't fly. Some have leathery, wings with hair. A rhinoceros horn is made of keratin, like fingernails or hair, or scales. Your questions are a bit like saying - show me a person with hair on his nose and I'll believe you.
27 months ago: Nothing amazing about it. Familiar with all of those arguments.

No sceathers to be found anywhere.

Still has nothing to do with the premise of my post.

According to his holy book, Darwin "proved" that all humans descended from apes. He then concluded that some races had descended further than others. In his opinion, some races (namely the white ones) have left the others far behind, while others have hardly matured at all. That my fiend is a racist supposition passing itself off a s science.

Again, my point is that there are still those out there who believe this and there are many who have used it for fuel in their hatred and destruction of other blocks of humanity.

Millions have died based upon this lie that needs to be brought out into the open as part of his overall picture, repudiated and condemned.

Some don't seem to be willing to do that however because they know if that leg falls there may be others behind it. Glass houses.
Content Removed by Stan Five
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
22 months ago: @StanFive...Do not expect them to take your word for it, follow and read your recommended websites or ask questions. You are dealing with a severely deluded group of very ignorant people with no intentions of budging before facts or seeking out the truth of any matter you might discuss. But it is fun talking to them isn't it? I love rattling their cages. And: its our right!
27 months ago: So Truthbrary, you might acknowledge that the ancient race of horses created by God could have evolved into new, diverse types?

And you might acknowledge that the old, original sort has died out?
27 months ago: Oh dear! He surely won't admit to evolution of a species!
27 months ago: Six,

Macroevolution, that is an ape turning into a man... not!

Microevolution, changes within a species like apes to monkeys... sure!

Psychoevolution, man turning into an ape given the right drugs... definitely!
27 months ago: Apes to monkeys, you believe in.

Did you know human DNA is about 95% identical to chimpanzee DNA?
27 months ago: Stan,

Yup! Why not? Science is provable, and GOD is believable!
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: There are reasons why chimp and human DNA are similar, and they would be even if evolution were not true. Why? Because DNA contains the information that controls the development of an organism. Therefore, if two organisms look similar, the DNA should also be similar, by definition. Many of the similarities between humans and chimps exist simply because the skeletons are similar.

But so far, we've found around 100 million base pairs of genes that are not even close to being the same.
27 months ago: http://www.infoplease.com/cig/biology/microevolution-macroevolution.html see re speciation
27 months ago: Actually, to spoil the fun, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tra...

and
"In 1859, when Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known, and Darwin described the lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory", but explained it by the extreme imperfection of the geological record.[1] He noted the limited collections available at that time, but described the available information as showing patterns which followed from his theory of descent with modification through natural selection.[2] Indeed, Archaeopteryx was discovered just two years later, in 1861, and represents a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. Many more transitional fossils have been discovered since then and it is now considered that there is abundant evidence of how all the major groups of animals are related, much of it in the form of transitional fossils."
27 months ago: Sorry, the citation for that last quote is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitiona...
It's a must read.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: Wouldn't all fossils be transitional?
27 months ago: Absolutely, in that species are not static. But, I understand the term is also used to mean fossils related to two different later species recognized as distinct and no longer inter-breeding.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: OK, could you explain the mechanics of how that might come about? I understand the isolation theory, where two sets of the same critter get separated and evolve in two different directions due to environmental pressures and just random genetic mutation. Are we sure that is explanation enough? How could it be that all three fossils could be found in the same area?
27 months ago: Ya ever see a lizard and a snake in the same prairie? Ever seen a skink and a gecko on the same rock?

Ever seen an Eastern wobblebird and a Western wobblebird in the same tree? Ever seen a cline?
27 months ago: Ya ever see a brown bear mate with a polar bear? I'm not sure this is directly relevant, but it's an interesting topic.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
 <