random notes

Should we reassess Darwin's legacy?
Bicentennial celebrations have portrayed Darwin as a kindly old gentleman pottering around an English house and garden. What that misses is the way his ideas were abused in the 20th century and the way in which Darwin was wrong about certain key issues. He asserted that different races of mankind had traveled different distances along the evolutionary path - white Caucasians were at the top of the racial hierarchy, while black and brown people ranked below. [Racism] was a widespread prejudice in British society at the time, but he presented racial hierarchy as a matter of science. He also held that the poor were genetically second-rate - which inspired eugenics. (See a photo-essay on Darwin.)

... "some" of the conclusions are scientific, where "objective" ...
... where the whole model fails is to expect to assign values ...
... where "evolved" equates to "positive" ...
... "evolved" does not equate to "positive" ...
... this is easily objectable with a simple example ...
... ted bundy may have been more "evolved" than the cannibal of congo ...
... but the cannibal of congo probably would become a decent human being ...
... when provided with food ...
... while somebody as ted bundy is "unfixable" ...
... regardless of being provided with whatever ...
... this is the case of an "evolved" joke of nature ...
... finally equating all the poor to "second-rate genetics" ...
... is scientifically false ...
... actually if we had genetic maps of wall street bankers ...
... we could probably prove the opposite as well ...
... since centuries of inbreeding leads genetically to a 25% ...
... of combinations that produce the worse possible genetics ...
... as much as a 25% that produces the best combinations ...
... but where the dollar sign rules ...
... the worse 25% has the same social power of the best 25% ...
... that's how we have created the "evolved" ted bundys of finance ...
... and at the opposite side of the spectrum ...
... the "heilige bubble" of the christians is not the solution either ...
... an obsolete astronomy guide hidden into a propaganda myth ...
... with a ted bundy like blood thirsty cruel god as described ...
... does not have any scientific ground besides historical astronomy ...
... and maybe some "minimal" history value ...
... being "gospels" the equivalents of the vanity fair magazine of the times ...
... and to the average reader is just myth and propaganda ...
... to pursue, justify and perpetuate ...
... a cruel crime based game associated with power ...
... that is not the way to evolution ...
... and is surely a worse way than a skill based natural selection ...
... "un-intelligent" design is probably a more accurate model than the opposite ...
... nature works on combinations and permutations ...