Teflon Kris wrote:Somebody mentioned under-sea being a good place for fossils. Presumably the 'missing evidence' might be there?
I wouldn't say there's any missing evidence. Evolution has a pretty airtight case.
Teflon Kris wrote:Also what do you think of the neanderthal? that it has nothing to do whatsoever with our specie, and that we are not 2 branches with a common root?
Neanderthals, if they were alive today, would be our closest genetic relative. They would be considered to fall under the genus Homo, of which we are currently the only living species.
Teflon Kris wrote:There is also the political issue that too much human study, combined with the prevelance of evolutionist ideology could lead to the degrading of millions of mutant humans amongst our multi-billion populace. The far-right would have science to back-up their 'purity' ideology. So, interestingly, if you take evolutionism to its logical conclusion, an understanding of this theory could disprove the theory by its being used to prevent further mutations, and therefore developments taking place.
Social Darwinism is nothing more than a heavy handed attempt to bend science to fit a philosophy that its proponents already had. That particular brand of bigotry lies on the scrap heap of history. Besides, how would selective breeding prove evolution false?
Teflon Kris wrote:The controlling middle-right may also prefer not to see much study of humans in an evolutionary theory context as it may reveal that the above has already happened. It could well be that europeans are an inferior race with their small percentage of neanderthal genes, just as many cross-breeds of dogs are pretty messed-up creatures (there is probably a correlation between human mongrels owning maladaptive dog mongrels). Conversely, it could be possible that eradicating those with neanderthal genes proves the theory. Darwin could put his own species out of business!
Leaving aside the invalidity of the term "inferior" in an evolutionary context, the genetic differences between the races of humanity are trivial. Even if this weren't the case, how pleasant we find the truth to be has no bearing on what the truth is.
Teflon Kris wrote:Darwinian science is essentially a study of behaviour. Can it be a very exact science when it studies something that can't be measured properly?
I would hardly call it a study of behaviour, unless you would consider biology as a whole a study of behaviour.
Teflon Kris wrote:Even Newton got it all wrong and proper science showed him to be right for many generations.
Newton didn't get it all wrong, we just can't use his model on absolutely everything. If he had been completely incorrect we wouldn't still be teaching his laws today.