Imagine if the position of President of the US was based on those same premises? Imagine where we would be today had our ancestors based their leadership on the least smartest person?

You're one man; I'd be willing to bet that most of the (non-Cuban) Latino population---traditionally Democratic voters, which is why the Democrats harp loudest on amnesty for illegals---look favorably on Obama for this favor, and will vote his way in 2012.

Other than that, I agree completely with what you wrote. Affirm. Act. does nothing to lift anyone up, as it was intended; rather, it allows them, and thus our society and culture, to stagnate, since it pretty much brings everyone to the same level, and thusly they've nothing to fear from failure.

For a microcosm of that idea, just look at the Republican Party today!

Wow, are you ignorant of Darwin's theory. Impressive!

If you don't mind me saying, it would be nice to see people point out why they think someone is ignorant. It's easy to call someone ignorant, but be considerate of those who also read these articles and the comments on them. We can't read minds.

I wrote many many articles on Darwin's theory.

In this case the simply point is that Darwin's theory doesn't say anything about rights. It's like someone said in another discussion here on JU (and I should really remember who it was because it was excellent): the theory of gravity does not suggest that we have a moral duty to find the lowest possible spot on the planet and assemble there.

If liberals support Affirmative Action to change the world, it doesn't mean they are hypocritical when they also advocate Darwin's theory of evolution any more than the Civil Aviation Authority is hypocritical by creating regulations for air traffic while being convinced that the theory of gravity is true.

I'd say the "stronger overcoming the weaker" is more the law of the jungle than Darwinism. But RW, I believe I understood what you implying. That evolution eventually replaces obsolete types with ones that are more viable under changing circumstances. I don't think anybody needs to argue semantics here as it seems most of the replies are from folks right of center.

IMO when topics like these, which I believe are as clear as night and day, devolve into a discussion on theory or religion, the topic strays from the real problem of right and wrong. Leauki, since this is a political topic, I believe we should forgive any real or perceived transgressions by RW on evolution, and like Charles said, give an insightful response to a comment, if so inclined.

People can be very passionate about AA in the US, as it affects all citizens at some point in their life. I know for a fact I've been pass up for an assignments over my time in the military because they needed a minority to fill the job. I have no problem with anyone of any race or color getting the position because they were the best choice. When I made decisions, I always used the best person for the job, and made sure they were recognized for their effort, That's how it should work, based on personal responsibility. 

Agreed.

Leauki posts:

In every society there is no one weaker than the innocent unborn child growing in the womb. Liberal's advocacy for abortion on demand paid for by taxpayer money blows your argument apart.

Rightwinger writes:

leauki posts:

Actually, Leauki, it's your own understanding of Darwin's theory that is wanting.

You write:

Yet, the definition of "Evolution" as per the World Book Dictionary and 3 science text books is indeed the very same concept of Darwin's Theory. 

"Evolution" has been used in the scientific field to designate a natural, biological process through which some speck of inorganic matter after eons of time, transmuted into a simple celled organism, then from that into a more complex organism, from which passing from one species to another, all plant, animal and human life came about.  They claim the process or mechanism for Darwin's evolution was by "Natural Selection" and "Survival of the Fittest".

As far as your assertion that one (animal) species does not turn "evolve" into other species, here it is from Charles Darwin himself......From his book "The Descent of Man" 2nd ed. Collier and Son. 1905. Darwin refutes your statement.

"In forming a judgment on this head with reference to man, we must glance at the classification of the Simiadae. This family is divided by almost all naturalists into the Catarrhine group, or Old World monkeys....and into the Platyrhine group or New World monkeys. .....Now, man unquestionably belongs in his dentitiion, in the structure of his nostrils, and some other respects, to the Catarrhine or Old World division.

.....There can, consequently, harldy  be a doubt that man is an offshoot from the Old World Simian stem; and that, under a genealogical point of view, he must be classified with the Catarrhine division. Vol.1, pg. 205.

"The early progenitors of man must have been once covered with hair, both sexes having beards; their ears were probably pointed and capable of movement; and their bodies were provided with a tail, having the proper muscles....The foot was then prehensile, judging from the great toe in the foetus; and our progeniters no doubt, were arboreal  in their habits, and frequented some warm forest-clad land." pg. 214.

"The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and the Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the universe proceeded." pg. 220.

 "Man, as I have attempted to show, is certainly descended from some ape-like creature." pg. 759.

"The main conclusion arrived at this work, namely that man is descended from some lowly organized form, will I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many. ...For my own part, I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descending from the mountains, carried away in triumpth his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs----as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices...." pg. 796.

lula posts:

But it does. Actually, to liberals (like Sotomayor), abortion is social welfare....Darwin's ET being the linchpin.

From Dr. Walt Brown on the social consequences of Darwin's Evolution...

....."we dispose of unwanted animals such as cats and dogs. If humans are just evolved animals, why not terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Isn't it the mother's right? Shoulnd't she have a choice in the matter? After all, the fetus ....is of lesser value than an adult. During the fetus' first three months, it's just a blog of tissue that's not any more important than a little pig or rabbit. Why shouldn't a fetus be terminated if adults or society would benefit? After all, we have a population problem. We must guide our destiny."

No, Lula. It is in fact you who have such little understanding of evolution that you are even unable to tell if anybody else has an understanding of Darwin's theory at all.

Non sequitur. I never said that Darwin's theory is not the same as evolution. (In fact I find it odd that you would bring this up. Seems to me like you totally ignore what is written and just hammer in whatever you can quote somewhere containing some of the same words used in a given discussion.)

What you are not getting is that neither evolution nor Darwin's theory (which are the same) promote the idea that species can turn into each other.

That's why you are quoting text describing evolution. It's because you have (still) no idea that it simply isn't what you think it is.

Let's look at this statement:

The way you understand it is that at some point an ape (for example) turned into a human.

Well, that is wrong and Darwin never said anything like that.

The part you don't understand is that there was never ever, according to Darwin's theory, a point at which one species became another.

1. In Darwin's theory the child of an animal is _always_ (but absolutely always and all the time and never not) the same species as its parent. Always. Always. Always. Get it?

2. However, the descendants of one animal, while always having been the same species as their own parents, are not necessarily the same species as other descendants of that same animal.

What you don't get (and that is obvious from everything you write about the subject) is that that statement 2 does not negate statement 1.

If you have a parent generation A(1) and two children B(2) and C(2) and their descendants B(...) and C(...) (with ... being some gigantic number representing lots and lots of generations in between), then the following holds true:

1. A(1) and B(2) and C(2) are the same species.

2. B(2) and its child B(3) are the same species.

3. C(2) and its child C(3) are the same species.

4. B(n) and its child B(n+1) are the same species.

5. C(n) and its child C(n+1) are the same species.

6. B(n) and C(n) for sufficiently large n are not necessarily the same species.

7. B(n) and C(n) for sufficiently large n can be totally different animals from A(1).

8. Yet at no point was a child ever a different species than its parent.

So while we (might) end up with two different species after many generations, just like Darwin said, one species never (ever at all) turned into another species.

I know that you won't understand this (in fact I think you will simply ignore it and pretend you were never told the next time it comes up), but maybe  others will. It's not that difficult.

LEAUKI POSTS:

We agree that "evolution" and "Darwin's Theory" are the same.

You write that Evolution is not about and has nothing to do with One species turning into another.

Yet, your assertion has been soundly refuted by science textbooks, by dictionary definition and from Darwin's own writings.

Science textbooks define "Evolution" as used in the scientific field to designate a natural, biological process through which some speck of inorganic matter after eons of time, transmuted into a simple celled organism, then from that into a more complex organism, from which passing from one species to another, all plant, animal and human life came about. They claim the process or mechanism for Darwin's evolution was by "Natural Selection" and "Survival of the Fittest".

From the Thorndike/Barnhart World Book Dictionary, A-K, Vol. 23 page 737, the definition of "Evolution" is....

n. 1. any process of formation or growth; gradual development. 2 something evolved; product of development; not a sudden discovery or creation. 3 the theory that all living things developed from a few simple forms of life through a series of physical changes. According to evolution, the first mammal developed from a type of reptile, and ultimately all forms are traced back to a simple single-celled organism. ........9 Philosophy....the theory that a process or progressive change, with the development of more complex entities, characterizes all force and matter in the universe. Evolution is advance from the simple to the complex.

Note the highlighted part. It says ....."according to evolution the first mammal developed from a type of a reptile"..

Aren't reptiles a species? Aren't mammals completely different species? Yes is the correct answer to both questions. So the world-wide accepted dictionary definition states quite a remarkable evolutionary sequence ...that the first mammal developed from a reptile. This is a direct refutation of your assertion that Evolution is not about and has nothing to do with One species turning into another.

LEAUKI POSTS:

Why the denial Leauki? From his book "The Descent of Man" 2nd ed. Collier and Son. 1905 Darwin wrote exactly that.  He wrote that mankind is an offshoot from what he called Old World Simiadaen monkeys...that man descended from some ape-like creature, a progenitors who were once covered with hair, both sexes had beards, with pointed ears, a tail, etc.

"In forming a judgment on this head with reference to man, we must glance at the classification of the Simiadae. This family is divided by almost all naturalists into the Catarrhine group, or Old World monkeys....and into the Platyrhine group or New World monkeys. .....Now, man unquestionably belongs in his dentitiion, in the structure of his nostrils, and some other respects, to the Catarrhine or Old World division.

.....There can, consequently, hardly  be a doubt that man is an offshoot from the Old World Simian stem; and that, under a genealogical point of view, he must be classified with the Catarrhine division. Vol.1, pg. 205.

"The early progenitors of man must have been once covered with hair, both sexes having beards; their ears were probably pointed and capable of movement; and their bodies were provided with a tail, having the proper muscles....The foot was then prehensile, judging from the great toe in the foetus; and our progeniters no doubt, were arboreal  in their habits, and frequented some warm forest-clad land." pg. 214.

"The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and the Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the universe proceeded." pg. 220.

 "Man, as I have attempted to show, is certainly descended from some ape-like creature." pg. 759.

"The main conclusion arrived at this work, namely that man is descended from some lowly organized form, will I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many. ...For my own part, I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descending from the mountains, carried away in triumpth his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs----as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices...." pg. 796.