I never bought into the evolution/eugenics connection because I had a shred of critical thinking, but I didn't know half the stuff about Darwin you brought up. Excellent job, dude.
Darwin was also a gourmand and had a nasty habit of eating exotic species that he was supposed to be studying. He was even part of a club whose mission statement was just that: to eat and enjoy as many forms of life possible.
He's eaten Puma apparently. And Galapagos turtles (the specimens never made it off the ship).
I always hear racist on YouTube ranting about how evolved or unevolved different races are. If you find a video of a black person in it and read the comments you will know exactly what I'm talking about. It's all bullshit. I've never picked up a book on genetics and evolution and I know that. In fact, if you take anything you hear on YouTube to heart (unless it's related directly to academics) you are a fucking idiot. Bottomline.
This is that Texas student with ONLY a degree in "GeoScience" speaking on a topic he clearly knows NOTHING about.
He reminds me of another person that had NO DEGREE in Biology (Charles Darwin)
And I hate to burst your bubble.....but Darwin was a racist, an elitist, a naturalist religious zealot, and NOT even a biologist.
Not sure who knows less about Biology, him or you. Both seem to use straw man arguments and be pseudo-intellectuals devoid of critical thinking skills. EVO-religious for sure
@evoTARDSareINSANE this coming from a youtube user with the nick of "evolution tards are insane" what makes someone insane for disbelieving religion?
and if you actually read anything written by Darwin, you would understand that he loathed slavery and racism. unlike 99% of most religious people. who happily act as if they love all humans, but all to quickly jump to conclusions about other religions and races.
@evoTARDSareINSANE How about you post your own videos that back up your claims instead of just spouting unbased assertions and engaging in ad hominem and maybe we will take you more seriously =)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
THERE ARE NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't survive if their tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving? I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium, so-called "Junk DNA." Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss almost everything: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
@Mogley52 I looked at your article in Pravda, and it is obvious that you have no idea what you're even talking about. Do you need someone to teach you?
personally, while i can see that maybe hitler wasnt really applying evolution , is interesting but ill be honest doesnt change much. the reason. the idea that hitler utilized darwin, and other scientists such as mendels's findings to justify ethnic cleansing etc didnt trouble me because i know from history that many of mans discoveries are in themselves neutral, and has the capacity for good OR evil, the most common examples being fire, metals and atomic power, evolution i saw as being the same
I have been following Aron for quite some time, and I am still amazed by the astonoshing quality of his videos! I truly think that this world needs more people like him
I just have to express my frustration, though, at the odd paradox of intelligent persons such as yourself not being able to get video aspect ratios correct. Well, I guess we can't all be super-skilled in video editing *and* biology.
And besides, I wouldn't have the faintest idea of how to start a motorcycle, let alone ride one. :-)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Defining into existence or abbreviating a stance by coining everything Christian as cause of murder or racism, by making the statement that Christians had something to do with the terrorist actions that happened in this country, is not scientific reasoning or rational. Nor would it be to say Muslims were, or that Atheists were a cause without knowing each person involved. That kind of degenerative relativism,
is synonymous with Aron Ra.
Broward College, what is that an Internet College lol
@mamaschristmasbunny I said that people of any religion or none already held many ideas that would be considered racist long before Darwin's day. That's quite the opposite of the message you contrived out of this.
While I have no idea what he thought about the people of other races, Darwin was quite outspoken about the way he saw the natives of South America various islands being treated by fellow Europeans. He was disgusted by it.
so, what is the argument? racism exists for most parts because of econic stress. it careys over after the stress has eliviated via family. and then? there is no "and then"
if this set of vids sought to distance the theory of evolution from racism, then give up the ghost. the whole thing was well done, but its pointless in its pursuit. athiests and in a smaller spectrum are inocent. my ass.
if you stand, you stand for something. dont pussy foot
Interesting how you can say something but contribute nothing. Nobody is saying that atheists are "innocent" by whatever arbitrary manner you wish to judge an entire group of people on, but the idea that evolution is a racist concept is intellectually dishonest and only a morally bankrupt person would pursue that avenue of thought.
i had actualy been looking for things about racism, not evolution so no doubt i got mixed up and ass backwards. but it always seems to me that teaching evolution is quite similar to preaching creationism. e.g. its all still theory.
theory is fine to teach as long as students know things can and will change when more facts are uncovered. nasty terms like " intelligent desgin" sound like creationism and are bound to cause schism's.
Creationism isn't a theory. It's a "hypothesis" based on "evidence" such as "Well, look how complex the world is!" and "This couldn't happen all by accident!" This has no place in a classroom.
Evolution is a scientific theory. When people say theory they usually mean hypothesis (an educated guess, essentially). There has been empirical observation of evolution in action and a pretty substantial amount of physical evidence. This is science, creationism isn't
@biscuithammer00 what, your gonna split hairs? oh noble samurai?
my point was thus, evolution is in its most infintile form. standards are still being set and nothing is 101%
this is cuz we are having trouble replicating evolution at its base in a controled environment. find me a study that has created life from untainted chemicals and i shall recant my herasy.
@biscuithammer00 whoa ho, then post somethign i can sight... as from what ive read in... gad... numerous scientific journels... evolution is still just "the most plausable" idea.
eugenics is something else and is not to be considered evolution. but that is that... what i do crave is good reading bro. blade to blade >; D
you drop me a source for good reading and i shall reply with much praise. other wise, your jsut dropping magic. ive had enough of magic...
Excuse me if I sound incredulous, but you don't seem like the type to read accredited scientific journals. Especially not if you think that's how they would describe evolution.
Why are you brining up eugenics? That has nothing to do with creationism versus evolution.
You are the one who keeps brining up magic. Creationism and intelligent design are nothing but magic and superstition and should be taught in church and mythology classes. That's it.
but i am a philosophic troll and i have obviously found me home.
but you have yet to site any source for your pro "pure evolution" claims. and to put a nail in the crate or casket as you see fit... eugenics is at the heart of the evolutionary therum... excuse my spelling...
but... none the less... two bad ass cows will breed a genticaly bad asss cow. its not even a science.
but i crave science. show me source. show me your evo claims.
Then I have nothing more to say to you. You don't want an intellectually honest conversation and you don't want science. I could provide all of these things for you but you don't WANT this information. You couldn't have even been bothered to watch the video. I'm done with you.
@biscuithammer00 you shy away from simple words with no excuse for your retreate. fine.
thats your bid and no more. you boast of intellectual showboating, yet you shine nothing more then a swift decline.
trolls bid for not but more then ones time. yet you ironicly seem to beg for a troll's gastly pastime. feh. the troll in me says not but "eat me, good sire."
I've already provided you with a method of proving that evolution is real. You need look no farther than the domesticated dogs and their wolf cousins.
Now I ask you, where is your evidence for creationism/intelligent design? You seem to think that creationism/intelligent design is true, so you should have no trouble proving evidence for it.
@biscuithammer00 give me a name! give me a title of a scietific study! give me somthing i can google, god damnit, give me anything. i say this cuz you have yet to sight anything to purport pure evolution. an idea i love but cant suport without a flag.
youve provided me with nothing. maybe this is why ideas like "creationism" or "intelege3nt design" run rampant!
or mayb3 its cuz you can find anything to counter there silly and wild eyeed claims! give me a fucking source or eat what is science!
What would giving you a study do? Would it convince you? I think not. What I want you to do is look at what evolution means. After doing this I want you to look at how wolves became the domesticated dog breeds we know today through selective breeding. Through selective breeding to determine dominant traits. Heck, you could even do this yourself by breeding dogs. This is real physical evidence that you can look at and touch yourself, not some dumb paper.
@biscuithammer00 all you want "ta do" is subjagate" my asss or anus, ass you please. i already brought up eugenics... and you want to throw the domestication of the canid in my face...
seriously... whats the shapened graphite edge here? era... the point? as much as i love fun, i asked you for a simple thing... a source. something most colegegic papers require. but you feel you gots to drop down a shelf.
fine. i officialy cut out of this conversation, your to much of an ass to carry it on.
You asked for a source and I gave it to you. In fact, I gave you something better. I gave you something you could go out and touch with your hands. This is the best possible kind of evidence and if you were intellectually honest this would be all you'd need.
And if you can't provide any kind of counter-argument I'll consider this farce complete.
This guy is clearly a troll, you gave him what he asked for and i think its a good argument, for you to get to his mind, he needs to open it first. his mind is made up. Can't walk through a closed door. Btw you intellectually owned him.
@inabilika Perhaps you missed the part where he showed the bill by a creationist congresswomen to try to outlaw teaching science because creationism is less racist.
The company that invented the ancestry test, DNAPrint Genomics of Sarasota, Fla., says that by examining tiny genetic markers on the DNA molecule that tend to be similar in people of certain population groups, it can tell whether a suspect's heritage is European, Sub-Saharan African, Southeast Asian, Native American or a mix of those.
@ratholin " It was kind of neat when they found all the native american ancestry in the norwegians" Yes, that is kind of neat. Do you have link for that? I know there are more Americans in the United States with Norwegian background than actual Norwegians in Norway right now. But, that makes sense, since there is more space in the United States. But what you're saying is intriguing because it should raise some very interesting questions.
@charlesfloyb Drat I can't find the article but they were doing large scale family DNA tests in scandinavia and found large pockets of Native american ancestry going well back. The assumption is that on trips to vineland they took wives amongst the natives. Ah they took them through iceland. That explains why it was hard to find. Google "VIKINGS POSSIBLY CARRIED NATIVE AMERICAN TO EUROPE"
@ratholin Try to find an old Nova episode (2002-2004?) that suggested that some of the Native American gene pool may have been mixed with descendants of the Cro-magnon peoples who had lived and hunted along the ice pack just prior to the end of the last glaciation event. Results are inconclusive due to the far more recent colonization by Europeans messing with the genetic data.
AronRa, please record your own audio when you do these presentations and sync it with the available video footage. Or add closed captioning. It's hard to hear your speech.
Great speech, AaronRa! I Iive in Gainesville, FL and really wished I could have made it out to see you speak! I used to live in TX, ironically, so I always seem to just miss your performances. I guess that is what youtube is for, eh?
How is it then that in all black countries everythings has gone to hell. Even when the country was built up and established into a good economic system. Why can they then stuff that system up very quickly and effectively. Is it because they are less intelligent than whites? Why does it take the black person in africa to learn something so much longer than the average white person? I´m not racist at all, but I would like someone to explain this phenomenon to me?
@langzeekoei When they were colonized by the European powers boundaries were drawn up arbitrarily. Often times there would be different tribes of people who historically fought. The European powers would encourage such rivalry as it made their job easier (divide and conquer). After the Europeans left these rivalries remained. Additionally, the Europeans built up infrastructure only that made resource extraction easier, so its pretty much junk for anything else (the railroads only go to the port)
Forced to stop subscribing because this has turned out to have the same intellectual dishonesty as religions. This clearly isnt a place for constructive and civilized discussion.
@Darvinisti Looking at just a few of your responses I am forced to accuse you of the actual intellectual dishonesty. I.e. if a single racist thought during persons life makes that person a racist, then you have rendered the term useless and your entire argument is moot. What HAS BEEN SHOWN is that even if Darwin had been a racist at some point of his life, it did not manifest in his most significant years or works. All of your arguments seem to be hollow and baseless.
An excellent lecture, despite technical problems that were not your fault. I learned things today. Of course it never occoured to me the Darwin's character would either be slandered, nor that his character would be relevant since it is his scientific observations and the implications of that work which are more important. That is because the debate of Darwin's theories were over and finished in the UK a hundred years ago. Get that? 100 years.
Darwin understanding natural selection in the way he did would have been the first to say that Eugenics is the exact opposite way of ensuring the survival and improvement of our species.
Creationists pin Eugenics etc on Darwin so that people will reject evolution without ever looking at it, due to thinking it leads to evil ends.
Darwin wasn't a racist, but that's not the real issue. Evolution means Africans evolved before other humans. This means blacks evolved first, then evolution happened and other races were formed. So, if we were to analyze the DNA of a black person, would black ancestry always come prior to whites?
@charlesfloyb Err... no. "Black people" is not a race in any genetic sense, it's a cultural prejudice. What our ancestry does mean is that all people developed out of a single group that inhabited Africa. Today's native Africans aren't "prior" to other groups, they're contemporary with them.
@Ironysandwich Really? This doesn't seem 100% accurate. If black colored skin isn't genetic, then wouldn't we be able to get a black person with 2 white parents? It just seems like it must be genetic, everything is. Every characteristic of every animal is explained through genes. You can take a mouse's eye gene, plant it in a fruitfly that did not have an eye, and the eye will grow inside the fruitfly. I don't understand why we can't be forthright about genetics.
@charlesfloyb Try reading his reply again. There are biological categories called "race" but skin color is not important in determining where any individual falls within these. The social "race" phenomenon is entirely superficial and intellectually worthless.
@Asylumer If skin color is "not important" as you say in determining where an individual is classified as far as race goes, that means you could have the darkest black person be labeled as white. It doesn't make sense on a basic level of understanding. I think lots of abuse has taken place over time because of differences in skin color, but does dna prove no genetics difference? And wouldn't the first human species be black since Africa had a climate to promote dark skin?
@charlesfloyb You still don't understand. There are no meaningful "white" or "black" races. People of different skin color can be far more genetically similar than people with the same color skin. Actual BIOLOGICAL RACE classification does not place much emphasis on skin color because it is such a minor part of a person's genetic makeup.
@Asylumer You are in what is now known as "race denial". Not just you, but this more modern, yet flawed position of many biologists that use blood factor analysis as their main tool. However, skeletal biologists, particularly forensic anthropologists, will see races as biologically real. The common person on the street who sees only a person's skin color, hair form, and face shape will also tend to see races as biologically real. They are not incorrect.
@charlesfloyb....you seem confused. Africans didn't "evolve" before anybody. ALL humans evolved in Africa and the various populations descended from this initial African group simply became adapted to disparate environments, hence our phenotypical and slight genotypical differences.
But Africans do have the highest degree of genetic diversity meaning they've been around the longest allowing for more unique genetic mutations to develop. That does not = "evolved" first. Fyi I'm black myself. ;)
@Juniversal actually "been around longest" is basically the same thing as "evolved first" and since it's been shown that all other phenotypic variations devolped from them then yes they did evolve from them, however that is not to say that any one is "less evolved" they simply followed a slightly different line resulting in minor variations. (however charlesfloyb is an idiot who wouldn't understand so simple a concept.)
@satanisthetruegod666 I'm glad you explained that to Juniversal that "been around longest" is basically the same thing as "evolved first". Though your explanation is correct, your ad hominem attack was misplaced. That's fine though, because many times on message boards is where some ideas get hammered out. And I realize that race is a sensitive issue. So, can we conclude that since the first humans evolved in Africa, that the first humans must've been dark skinned?
@charlesfloyb that would be an accurate way to put it, yes, since they evolved in africa they were most likely dark skinned. and i apologize for the ad hominem, it was misplaced.
@satanisthetruegod666...Thanks for the response. I think we're basically on the same page. Though I still don't think essentially saying non-black races "evolved" from blacks is an apt description of the adaptive process given rise to the different races considering we're the same species and black Africans today certainly aren't the same as 60,000 years ago.
Now if you're essentially saying ALL humans evolved from that initial African stock (including modern day Africans) then I can agree .
Was the omission of any mention of Galton, the father of the Eugenics movement deliberate.
I think it pertinent that Darwin's cousin, the arche-Eugenecist reasoned using Darwin's theory. One may disagree with that reasoning but it is a historically pertinent point of fact that seems highly relevant to your excellent and informative presentation.
I've always seen natural selection, or survival of the fittest, as something that occurs in nature, without any outside help. Eugenics is nothing like that. Natural selection creates specimens that can survive well in their natural environment, while eugenics could create specimens that HUMANS THINK would survive well in their SOCIETY.
You’re absolutely right. Eugenics is more akin to what is called artificial selection. In natural selection changes in a species are rendered by the animals which are best suited to their environment (this is also the best explanation of 'survival of the fittest, not the most fit individual survives, but the most fit for its environment). These individuals which do survive pass their genes and any concomitant adaptations along to the next generation. (continued in next post)
@lauramitrea This, cumulatively and over time, produces palpable changes which benefit the whole species. In artificial selection humans chose animals with the most desirable (to ourselves) traits and breed these selected, elite animals until the undesirable individuals, and their genes, have been effectively bred out of the gene pool. (continued in next post)
@lauramitrea . An example of artificial selection is dog breeding. We have slowly, but inexorably bred generations of canines so that the most attractive (to us) attributes have survived, so we now have cute little shi tzus and big beastly great danes. (continued in next post)
@lauramitrea So, more succinctly put, natural selection produces results, naturally, that are beneficial to the survival and proliferation of a species. And artificial selection produces, through human intervention, results that benefit ourselves and not necessarily redound positively to the species in which the selection took place.
@cossintan1 dude look up tame silver foxes, even on youtube (where i first heard of them) i bet you might enjoy to see just how fast the different breeds of dogs came seeing as well i wont spoil it but the changes that has happened is kind of shocking for how fast it has happened
@cossintan1 Interesting comment on natural vs artificial selection. I think the main difference is not however "benefit" to the species of animal undergoing selection - I mean prolonged puppy-like behaviour in dogs has benefitted dogs in their environment - human captivity. The main difference I'd say is that artificial selection will tend to create highly specialised species with low genetic variability (& therefore adaptability). In that way eugenics would reduce our survivability.
@Darvinisti You are a decented from black people of africa. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? You are just willingly being ignorant and biased and I suspect that is because if a reason. Care to tell us what that reason is?
Hasn't recent studies in modern genetics shown that genetic variations in a given "breed" of human (I hate defining people by race as we are all capable of interbreeding) can be greater than the variations *between* the various breeds of humans?
aronra, thank you very much for this presentation.i do wish that you might consider making this video in home studio, but i realize you are very busy.i am just voicing my interest for a future project should you be considering it.
When you look back at the old days, people tried to use both science and religion in twisted ways to justify their personal prejudices, especially thier racism. There is a old atheist saying, that you know god is man made when he hates all the same people you do.
So you claim that Darwin wasnt a racist because he preferred some other race to white? REALLY? How is that NOT racism. Do you really think that the only way to be a racist is to prefer white race or ones own race? I got news for you in that case. Its not an that view is a racist view.
Darwin was a product of his day, even if he was a racist...and the facts show that he wasnt...that wouldnt really matter since racism was pounded into people back then. Racism was especially big among christians so what is your point? At the very best you have 6 of one and a half dozen of another.
@ThieleM Well if its a fact that he preferred one race to another that is racism. It may be small and pretty harmless but lets not have double standards on what is racism, thats my point.
@Darvinisti Did you even LISTEN to the lecture?? Aronra gave a multitude of examples of how Darwin wasn't a racist. The comment about preferring black people's skin was ONE of the refutations to the ONLY sentence that would ever suggest Darwin was a racist.
@simsi1616 I did and it doesnt matter how many examples you give of non racist thinking. Is there is even a one racist element then that makes him at least a little bit of a racist. Now Using Darwins own arguments againts races. Is there or is there not many views as to how many racist ideas must a person have to be called a racist?
And the Irony of you accusing of me being thick when you still belive that preferring a another race then white would somehow be antiracist while its just as racist
You are using ray Comfort logic. If darwin had ONE racist notion he is a racist? That is no different from Ray COmfort saying "have you ever told a lie?.....that makes y ou a liar.
Not only does your logic fail but Darwin's writings clearly demonstrate that he wasnt a racist
@Darvinisti I'm not going to repeat the entire lecture to you. Watch it again, and if you still don't understand why your point makes no sense, then watch it again, and again, until you do understand.
For his time Darwin was a progressive, with a much more progressive view of humans than did all of the religious nuts jobs at the time.
@Darvinisti: Where is it said that he preferred other races? To summarize: race is meaningless; racial characteristics are shaded, and biases based on them are wrong; expert anthro's disagree about individual's races; experts cannot tell how many supposed races there are; had nothing to do with the Australian abo crisis; in fact finds it tragic; prefers the look of dark skin Tahitians; abhorred slavery; criticized whites; nicest man he ever met was a black; defined savages by practice.
@Darvinisti: That's racism? Oh, my. Perhaps he just likes a good tan. Would you feel it is if he preferred brunettes to blondes? Or perhaps it's only because I used the word Tahitian in there? What race is Tahitian?
@Darvinisti "prefers the look of dark skin Tahitians"
If that's your proof that Darwin was racist, what about California blondes that prefer their tans to their "natural pallor"? You are trying too hard, when not being able to substantiate what most would consider racism, you resort to accusing Darwin of being racist against whites.
But I suspect that your comments don't deserve a response and doubt that it is your intention to engage in honest discussion.
These videos highlight the most infuriating element of these slanders against Darwin: that they're so obviously wrong. Even a cursory glance of the evidence refutes the accusations, yet the mistaken ideas are so prevalent.
I used to not want to visit USA, thinking it was too expensive for me, compared with what it has to offer. But right now I just want to go there to shake AronRa's hand, of nothing else.
Thank you very, very much for doing this lecture. It's been extremely frustrating trying to explain to people that evolution is NOT a theory that supports racism, and that it's actually religious dogma which perpetuates such thinking. You've done a much better job of explaining this, and I definitely enjoyed. I'm already sharing the videos with my friends in the hopes that it spreads.
You wouldn't happen to be planning on speaking in Chicago anytime soon, are you?
well i am setting myself up for a smack down,but sometimes guess people need a kick in the head,anyway though i agree with all that was said and people like aronra,profmth,kingheathen,andromadaswake,and potholder54,in my opnion probably some of the smartest people,i can't deny existance of God,...ducks furniture..only way i can explain it is a feeling sorta of like when you decide what is right or wrong and no explanation but you have that feeling or maybe as some people say your conciouse con..
@johndebbra I have no doubt the colonists AronRa talked about in the entire lecture, who thought they were instinctively right about their opinions of the different races. Obviously it came from a higher power.
Perhaps the feelings and thoughts you have are much more mundane than god whispering in your ear?
6:01 some of that seemed true..
YourBrainOnReIigion 4 weeks ago
I never bought into the evolution/eugenics connection because I had a shred of critical thinking, but I didn't know half the stuff about Darwin you brought up. Excellent job, dude.
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
@YaleBreaker
Darwin was also a gourmand and had a nasty habit of eating exotic species that he was supposed to be studying. He was even part of a club whose mission statement was just that: to eat and enjoy as many forms of life possible.
He's eaten Puma apparently. And Galapagos turtles (the specimens never made it off the ship).
dhx84 1 month ago
Wonderful talk. Thank you so much. I learned quite a lot from this.
TheGlassDot 1 month ago
Fascinating presentation.
kelliko70 1 month ago
I always hear racist on YouTube ranting about how evolved or unevolved different races are. If you find a video of a black person in it and read the comments you will know exactly what I'm talking about. It's all bullshit. I've never picked up a book on genetics and evolution and I know that. In fact, if you take anything you hear on YouTube to heart (unless it's related directly to academics) you are a fucking idiot. Bottomline.
TheUltimateBeing01 3 months ago
This is that Texas student with ONLY a degree in "GeoScience" speaking on a topic he clearly knows NOTHING about.
He reminds me of another person that had NO DEGREE in Biology (Charles Darwin)
And I hate to burst your bubble.....but Darwin was a racist, an elitist, a naturalist religious zealot, and NOT even a biologist.
Not sure who knows less about Biology, him or you. Both seem to use straw man arguments and be pseudo-intellectuals devoid of critical thinking skills. EVO-religious for sure
evoTARDSareINSANE 3 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE
You have more lies in that comment than you do sentences. Good work.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun It shows how desperate the creatards are. Now they cant even use Hitler any more because he was one of them ;o)
All they can do is telling lies about the facts and those who present them.
M0rdH0rst 1 month ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE this coming from a youtube user with the nick of "evolution tards are insane" what makes someone insane for disbelieving religion?
and if you actually read anything written by Darwin, you would understand that he loathed slavery and racism. unlike 99% of most religious people. who happily act as if they love all humans, but all to quickly jump to conclusions about other religions and races.
religion is ignorance of reason and facts.
Jaws10214 1 month ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE How about you post your own videos that back up your claims instead of just spouting unbased assertions and engaging in ad hominem and maybe we will take you more seriously =)
iseezapie 2 weeks ago
keep up the good fight against stupidity man. great lecture.
georgek19 3 months ago
This was awesome! Thank you for posting this.
babyblueknowwho 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
THERE ARE NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't survive if their tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving? I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium, so-called "Junk DNA." Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss almost everything: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
@Mogley52 I looked at your article in Pravda, and it is obvious that you have no idea what you're even talking about. Do you need someone to teach you?
AronRa 6 months ago 22
Please define kind. Until you are able to do this, your argument is pointless.
jebus6kryst 6 months ago
@Mogley52 What are "kinds"? That's a rather vague term, if you're going to think scientifically, you must be more specific.
Akira625 1 month ago
personally, while i can see that maybe hitler wasnt really applying evolution , is interesting but ill be honest doesnt change much. the reason. the idea that hitler utilized darwin, and other scientists such as mendels's findings to justify ethnic cleansing etc didnt trouble me because i know from history that many of mans discoveries are in themselves neutral, and has the capacity for good OR evil, the most common examples being fire, metals and atomic power, evolution i saw as being the same
elgostine 11 months ago
AronRa FTW ^ 1,000,000
GordonYKWong 11 months ago
@GordonYKWong
you have fifteen seconds to type in the largest number you are capable of-> GO.
attheveryend 4 months ago
That....was amazing.
dhaddox 1 year ago
Outstanding talk.
goldenrebel1st 1 year ago
Outstanding talk.
goldenrebel1st 1 year ago
I have been following Aron for quite some time, and I am still amazed by the astonoshing quality of his videos! I truly think that this world needs more people like him
NotSoSuperJerk 1 year ago
"If you focus on differences, you can isolate one man apart from all other men"
(sniff, tear)
Absolutely. Fucking. Brilliant.
You go Aron, I'm with you all the way.
NoFearOfGod 1 year ago 7
A most excellent presentation!
I just have to express my frustration, though, at the odd paradox of intelligent persons such as yourself not being able to get video aspect ratios correct. Well, I guess we can't all be super-skilled in video editing *and* biology.
And besides, I wouldn't have the faintest idea of how to start a motorcycle, let alone ride one. :-)
PikemannUrge 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Defining into existence or abbreviating a stance by coining everything Christian as cause of murder or racism, by making the statement that Christians had something to do with the terrorist actions that happened in this country, is not scientific reasoning or rational. Nor would it be to say Muslims were, or that Atheists were a cause without knowing each person involved. That kind of degenerative relativism,
is synonymous with Aron Ra.
Broward College, what is that an Internet College lol
mamaschristmasbunny 1 year ago
@mamaschristmasbunny I said that people of any religion or none already held many ideas that would be considered racist long before Darwin's day. That's quite the opposite of the message you contrived out of this.
AronRa 1 year ago 47
While I have no idea what he thought about the people of other races, Darwin was quite outspoken about the way he saw the natives of South America various islands being treated by fellow Europeans. He was disgusted by it.
Macrochenia 1 year ago
Thank you AronRa.
For everything.
bodeezy 1 year ago 3
Hey Aron where is the Q/A at the end?
razor12516 1 year ago
"Hitler was a creationist," I'll be using that one. Thanks.
pumkinpi2 1 year ago
so, what is the argument? racism exists for most parts because of econic stress. it careys over after the stress has eliviated via family. and then? there is no "and then"
if this set of vids sought to distance the theory of evolution from racism, then give up the ghost. the whole thing was well done, but its pointless in its pursuit. athiests and in a smaller spectrum are inocent. my ass.
if you stand, you stand for something. dont pussy foot
inabilika 1 year ago
@inabilika
Interesting how you can say something but contribute nothing. Nobody is saying that atheists are "innocent" by whatever arbitrary manner you wish to judge an entire group of people on, but the idea that evolution is a racist concept is intellectually dishonest and only a morally bankrupt person would pursue that avenue of thought.
biscuithammer00 1 year ago
@biscuithammer00 i was pretty drunk when i posted so...
i had actualy been looking for things about racism, not evolution so no doubt i got mixed up and ass backwards. but it always seems to me that teaching evolution is quite similar to preaching creationism. e.g. its all still theory.
theory is fine to teach as long as students know things can and will change when more facts are uncovered. nasty terms like " intelligent desgin" sound like creationism and are bound to cause schism's.
inabilika 1 year ago
@inabilika
"its all still theory."
Creationism isn't a theory. It's a "hypothesis" based on "evidence" such as "Well, look how complex the world is!" and "This couldn't happen all by accident!" This has no place in a classroom.
Evolution is a scientific theory. When people say theory they usually mean hypothesis (an educated guess, essentially). There has been empirical observation of evolution in action and a pretty substantial amount of physical evidence. This is science, creationism isn't
biscuithammer00 1 year ago 5
@biscuithammer00 your nuts bar. you wana divy up needles and surgery. i cant buy your sham bro, its over sold.
i was only looking for some two cents on evil words. i already know what you souless turkeys preach of religeon. "its perfects, dont taint the sauce"
ps... post scizpt .. im talking about evolutionarys...
inabilika 1 year ago
@biscuithammer00 what, your gonna split hairs? oh noble samurai?
my point was thus, evolution is in its most infintile form. standards are still being set and nothing is 101%
this is cuz we are having trouble replicating evolution at its base in a controled environment. find me a study that has created life from untainted chemicals and i shall recant my herasy.
inabilika 1 year ago
@inabilika
If I'm a samurai, then I suppose that my words would be my blade. Prepare to be cleaved.
I'm not splitting hairs, I was explaining why no real scientist should take creationism seriously and why it shouldn't be taught in the classroom.
Also our theory of evolution has come along way, it's far from infantile, and so far it has proven to be rock solid.
We have actually been replicating evolution for thousands of years. You need look no further than our domestication of the dog.
biscuithammer00 1 year ago
@biscuithammer00 whoa ho, then post somethign i can sight... as from what ive read in... gad... numerous scientific journels... evolution is still just "the most plausable" idea.
eugenics is something else and is not to be considered evolution. but that is that... what i do crave is good reading bro. blade to blade >; D
you drop me a source for good reading and i shall reply with much praise. other wise, your jsut dropping magic. ive had enough of magic...
inabilika 1 year ago
@inabilika
"the most plausable" idea."
Excuse me if I sound incredulous, but you don't seem like the type to read accredited scientific journals. Especially not if you think that's how they would describe evolution.
Why are you brining up eugenics? That has nothing to do with creationism versus evolution.
You are the one who keeps brining up magic. Creationism and intelligent design are nothing but magic and superstition and should be taught in church and mythology classes. That's it.
biscuithammer00 1 year ago
@biscuithammer00 first off, i am a troll... period....
but i am a philosophic troll and i have obviously found me home.
but you have yet to site any source for your pro "pure evolution" claims. and to put a nail in the crate or casket as you see fit... eugenics is at the heart of the evolutionary therum... excuse my spelling...
but... none the less... two bad ass cows will breed a genticaly bad asss cow. its not even a science.
but i crave science. show me source. show me your evo claims.
inabilika 1 year ago
@inabilika
"i am a troll... period...."
Then I have nothing more to say to you. You don't want an intellectually honest conversation and you don't want science. I could provide all of these things for you but you don't WANT this information. You couldn't have even been bothered to watch the video. I'm done with you.
biscuithammer00 1 year ago
@biscuithammer00 you shy away from simple words with no excuse for your retreate. fine.
thats your bid and no more. you boast of intellectual showboating, yet you shine nothing more then a swift decline.
trolls bid for not but more then ones time. yet you ironicly seem to beg for a troll's gastly pastime. feh. the troll in me says not but "eat me, good sire."
prove me otherwise
inabilika 1 year ago
@inabilika
I've already provided you with a method of proving that evolution is real. You need look no farther than the domesticated dogs and their wolf cousins.
Now I ask you, where is your evidence for creationism/intelligent design? You seem to think that creationism/intelligent design is true, so you should have no trouble proving evidence for it.
biscuithammer00 1 year ago
@biscuithammer00 give me a name! give me a title of a scietific study! give me somthing i can google, god damnit, give me anything. i say this cuz you have yet to sight anything to purport pure evolution. an idea i love but cant suport without a flag.
youve provided me with nothing. maybe this is why ideas like "creationism" or "intelege3nt design" run rampant!
or mayb3 its cuz you can find anything to counter there silly and wild eyeed claims! give me a fucking source or eat what is science!
inabilika 1 year ago
@inabilika
What would giving you a study do? Would it convince you? I think not. What I want you to do is look at what evolution means. After doing this I want you to look at how wolves became the domesticated dog breeds we know today through selective breeding. Through selective breeding to determine dominant traits. Heck, you could even do this yourself by breeding dogs. This is real physical evidence that you can look at and touch yourself, not some dumb paper.
Think for yourself.
biscuithammer00 1 year ago
@biscuithammer00 all you want "ta do" is subjagate" my asss or anus, ass you please. i already brought up eugenics... and you want to throw the domestication of the canid in my face...
seriously... whats the shapened graphite edge here? era... the point? as much as i love fun, i asked you for a simple thing... a source. something most colegegic papers require. but you feel you gots to drop down a shelf.
fine. i officialy cut out of this conversation, your to much of an ass to carry it on.
inabilika 1 year ago
@inabilika
You asked for a source and I gave it to you. In fact, I gave you something better. I gave you something you could go out and touch with your hands. This is the best possible kind of evidence and if you were intellectually honest this would be all you'd need.
And if you can't provide any kind of counter-argument I'll consider this farce complete.
biscuithammer00 1 year ago
@biscuithammer00
This guy is clearly a troll, you gave him what he asked for and i think its a good argument, for you to get to his mind, he needs to open it first. his mind is made up. Can't walk through a closed door. Btw you intellectually owned him.
Heavymetalhelp 1 year ago
@inabilika
"find me a study that has created life from untainted chemicals and i shall recant my herasy."
Evolution has nothing to do with how life comes about. What you are talking about is abiogenesis which is NOT evolution.
biscuithammer00 1 year ago
@inabilika Perhaps you missed the part where he showed the bill by a creationist congresswomen to try to outlaw teaching science because creationism is less racist.
jacevicki 1 year ago
@jacevicki im sure i missed alot of things.
inabilika 1 year ago
Sounds like hate against whites, fuck this jew nigger.
2icebaked 1 year ago
The company that invented the ancestry test, DNAPrint Genomics of Sarasota, Fla., says that by examining tiny genetic markers on the DNA molecule that tend to be similar in people of certain population groups, it can tell whether a suspect's heritage is European, Sub-Saharan African, Southeast Asian, Native American or a mix of those.
charlesfloyb 1 year ago
@charlesfloyb It was kind of neat when they found all the native american ancestry in the norwegians.
ratholin 1 year ago
@ratholin " It was kind of neat when they found all the native american ancestry in the norwegians" Yes, that is kind of neat. Do you have link for that? I know there are more Americans in the United States with Norwegian background than actual Norwegians in Norway right now. But, that makes sense, since there is more space in the United States. But what you're saying is intriguing because it should raise some very interesting questions.
charlesfloyb 1 year ago
@charlesfloyb Drat I can't find the article but they were doing large scale family DNA tests in scandinavia and found large pockets of Native american ancestry going well back. The assumption is that on trips to vineland they took wives amongst the natives. Ah they took them through iceland. That explains why it was hard to find. Google "VIKINGS POSSIBLY CARRIED NATIVE AMERICAN TO EUROPE"
ratholin 1 year ago
@ratholin Try to find an old Nova episode (2002-2004?) that suggested that some of the Native American gene pool may have been mixed with descendants of the Cro-magnon peoples who had lived and hunted along the ice pack just prior to the end of the last glaciation event. Results are inconclusive due to the far more recent colonization by Europeans messing with the genetic data.
gardener68 1 year ago
Comment removed
h2atheist 1 year ago
Wow, I just sort of always assumed Darwin was racist, but to his society's discredit, not his.
BoozyBeggar 1 year ago
Great speech, thanks for uploading
AnApeLikeMe 1 year ago
Great presentation, really informative
shandcunt 1 year ago
@AronRa where is the Q&A session? :-(
prophetchannel 1 year ago
AronRa, please record your own audio when you do these presentations and sync it with the available video footage. Or add closed captioning. It's hard to hear your speech.
Other than that, great job as usual.
nightoftheshape 1 year ago 2
Thank you for doing this. I've picked up more information that I didn't have before.
h2atheist 1 year ago
Great speech, AaronRa! I Iive in Gainesville, FL and really wished I could have made it out to see you speak! I used to live in TX, ironically, so I always seem to just miss your performances. I guess that is what youtube is for, eh?
Rock on, sir!
JT826 1 year ago
How is it then that in all black countries everythings has gone to hell. Even when the country was built up and established into a good economic system. Why can they then stuff that system up very quickly and effectively. Is it because they are less intelligent than whites? Why does it take the black person in africa to learn something so much longer than the average white person? I´m not racist at all, but I would like someone to explain this phenomenon to me?
langzeekoei 1 year ago
@langzeekoei When they were colonized by the European powers boundaries were drawn up arbitrarily. Often times there would be different tribes of people who historically fought. The European powers would encourage such rivalry as it made their job easier (divide and conquer). After the Europeans left these rivalries remained. Additionally, the Europeans built up infrastructure only that made resource extraction easier, so its pretty much junk for anything else (the railroads only go to the port)
zieger1 1 year ago 2
@langzeekoei "I'm not racist at all." Then why are you saying racist shit? To answer your question: you're wrong. Your observations are erroneous.
IVIaggotx 1 year ago
Even people who are completely different from each other have in common that they all share no common traits. They are all equally different.
PluralOfEverything 1 year ago
Nice lecture, AronRa. It's great to see you in an academic setting disseminating some useful science and history.
Thanks for that.
drgoldteef 1 year ago
Wow. This was amazing. My jaw hit the table so many times. Shared to everyone!
shotwench2210 1 year ago
You're going to post the QA too?
jessemaurais 1 year ago
Forced to stop subscribing because this has turned out to have the same intellectual dishonesty as religions. This clearly isnt a place for constructive and civilized discussion.
Darvinisti 1 year ago
@Darvinisti Looking at just a few of your responses I am forced to accuse you of the actual intellectual dishonesty. I.e. if a single racist thought during persons life makes that person a racist, then you have rendered the term useless and your entire argument is moot. What HAS BEEN SHOWN is that even if Darwin had been a racist at some point of his life, it did not manifest in his most significant years or works. All of your arguments seem to be hollow and baseless.
g24417 1 year ago 32
At 14:11, that's me, 3rd from the left. :-)
GoblinKnightLeo 1 year ago
An excellent lecture, despite technical problems that were not your fault. I learned things today. Of course it never occoured to me the Darwin's character would either be slandered, nor that his character would be relevant since it is his scientific observations and the implications of that work which are more important. That is because the debate of Darwin's theories were over and finished in the UK a hundred years ago. Get that? 100 years.
NoFaithNoPain 1 year ago 2
Darwin understanding natural selection in the way he did would have been the first to say that Eugenics is the exact opposite way of ensuring the survival and improvement of our species.
Creationists pin Eugenics etc on Darwin so that people will reject evolution without ever looking at it, due to thinking it leads to evil ends.
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
Great video again. With the new youtube home page I always click away the seen video's. AronRa's gets watched again.
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
I think it should be called DarWIN day!
coladict 1 year ago 2
SN: the creepiest part about the picture shown at 2:44 is how casual everyone's body language appeared... very weird...
BigBen81 1 year ago
@BigBen81 That's because this sickening scene *was* casual back then.
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
Well put together, and well said.
whistlingdust 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What are you saying...
Omnominable 1 year ago
Excellent lecture Mr. Ra.
If you're ever in Canada, let me know. The Centre for Inquiry would love to have you as a speaker.
LordNapalm 1 year ago
Darwin wasn't a racist, but that's not the real issue. Evolution means Africans evolved before other humans. This means blacks evolved first, then evolution happened and other races were formed. So, if we were to analyze the DNA of a black person, would black ancestry always come prior to whites?
charlesfloyb 1 year ago
@charlesfloyb Err... no. "Black people" is not a race in any genetic sense, it's a cultural prejudice. What our ancestry does mean is that all people developed out of a single group that inhabited Africa. Today's native Africans aren't "prior" to other groups, they're contemporary with them.
Ironysandwich 1 year ago 5
@Ironysandwich Really? This doesn't seem 100% accurate. If black colored skin isn't genetic, then wouldn't we be able to get a black person with 2 white parents? It just seems like it must be genetic, everything is. Every characteristic of every animal is explained through genes. You can take a mouse's eye gene, plant it in a fruitfly that did not have an eye, and the eye will grow inside the fruitfly. I don't understand why we can't be forthright about genetics.
charlesfloyb 1 year ago
@charlesfloyb Try reading his reply again. There are biological categories called "race" but skin color is not important in determining where any individual falls within these. The social "race" phenomenon is entirely superficial and intellectually worthless.
Asylumer 1 year ago
@Asylumer If skin color is "not important" as you say in determining where an individual is classified as far as race goes, that means you could have the darkest black person be labeled as white. It doesn't make sense on a basic level of understanding. I think lots of abuse has taken place over time because of differences in skin color, but does dna prove no genetics difference? And wouldn't the first human species be black since Africa had a climate to promote dark skin?
charlesfloyb 1 year ago
@charlesfloyb You still don't understand. There are no meaningful "white" or "black" races. People of different skin color can be far more genetically similar than people with the same color skin. Actual BIOLOGICAL RACE classification does not place much emphasis on skin color because it is such a minor part of a person's genetic makeup.
Asylumer 1 year ago 2
@Asylumer You are in what is now known as "race denial". Not just you, but this more modern, yet flawed position of many biologists that use blood factor analysis as their main tool. However, skeletal biologists, particularly forensic anthropologists, will see races as biologically real. The common person on the street who sees only a person's skin color, hair form, and face shape will also tend to see races as biologically real. They are not incorrect.
charlesfloyb 1 year ago
@charlesfloyb....you seem confused. Africans didn't "evolve" before anybody. ALL humans evolved in Africa and the various populations descended from this initial African group simply became adapted to disparate environments, hence our phenotypical and slight genotypical differences.
But Africans do have the highest degree of genetic diversity meaning they've been around the longest allowing for more unique genetic mutations to develop. That does not = "evolved" first. Fyi I'm black myself. ;)
Juniversal 1 year ago 2
@Juniversal actually "been around longest" is basically the same thing as "evolved first" and since it's been shown that all other phenotypic variations devolped from them then yes they did evolve from them, however that is not to say that any one is "less evolved" they simply followed a slightly different line resulting in minor variations. (however charlesfloyb is an idiot who wouldn't understand so simple a concept.)
satanisthetruegod666 1 year ago
@satanisthetruegod666 I'm glad you explained that to Juniversal that "been around longest" is basically the same thing as "evolved first". Though your explanation is correct, your ad hominem attack was misplaced. That's fine though, because many times on message boards is where some ideas get hammered out. And I realize that race is a sensitive issue. So, can we conclude that since the first humans evolved in Africa, that the first humans must've been dark skinned?
charlesfloyb 1 year ago
@charlesfloyb that would be an accurate way to put it, yes, since they evolved in africa they were most likely dark skinned. and i apologize for the ad hominem, it was misplaced.
satanisthetruegod666 1 year ago
@satanisthetruegod666...Thanks for the response. I think we're basically on the same page. Though I still don't think essentially saying non-black races "evolved" from blacks is an apt description of the adaptive process given rise to the different races considering we're the same species and black Africans today certainly aren't the same as 60,000 years ago.
Now if you're essentially saying ALL humans evolved from that initial African stock (including modern day Africans) then I can agree .
Juniversal 1 year ago 2
@Juniversal yes that is essentially what i meant. And they evolved closer to 100,000 years ago but that's a minor detail.
satanisthetruegod666 1 year ago
Was the omission of any mention of Galton, the father of the Eugenics movement deliberate.
I think it pertinent that Darwin's cousin, the arche-Eugenecist reasoned using Darwin's theory. One may disagree with that reasoning but it is a historically pertinent point of fact that seems highly relevant to your excellent and informative presentation.
Origen305 1 year ago
Okay sad to say but this has a cult following.
Darvinisti 1 year ago
No one debunks bullshit like AronRa.
apopheniacMCMLXXXIX 1 year ago 22
@apopheniacMCMLXXXIX
Penn, Teller & AronRa's Bullshit? :'D
Fjordgnu 1 year ago
I've always seen natural selection, or survival of the fittest, as something that occurs in nature, without any outside help. Eugenics is nothing like that. Natural selection creates specimens that can survive well in their natural environment, while eugenics could create specimens that HUMANS THINK would survive well in their SOCIETY.
lauramitrea 1 year ago 2
@lauramitrea
You’re absolutely right. Eugenics is more akin to what is called artificial selection. In natural selection changes in a species are rendered by the animals which are best suited to their environment (this is also the best explanation of 'survival of the fittest, not the most fit individual survives, but the most fit for its environment). These individuals which do survive pass their genes and any concomitant adaptations along to the next generation. (continued in next post)
cossintan1 1 year ago
@lauramitrea This, cumulatively and over time, produces palpable changes which benefit the whole species. In artificial selection humans chose animals with the most desirable (to ourselves) traits and breed these selected, elite animals until the undesirable individuals, and their genes, have been effectively bred out of the gene pool. (continued in next post)
cossintan1 1 year ago
@lauramitrea . An example of artificial selection is dog breeding. We have slowly, but inexorably bred generations of canines so that the most attractive (to us) attributes have survived, so we now have cute little shi tzus and big beastly great danes. (continued in next post)
cossintan1 1 year ago
@lauramitrea So, more succinctly put, natural selection produces results, naturally, that are beneficial to the survival and proliferation of a species. And artificial selection produces, through human intervention, results that benefit ourselves and not necessarily redound positively to the species in which the selection took place.
cossintan1 1 year ago 2
@cossintan1 dude look up tame silver foxes, even on youtube (where i first heard of them) i bet you might enjoy to see just how fast the different breeds of dogs came seeing as well i wont spoil it but the changes that has happened is kind of shocking for how fast it has happened
bjam89 1 year ago
@cossintan1 Interesting comment on natural vs artificial selection. I think the main difference is not however "benefit" to the species of animal undergoing selection - I mean prolonged puppy-like behaviour in dogs has benefitted dogs in their environment - human captivity. The main difference I'd say is that artificial selection will tend to create highly specialised species with low genetic variability (& therefore adaptability). In that way eugenics would reduce our survivability.
8DX 1 year ago
Your closing statement was nothing short of awesome!
thisisaguy 1 year ago
I always wondered how a "cult" that worships a Jew could be so anti-Semitic. Now I know...
dookiecheez 1 year ago
Excellent lecture; are there any resource notes availiable?
niriop 1 year ago
This should be the number one response for whenever people type the words Evolution and Racism together! In google, bing, youtube etc.
Another excellent video AronRa
NicosMind 1 year ago
Excellent! I would love to have been there in person.
TheCurmudgen 1 year ago
A simple understanding of biology is a golden arrow against racism.
VapidZero 1 year ago 2
This is a fantastic presentation. It really is a shame that the audio quality was so bad.
F1NGER 1 year ago
Excellent speech Aron. I wish i could have been there. Thank you for sharing.
fuzzeledwuzzeled 1 year ago
Magnificent. Thank you.
Nomindnotrouble 1 year ago
3 dislikes? They must be mutantly idiotic.
buktomsin 1 year ago
@Darvinisti You are a decented from black people of africa. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? You are just willingly being ignorant and biased and I suspect that is because if a reason. Care to tell us what that reason is?
JungleHyena 1 year ago
Hasn't recent studies in modern genetics shown that genetic variations in a given "breed" of human (I hate defining people by race as we are all capable of interbreeding) can be greater than the variations *between* the various breeds of humans?
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
@RyuDarragh
Yes. Variation within traditional "races" significantly exceeds the variance between those groups. I think this was mentioned at some point.
grimthane 1 year ago
aronra, thank you very much for this presentation.i do wish that you might consider making this video in home studio, but i realize you are very busy.i am just voicing my interest for a future project should you be considering it.
practicalmagic9 1 year ago
Who the hell would dislike this?
TAz69x 1 year ago
@TAz69x Creationists?
And good seminar there Aron, was an enjoyable watch.
tyrokiller 1 year ago
The end of this video was better than sex.... well almost
graphattic 1 year ago
Brilliant. Extraordinary. Thank You, Aronra.
I'd love to see this lecture made into a video in the style of FFoC.
Ansonidak 1 year ago
Can someone fetch that baby a nipple?
dbxdragan 1 year ago
Darwin was apparantly NOT a racist.. so lets not have double standards here tnx.
kaxitaksi 1 year ago
When you look back at the old days, people tried to use both science and religion in twisted ways to justify their personal prejudices, especially thier racism. There is a old atheist saying, that you know god is man made when he hates all the same people you do.
flubno 1 year ago
So you claim that Darwin wasnt a racist because he preferred some other race to white? REALLY? How is that NOT racism. Do you really think that the only way to be a racist is to prefer white race or ones own race? I got news for you in that case. Its not an that view is a racist view.
Darvinisti 1 year ago
@Darvinisti
Darwin was a product of his day, even if he was a racist...and the facts show that he wasnt...that wouldnt really matter since racism was pounded into people back then. Racism was especially big among christians so what is your point? At the very best you have 6 of one and a half dozen of another.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@ThieleM Well if its a fact that he preferred one race to another that is racism. It may be small and pretty harmless but lets not have double standards on what is racism, thats my point.
Darvinisti 1 year ago
@Darvinisti
It is NOT a fact. The evidence clearly shows the exact opposite....maybe you should watch the videos before posting? Just a thought
ThieleM 1 year ago 2
@Darvinisti Did you even LISTEN to the lecture?? Aronra gave a multitude of examples of how Darwin wasn't a racist. The comment about preferring black people's skin was ONE of the refutations to the ONLY sentence that would ever suggest Darwin was a racist.
Some people are so thick.
simsi1616 1 year ago 39
@simsi1616 I did and it doesnt matter how many examples you give of non racist thinking. Is there is even a one racist element then that makes him at least a little bit of a racist. Now Using Darwins own arguments againts races. Is there or is there not many views as to how many racist ideas must a person have to be called a racist?
And the Irony of you accusing of me being thick when you still belive that preferring a another race then white would somehow be antiracist while its just as racist
Darvinisti 1 year ago
@Darvinisti
You are using ray Comfort logic. If darwin had ONE racist notion he is a racist? That is no different from Ray COmfort saying "have you ever told a lie?.....that makes y ou a liar.
Not only does your logic fail but Darwin's writings clearly demonstrate that he wasnt a racist
ThieleM 1 year ago 3
@Darvinisti I'm not going to repeat the entire lecture to you. Watch it again, and if you still don't understand why your point makes no sense, then watch it again, and again, until you do understand.
For his time Darwin was a progressive, with a much more progressive view of humans than did all of the religious nuts jobs at the time.
simsi1616 1 year ago
@Darvinisti Wow you're dumb. ugh!
buktomsin 1 year ago
@Darvinisti: Where is it said that he preferred other races? To summarize: race is meaningless; racial characteristics are shaded, and biases based on them are wrong; expert anthro's disagree about individual's races; experts cannot tell how many supposed races there are; had nothing to do with the Australian abo crisis; in fact finds it tragic; prefers the look of dark skin Tahitians; abhorred slavery; criticized whites; nicest man he ever met was a black; defined savages by practice.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex "prefers the look of dark skin Tahitians"
Darvinisti 1 year ago
@Darvinisti: That's racism? Oh, my. Perhaps he just likes a good tan. Would you feel it is if he preferred brunettes to blondes? Or perhaps it's only because I used the word Tahitian in there? What race is Tahitian?
puncheex 1 year ago 3
@Darvinisti "prefers the look of dark skin Tahitians"
If that's your proof that Darwin was racist, what about California blondes that prefer their tans to their "natural pallor"? You are trying too hard, when not being able to substantiate what most would consider racism, you resort to accusing Darwin of being racist against whites.
But I suspect that your comments don't deserve a response and doubt that it is your intention to engage in honest discussion.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
These videos highlight the most infuriating element of these slanders against Darwin: that they're so obviously wrong. Even a cursory glance of the evidence refutes the accusations, yet the mistaken ideas are so prevalent.
Inferno41 1 year ago
I used to not want to visit USA, thinking it was too expensive for me, compared with what it has to offer. But right now I just want to go there to shake AronRa's hand, of nothing else.
mornmeril 1 year ago
Was there a Q&A after this? If so, was it recorded??
squirreljester2 1 year ago
I wish I could attend a lecture lectured by AronRa.
Koda924 1 year ago
No Q&A? If you have footage of it, putting it up would be much appreciated. Nice talk, btw.
KaroKoenich 1 year ago
Thank you very, very much for doing this lecture. It's been extremely frustrating trying to explain to people that evolution is NOT a theory that supports racism, and that it's actually religious dogma which perpetuates such thinking. You've done a much better job of explaining this, and I definitely enjoyed. I'm already sharing the videos with my friends in the hopes that it spreads.
You wouldn't happen to be planning on speaking in Chicago anytime soon, are you?
Swordsage 1 year ago
I believe that Scandinavians are one of the lost tribes of Israel. Of course I base this entirely on Pickled Herring. {:-{D}
panterguy 1 year ago
Wow ,Bigfoot is really fuckin smart!!!!!
yourfullofsheite 1 year ago
tells you something anyway probably my own stupidity.
johndebbra 1 year ago
well i am setting myself up for a smack down,but sometimes guess people need a kick in the head,anyway though i agree with all that was said and people like aronra,profmth,kingheathen,andromadaswake,and potholder54,in my opnion probably some of the smartest people,i can't deny existance of God,...ducks furniture..only way i can explain it is a feeling sorta of like when you decide what is right or wrong and no explanation but you have that feeling or maybe as some people say your conciouse con..
johndebbra 1 year ago
@johndebbra I have no doubt the colonists AronRa talked about in the entire lecture, who thought they were instinctively right about their opinions of the different races. Obviously it came from a higher power.
Perhaps the feelings and thoughts you have are much more mundane than god whispering in your ear?
unclexbob 1 year ago
@unclexbob i have no choice really then to agree since i myself am not sure.
johndebbra 1 year ago
@johndebbra I would hope so. There is a word for hearing voices, and it isn't "enlightened"
unclexbob 1 year ago
@unclexbob lol so i may be a lil crazy oh well chit happens lol
johndebbra 1 year ago
Damn, I could have st still for even more of that.
macnutz 1 year ago
My day feels so much better now that I have watched this!
The world is bright and things are looking up =^_^=
BlankPicketSign 1 year ago
Not often you come to the end of listening to lecture wishing it could have been longer.
Sarusource 1 year ago
Brilliant Talk
Philosification 1 year ago
Great talk Aronra. Thank you for posting this.
petehjr1 1 year ago
well done!
ikwillet 1 year ago
We don't have racists because we have races. We have races because we have racists.
tcorp 1 year ago