Darwin's theory had subsequently corroborated and enhanced by genetics, fossil evidence. It is the dominant theory which describes and explains the lifes on earth.
What is 0.01% in probability? Which event are you talking about?
Proof of that is?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Darwin's theory had subsequently corroborated and enhanced by genetics, fossil evidence. It is the dominant theory which describes and explains the lifes on earth.
What is 0.01% in probability? Which event are you talking about?
Am i supposed to reply to none sense ?
I know there are "teenagers" here who read & believe what ever comes to their mind on the first instant .
The question is: Darwin being the father of the theory of evolution and evolutionists , not to forget the social Darwinism and being a great scientist who wasn't even a graduate and based his theory of evolution by natural selection in his book "The origin of species " on mare speculation using the scientific of method of "probability" (some times referred as the theory of probability ) which according to the mainstream sceintists is lame and the chances of an actual occurring as a result of a theory based on the probability is 0.01% or less - can come up with such racist "outcome" and how could he justify such "lunacy" through scientific methodology which is reason since he was a sceintist ?
I am expecting a "specific answer" since you believe in reason !
half of the PDF population should be sowing seeds in the fields or cutting wheat crops - not many of these specially indian folks would be able to answer my question. I am just sitting and waiting for an answer !!
Proof of that is?
Lots of "Self styled theologians" are pouring here when the question i am asking is "pure scientific "![]()
Am i supposed to reply to none sense ?
I know there are "teenagers" here who read & believe what ever comes to their mind on the first instant .
The question is: Darwin being the father of the theory of evolution and evolutionists , not to forget the social Darwinism and being a great scientist who wasn't even a graduate and based his theory of evolution by natural selection in his book "The origin of species " on mare speculation using the scientific of method of "probability" (some times referred as the theory of probability ) which according to the mainstream sceintists is lame and the chances of an actual occurring as a result of a theory based on the probability is 0.01% or less - can come up with such racist "outcome" and how could he justify such "lunacy" through scientific methodology which is reason since he was a sceintist ?
I am expecting a "specific answer" since you believe in reason !
Can you lay down your claims, and put supporting evidence and then I will try to argue. I dont even know what you are claiming. Are you saying he is racist?
Are you saying theory of evolution is wrong?

You just would have to go and "read" my post number 08 carefully ! -- I am not talking about the "soci-o-political" aspect of darwin's racism but i am asking for a scientific evidence of what he said about aboriginals and africans , because since he was a sceintist he should be able to provide proof of why he believes in "gradual extermination" of so called "baboons".![]()
The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, 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 civilised 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.
Proof of that is?
Darwin suggested how life evolved but was clueless how life created . Evolution is a biological theory not a theory of the meaning of life. It explains how life developed and came to be diverse not what actually started it or what the real purpose of life is. There is no hard and fast evidence indicating who or what was the original creator and we must be willing to maintain open minds as religion and science stand together in offering certain explanations. How did life begin? That is the million dollar question. For the people that lean toward religion the answer is simple. God. This answer requires one little thing that some don't posses. Faith. To believe without having any physical proof. It is the question of how life actually began that makes me think that there is room for both God and Darwinism