Page 1 of 1
Famous Darwin quotes
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:17 pm
by Gman
Just thought I would remind people what Darwin spoke about in his books before they jump on his band wagon... As for me, he isn't getting my support...
Here are some statements he said about women:
“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain - whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses”
Here is another one about comparing women and men:
"If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive both of composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison"
or
"Man is more courageous, pugnacious, and energetic than woman and has more inventive genius."
or
"Thus man has ultimately become superior to woman."
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:23 pm
by Gman
In addition, Darwin gave us another very important criterion by which to test his theory. This criterion is so important, Darwin wrote, that it could cause his theory to be absolutely broken down:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:51 pm
by Judah
Well then, without being the slightest bit biased of course, it is very obvious to me that Darwin must have studied only one half of the human race. Perhaps it was just the ancestor of men who swung from the trees while that of women was always in the present created form?
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:55 pm
by Gman
Judah wrote:Well then, without being the slightest bit biased of course, it is very obvious to me that Darwin must have studied only one half of the human race. Perhaps it was just the ancestor of men who swung from the trees while that of women was always in the present created form?
Judah, You may have a point here.. After all, I still do make grunting noises at various time of the day...
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:23 am
by Byblos
Gman wrote:Judah wrote:Well then, without being the slightest bit biased of course, it is very obvious to me that Darwin must have studied only one half of the human race. Perhaps it was just the ancestor of men who swung from the trees while that of women was always in the present created form?
Judah, You may have a point here.. After all, I still do make grunting noises at various time of the day...
And I have a strong affinity to bananas. Couple that with the fact that a woman came up with the observation ... this case, ladies and chimps, is closed.
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 8:03 pm
by Gman
On other human races...
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes. . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. (Darwin; “The Descent of Man”, 2nd ed. P.178).
Darwin states in his own “Introduction” his reason for writing Descent of Man:
“The sole object of this work is to consider, firstly, whether man, like every other species, is descended from some pre-existing form; secondly, the manner of his development; and thirdly, the value of the differences between the so-called races of man.” Darwin continues, “…As I shall confine myself to these points, it will not be necessary to describe in detail the differences between the several races [of man] — an enormous subject which has been fully discussed in many valuable works”
“In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term 'man' ought to be used. But this is a matter of very little importance. So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as [a separate] species or sub-species…” (p.188).
Early on in Descent, Darwin discusses various aspects of man he deems significant. Regarding the shape of the human and sub-human ear Darwin writes:
“It has been asserted that the ear of man alone possesses a lobule; but 'a rudiment of it is found in the gorilla;' and, as I hear from Prof. Preyer, it is not rarely absent in the negro” (p.15).
Of the sense of smell:
“… But the sense of smell is of extremely slight service, if any, even to the dark colored races of men, in whom it is much more highly developed than in white and civilized races”(p.18 )
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:08 pm
by Judah
Er, just a little worried, I swung through the trees to the nearest pond and waited until the pirhanas had stopped their frenzy of feeding on the half-eaten Big Mac thoughtfully tossed their way by some more civilized primates in passing. When the waters were still I looked down and searched the reflection quite carefully for my ear. Full of uncertainty I took great leaps through the branches back to reconsider the evidence. Then in a flash of rare insight, it occurred to me that a question needed to be asked...
Gman, what does an ear lobule look like?
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:51 pm
by Gman
Judah wrote:Er, just a little worried, I swung through the trees to the nearest pond and waited until the pirhanas had stopped their frenzy of feeding on the half-eaten Big Mac thoughtfully tossed their way by some more civilized primates in passing. When the waters were still I looked down and searched the reflection quite carefully for my ear. Full of uncertainty I took great leaps through the branches back to reconsider the evidence. Then in a flash of rare insight, it occurred to me that a question needed to be asked...
Gman, what does an ear lobule look like?
What's that? I can't hear you darling..
Where was I again... Oh yah.. Darwin..
“The lower members in a group give us some idea how the common progenitor was probably constructed; and it is hardly credible that a complex part, arrested at an early phase of embryonic development, should go on growing so as ultimately to perform its proper function, unless it had acquired such power during some earlier state of existence, when the present exceptional or arrested structure was normal. The simple brain of a microcephalous idiot, in as far as it resembles that of an ape, may in this sense be said to offer a case of reversion. …Certain structures, regularly occurring in the lower members of the group to which man belongs, occasionally make their appearance in him, though not found in the normal human embryo; or, if normally present in the human embryo, they become abnormally developed, although in a manner which is normal in the lower members of the group” (pp.37,38 ).
This is what Darwin is suggesting here...
Quote by By Mike Carrier: "The physical aspect that results in the type of diminished brain activity that makes an idiot an idiot is a common physical aspect present in Negroes (a so-called “lower member of the group”); i.e., idiots represent aberrations among civilized white men, but the norm among Negroes."
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:31 pm
by Judah
Now having seen a picture of an ear lobule, which is something like a medium sized twig with an upturned petunia on the end and protrudes from the auditory canal, I swung back through the trees to the pond where the pirhana had previously been having their feeding frenzy. Just as I was searching for the reflection of my ear once again, a group of those more civilized primates made their way through the bushes below me. I kept very still and watched for a while. They were chattering away to each other, just as primates do, but the most remarkable thing that I noticed was that... none of them had any of these ear lobules!
In another rare flash of insight it occurred to me that I had another question to ask.
Gman, just who is this Darwin who thinks he knows something?
Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:59 pm
by Gman
Judah wrote:Now having seen a picture of an ear lobule, which is something like a medium sized twig with an upturned petunia on the end and protrudes from the auditory canal, I swung back through the trees to the pond where the pirhana had previously been having their feeding frenzy. Just as I was searching for the reflection of my ear once again, a group of those more civilized primates made their way through the bushes below me. I kept very still and watched for a while. They were chattering away to each other, just as primates do, but the most remarkable thing that I noticed was that... none of them had any of these ear lobules!
Hmmm... Let's see now... These more civilized primates like Big Macs and didn't have any of these ear lobules... Ouch. I'm slowly starting to get a picture here but it is still a blur... Question.. Do these primates happen to drink large quantities of beer and posses TV remotes in their hands? Do you have any more evidence to share?
Judah wrote:In another rare flash of insight it occurred to me that I had another question to ask.
Gman, just who is this Darwin who thinks he knows something?
I don't think Darwin really knows anything.. In fact he stated:
"Science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life...It is a mere rag of an hypothesis...I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science with as many flaw & holes as sound parts."
And yet we still have people today who still believe in his hypothesis.. I'm perplexed..
Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:42 pm
by Swamper
Gman wrote:
I don't think Darwin really knows anything.. In fact he stated:
"Science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life...It is a mere rag of an hypothesis...I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science with as many flaw & holes as sound parts."
And yet we still have people today who still believe in his hypothesis.. I'm perplexed..
Well, in his defense, science has advanced a fair bit since Darwin's time...
...what, me playing devil's advocate? Perish the thought! 
Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:49 pm
by August
Swamper wrote:Gman wrote:
I don't think Darwin really knows anything.. In fact he stated:
"Science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life...It is a mere rag of an hypothesis...I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science with as many flaw & holes as sound parts."
And yet we still have people today who still believe in his hypothesis.. I'm perplexed..
Well, in his defense, science has advanced a fair bit since Darwin's time...
...what, me playing devil's advocate? Perish the thought!
yet the holes remain...go figure.
Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:06 pm
by Gman
August wrote:
yet the holes remain...go figure.
Agreed, and the science we have today even makes that more evident..
Now getting back to Darwin.. I'm very surprised that "so called" liberals will back up Darwin and his motives.. Darwinianism goes against the grains of equality to it's core...
Regarding the relative size of the brain of savages, as compared to civilized man, Darwin writes:
“The belief that there exists in man some close relation between the size of the brain and the development of the intellectual faculties is supported by the comparison of the skulls of savage (black people) and civilized races (white people), of ancient and modern people, and by the analogy of the whole vertebrate series. …Professor Broca found that the nineteenth century skulls from graves in Paris were larger than those from vaults of the twelfth century, in the proportion of 1484 to 1426; and that the increased size, as ascertained by measurements, was exclusively in the frontal part of the skull—the seat of the intellectual faculties."
So according to Darwin, blacks had a smaller skull cavity (or brain size) than the whites.. Because of this genetic trait, whites were ultimately superior to blacks who were thus called the
savage race...
Boy, what a nice guy this Darwin is.. Genetically evolved people stomping on the savage races...
Re: Famous Darwin quotes
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 8:35 pm
by tunde1992
Am black ..
Re: Famous Darwin quotes
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:20 am
by Murray
tunde1992 wrote:I Am black ..
Ok..., that is an interesting analysis of Darwin's quotes.
