Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One party autocratic rule by any side will accomplish that.
Woke leftism is the greatest threat to the scientific foundations of our modern world because it is a virus within the very institutions that produce our best science.
Same species but with enough genetic diversity that medicine requires taking into consideration the lineage of the patient.
That is using genetics correctly, lineage does not equate race. Genetics shows us far more the same than different and almost impossible to show distinction between all humans to properly categorize humanity... there would be a pure race if that were true, and there is not.
Pure bred dogs have lots of issues...... biology is better when messy, when given the chance for variation in the genes. Look at the Habsburgs from Spain.... about as pure and genetically ugly as it gets...
Woke leftism is the greatest threat to the scientific foundations of our modern world because it is a virus within the very institutions that produce our best science.
The truth will prevail as long as there are those that champion it.
None of this would happen if race was not a biological reality. That is science.
No, that's the skin color gene. So to you skin color denotes race? Is race that simple? A gene marker? What about the mothers mitochondrial DNA stack? Can we study that marker and find true races? What is race to you? Can we make races for blue eyes? What's the common mitochondrial stack of every person in earth?
Time to bump this thread but I guess Princeton might have an other reason to denounce Charles Darwin. He stolen the theory of evolution from someone else according to this article from the Daily Mail. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...aturalist.html
Quote:
Charles Darwin is credited with transforming the understanding of nature
But 28 years before he published his now infamous On The Origin Of Species, a naturalist called Patrick Matthew published On Naval Timber and Arboriculture
Matthews' work expounded similar findings in his natural selection theory
The fraud claims have come to light in a new book: Science Fraud: Darwin’s Plagiarism Of Patrick Matthew’s Theory which is set to be published next week
Well yeah most people were still racist and sexist in the 19th century. Women couldn’t even vote, white supremacy was still de jure law in many places. That doesn’t mean all accomplishments anyone achieved in that century are not valid.
Agreed. Women could not vote in the United States before 1920, and there were still monuments being erected then to honor the Confederacy that fought to preserve slavery. That does not invalidate the scientific or technological work of anyone who shared the common attitudes of their day.
Henry Ford was an avowed racist and anti-semite who published a newspaper to air his views to the public. That doesn't change his contributions to industry such as the assembly line and doubling the prevailing wage of the day so the workers could afford the cars they built. I have Jewish friends who refuse to drive a Ford product to this day.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,461,836 times
Reputation: 19472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrw-500
Time to bump this thread but I guess Princeton might have an other reason to denounce Charles Darwin. He stolen the theory of evolution from someone else according to this article from the Daily Mail. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...aturalist.html
Darwin and others were regarded as having independently researched the theory of evolution by natural selection.
It should be noted that Darwin travelled over seas and much of his observations are independent and relate to animals on places such as the Galapagos Islands.
Darwin was an extremely good scientist, who wrote numerous books and as usual when such claims emerge, is not around to defend himself.
At the time, Darwin also had to endure a lot of negativity and criticism from scientific peers, the establishment and Christian Religions, and he was often mocked for supposedly comparing men to monkeys, something he actually never did.
In terms of what I have read on this thread, the whole question of evolution was being disputed rather then the early pioneers of such research.
That’s like astronomers trying to study the universe without thinking about the Big Bang.
In fairness, a whole lot of astronomers do that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
