Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00240)

Bart: Not even Darwin claimed that men were descended from apes; 
that was a statement of Darwin's opponents. 

Brian: Darwin's claims hardly even matter today, given the weight of 
more recent anthropological theory and data.

However Darwin's opponents were attempting to ridicule Darwin with 
their claim "People are descended from apes." with lots of little
editorial cartoons, etc. With such an image, they were hoping to disgust 
the people (mostly Victorians like Blavatsky) and hence get them to
reject Darwin through an emotional response. 

Reg. your recent claim about DNA data humans and apes, this certainly 
is not confirmed by any DNA data in 2002, again you didn't back up
your claim with referrences.

Also since you recently wrote in response to me quoting parts of The 
Secret Doctrine that the creation story or/and opinions about root
races and rounds would be wrong to some degree, can you briefly 
describe the creation story of the Secret Doctrine without the major or 
and the whatever errors. Is there anything left, if so what ?


Brian.

--- In theos-talk@y..., Bart Lidofsky <bartl@s...> wrote:
> dalval14@e... wrote:
> > Actually our modern Science has no "traditions." Its only
> > 3 to 400 years old. 
> 
> You must be using an incredibly narrow definition of "modern 
science"
> if you're not including, for example, Hypocrites.
> 
> > SCIENCE HAS HYPOTHESES AND THEORIES -- no PROOFS
> > 
> > It has a bunch of varying theories -- H P B shows that there
> > were several conflicting ones over 100 years ago. Every
> > true scientist agrees that the current theory, is broadly
> > based on Darwin's studies, and pursued through the hazardous
> > and scanty method of analyzing a very FEW fossils. As a
> > fact it is yet to be proved. 
> 
> Darwin created a theoretical framework more than a theory. 
There were a
> number of pieces missing, at the time. One of the key pieces,
although
> discovered around Darwin's time, was not put into place until after
> Darwin's (and Blavatsky's) death: genetics. Although there is
> controversy about some of the subtheories within the framework, 
there is
> virtually no controversy (except among an extreme minority) that the
> framework itself is quite sound.
> 
> Blavatsky's writings does not contradict the framework, 
either; it
> merely contradicts some of the theories contained within the 
framework
> (for example, the cause of the beneficial mutations). 
> 
> > SOME TEND TO HIDE EVIDENCE THAT DISPROVES THEORIES
> > De Quatrefages was an analytical physiologist and a
> > paleographer. He looked at, and carefully compared the
> > skeletal remains of ancient men and apes, and concluded
> > that Man had priority. Man's skeleton was primitive if not
> > primordial. It was non-specialized. The apes' skeleton
> > showed specializations and adaptations due to its
> > environment. It is a law in evolutionary development that
> > specializations cannot give rise to primitive
> > non-specialized forms. (S D II 675-685, 720 )
> 
> Not even Darwin claimed that men were descended from 
apes; that was a
> statement of Darwin's opponents. His claim was that humans (which 
he did
> not differentiate from human bodies) and apes had a common 
anscestor, an
> extremely different statement, and, once again, not in conflict with
> Blavatsky.
> 
> Bart Lidofsky