Darwin be racist, yo.

Darwin be racist, yo. | DARWIN SAYS WE ALL COME FROM APES DARWIN IS THE ORIGINAL RACIST | image tagged in memes,one does not simply,darwin,rosanne,racist,racism | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
share
8,438 views, 109 upvotes, Made by NightPain 5 months ago memesone does not simplydarwinrosanneracistracism
One Does Not Simply memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
NO RESEMBLANCE WHATSOEVER | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
Creepy Condescending Wonka Meme | TELL ME AGAIN HOW LOGIC AND REASON MATTER IN TODAY'S SOCIETY | image tagged in memes,creepy condescending wonka | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
2 ups
:) | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Maybe we are all cats
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
technically hes not wrong. But we all evolved from single celled organisms that became multi celled. so its not racist whatsoever.
reply
3 ups
Ancient Aliens Meme | APES | image tagged in memes,ancient aliens | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Despite all evidence to the contrary...
reply
2 ups
Creep With Tilted Head, VagabondSouffle Template | FELL FREE TO DIVULGE THIS EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY | image tagged in creep with tilted head,vagabondsouffle template | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
2 ups
Common ancestry is well-supported by the evidence
reply
7 ups, 5 replies
If evolution is true, all humans are descended from a common ancestor, and due to separation are now evolving at different speeds, some faster than others. Using this reasoning, it's not illogical or non-scientific to claim that some races are more evolved (superior) to others. You're just not allowed to say it.
reply
2 ups
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups
reply
1 up
That's just nonsense and demonstrates a lack of understanding of evolution and of genetics.I just don't have the time and patience to explain.....
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Well black people often have lower iq than whites and they are often better at physical sports than whites
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I'm fairly certain that given the same environmental upbringings that all races have negligible differences in IQ.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/01/07/race-and-iq-the-case-for-genes/ no they don't that is due to education but still it's the fact that whites have a higher iq
reply
0 ups
False.

IQ tests adminstered in Japan starting after the end of WWII show they average about 11pts higher than Caucasions. Asians in general also have higher IQs.

Nigerians immigrating to the US average 15pts (I believe that's the number) than whites.

Whites in Southern Appalchia, etc, have lower IQs, partially due to inbreeding, as well as poverty, lack of educated traditions, etc.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
You link to a site that says "racial diversity does a great deal of societal harm" in their "About" section. That tells me all I need to know.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
It does homogenous populations do better look at Japan and China when they don't have a terrible leader look at the uk full of black gangs if there wasn't any diversity then I don't think there would be any gangs or at least there would be a significant drop in the number also why is diversity good tell me i am genuinely interested because nobody has explained it to me
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Yes, the more homogeneous, the safer the population. Respect, concern for others, preserved traditions... but they are also nests for stagnation.

Change, development, innovation tends to be spurred by outside elements mixing in. Minus that, they become ossified, and fall behind.

Compare London to the rest of the UK. The farther out, the less mixed, the more backwards. And also poorer - dead ends choking on themselves, waiting for goverment intervention to spur something that nevertheless can only remain comatose.
reply
0 ups
London and the worst place if you are in Scotland it is better sometimes unless you have a potato peeler then you can be arrested
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Diversity allows people to be exposed to ideas, cultures and traditions that are different than their own. It teaches people about other cultures and other people.

Even if none of those benefits existed, no one has ever explained to me (in a way that makes any sense) why diversity is bad.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
As a result, diversity leads to technological, cultural, economic innovation and growth. That NYC and the big cities of California are the leaders in such and the most ethnically diversified with the highest concentrations of immigrants is not coincidental. Same goes for London and it's long history as a magnet for foreigners. In fact, it has been said that that's a major part of the reason EU countries have taken in so many immigrants from far off. There's only so much vineyards and cabbage fields and nice cheeses can do to spur stagnant economies.

Yodeling gets boring after a while too. "Cool" was born in NYC, LA, SF, Chicago, Detroit, London. The clash and mixing and merging of disparate cultures sired the cutting edge, and a rather sharpened one at that.
reply
0 ups
Great point.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
All races/ethnicities of humans belong to the exact same species, so one race isn't "more evolved" than another. The theory of evolution doesn't say that one race would become "superior" to any other. That's absolutely false.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
The races within the species are already different based on the physical separation between them. Genetic mutations that occur in one group aren't necessarily transferred to the others, so any advantages gained by one group will be a small step forward in evolution from the others. Given enough time and separation, these differences will be more and more noticeable.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Humans of different races and ethnicities interbreed amongst each other constantly, so any genes that might set one group apart are introduced to the larger gene pool all the time
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Only lately. Not historically, and not absolutely. There are still tribes and people groups isolated from general humanity.
reply
1 up
True
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
i.imgflip.com/283aod.jpg (click to show) Spot on, that was Darwin premise that is trying to be changed by people who realized is was bunk.
reply
2 ups
i.imgflip.com/2bjfwg.jpg (click to show)
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
can't racist if that's not a race
reply
5 ups
Exactly my point i.imgflip.com/2bchj9.jpg (click to show)
reply
3 ups
reply
3 ups
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
Unfortunately Americans are so dumb, humans didn’t evolve from apes, we share a common ancestor. Ameieica pleas start educating your people again
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Humans DID evolve from apes, and are, in fact, anthropoids just as they are. The common ancestor was an ape, just not one of the modern species existing today.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Humans and chimpanzee last common ancestor to the best of our current knowledge is approx 6 million years ago, that's an anthropoid as you say. To call it an ape is misleading, yes some features of modern apes but it is not an ape. This gives people the impression that we evolved from gorillas or similar which is plain wrong.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Unless you're a creationist believing God created it all 6000 years ago, today's apes and humans evolved from prehistoric apes which existed when others emerged from them.

Earliest identified apes lived 23 million years ago.
Genetic studies indicate chimps & humans diverged 7 million yrs ago, and it may have been 10 million, as indicated from an ancestral type of gorilla from 12.5 million yrs back.

"The common ancestor was an ape, just not one of the modern species existing today"
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I concede this point but I find it problematic using the term ape when discussing with non-scientific people about evolution. It gives them the wrong impression
reply
0 ups
They can have whatever impression they want. Not using facts doesn't make their nonsense any more irrelevent.

Thing is that you keep insulting folks without considering for a second that maybe, just maybe, you're right. Witness the Americans here who keep ridiculing the theory of evolution as the notion that humans evolved from monkey chimps. Now, either they're feigning obtuseness just to keep the knowledgable going in circles wasting time on semantics, or they are every bit as stupid as you claim we are. Note that these are the same Trump supportin, gun lovin, race hatin backwards conservative dolts that plague social media with their claptrap bs.

Here's some natural selection: America was a British penal colony, hence why Australia's role as that began AFTER the end of the Revolution. Your crime prone lower IQ losers got tossed here as indentured servants. As a result, we have white trash with a historical propensity for violence, and you cleared out your gene pool, ticking your IQ average up a couple of notches.

Ironically, anti-evolutionists are proof pudding, because if a God created them lot, he must have done it while stuck in the loo with a major case of diarrhea.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Believe it or not, not all Americans deny that evolution is a real thing. I know that far too many do, but not all of us do.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
So you are saying there is hope? It is sad when so much money can be raised to produce this

https://creationmuseum.org/

Any parent that takes their kids their and tells them these are facts, is guilty of child abuse!
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Now this is just ridiculous!

https://creationmuseum.org/dinosaurs-dragons/live-with-humans/
reply
0 ups
I agree, it is
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I wouldn't call it child abuse, but it is profound stupidity.

And yes, there is hope. People can be shown evidence. They can be shown why their beliefs are wrong. Not everyone will accept that they have been wrong this whole time, but some will. Do you know how many atheists in the US used to be Christians, but came out of it? I am one of those people. Granted, I wasn't a Bible-thumping fundamentalist, but still, I was a Christian and I believed it. But then I started to study the Bible more and see what it actually said. And I found out it was garbage.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I would consider it a form of mental abuse, telling children they will go to hell if they don't do certain things.

All of us are born atheist, no one is born Christian or Muslim the same way no one is born a golf player or a archaeologist. Some of us just come back to the truth.....

If religion could not be taught (imposed) on children until they reach the age of reason, religion would be dead within 50 years.
reply
0 ups
I agree that telling kids they will burn in Hell if they don't accept Jesus is mental abuse. I was saying that taking them to the Creation Museum is profound stupidity.
reply
2 ups
Proof we are not apes i.imgflip.com/2bj4v3.gif (click to show)
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Well which is it?
reply
4 ups
reply
2 ups
Wonder Woman flips that idea on it's head i.imgflip.com/2bmjza.gif (click to show)
reply
1 up
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Cabbages. If you'd read the book you'd know he was using the word "race" to mean "subspecies", which is how the word was commonly used in 1859 when the book was published.

He literally talks about different races of cabbage. If he talks about races of human in that book, by all means, show me where.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Ok, I’ll concede that one, since I didn’t read it. But it sure must’ve been taken the wrong way if they dropped it from the title.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
i.imgflip.com/28mz6q.jpg (click to show)
reply
2 ups
reply
1 up
I appreciate your honesty. I don't think it was ever dropped from the title, since that was in the subtitle, not the title.
reply
1 up, 3 replies
Ive also recalled he made a theory that whites are superior to blacks. i cant remember where i got this form i also dont know if true
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Actually no that was not Darwin, Darwin was opposed to slavery and his family had a history of opposing it. However others have taken his work and put their own ideas on it, in terms of racial superiority and eugenics. They attribute the theory of evolution to certain races being more advanced than others. Remember Darwin was alive when the US was tearing itself apart over slavery and old religions still held sway in most of the western world, he opposed slavery on principal but his work was purely scientific. (He didn't lose his faith because of his work either but because of of the early death of his daughter. What God could choose to kill young children than had committed no sin)
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Opposing slavery is not the same thing as promoting equality. Ask Lincoln.
Darwin was an open racist. His own cousin came up with the notion eugenics.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
His cousin, therefore not him. Some of those who followed him and used his work in a twisted way could be considered extremists. The same way some Americans interpret the Bible to promote white supremacy and that of Israel, but I'm sure you would not blame Jesus for those ideas.

As for not promoting equality, I doubt you would find many people alive in the mid 19th century that did! Women got the vote in America in 1920, not when Lincoln was abolishing slavery, so it seems he wasn't for equality either.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
"Actually no that was not Darwin, Darwin was opposed to slavery and his family had a history of opposing it."

You can't use his family as proof that Darwin wasn't racist then exclude one of them from that 'proof' because he was only apart of the family and not Charles himself.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
It was his grandfather who was an opponent of slavery, you are talking about a cousin who is considered the father of eugenics. You could argue that his version of eugenics was about creating superior humans and had nothing to do with race but pretty much all interpretations after that from the Nazis to the Swedes to the Japanese was all about race...
reply
0 ups
You forget eugenics in America, a wonderful fad taking off in the 1920s that fell out of favor with Hitler's rise. Can't be against someone when back home you're sterilizing the disbabled, lower races, and poor folks.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
exactly.

It's funny that he stole his idea from someone else, but people forget he really did add his own racists belief to it.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Only the last sentence is problematic and again, differences in race (but not genetics) were widespread opinions and considered facts at that time. He got so much right, despite not knowing about DNA that to pick out a couple of bad ideas is disingenuous at best. No scientist gets it right all the time, in the history of humanity
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Nope, "capacity of the skull" and "even the convolutions of the brain" is wrong.

He didn't get it right, he stole it.

To call pointing out - via a direct quote, no less, HIS OWN WORDS - disengenuous is a desperate and misfired attempt (to put it nicely) to misconstrue the truth.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Yes, they are wrong but he was working with 19th century knowledge and tools. To judge him by what we know today, would be to call Newton or Einstein idiots because some of their theories have been disproved.

I assume you are talking about one of his contemporaries who was coming up with similar theories at the same time. Yes that is true, but Darwin published first after sitting on it for a long time.
reply
0 ups
Darwin was an racist liar, an idiotic charlatan, yet a clever thief.

But it's a delightful tale! Young Alfred Russel Wallace, while sick with malaria in Indonesia, came up with the theory of natural selection. He sent it to Charles Darwin, who suddenly 'recalled' that he too came up with the same idea over decade prior whilst on extended holiday on the Beagle! Verified by this nobody, Darwin rushed to publish 'his' idea and somehow it 'accidentally' got 'presented' as his own, giving him all the credit!

Wallace was merely seeking Darwin's opinion and help on publishing HIS theory as HIS own because it was HIS. But, being of a higher class, it was Darwin's place to be acclaimed by history as the gent who came up with someone else's theory pretending it was his own - natural selection (on a British social caste level) wins yet again!

Oi! Oi! Oi!
reply
1 up, 1 reply
If he did then he was wrong. But since he died well over a century ago, I'm not sure how that is relevant today.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
The meme talk about darwin being racist with evolution thery. is that one not racist as well
reply
1 up, 2 replies
The theory of evolution isn't racist. How can it be? It talks about populations of organisms changing over time. It says nothing at all about some organisms being "superior" to others from a value standpoint, only that ones better suited for survival are more likely to pass on their genes to successive generations.

Is gravity racist because some black people trip and fall down?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I don't think you read my thing correctly but that only because i have bad english. my question is you support darwin thery of evolution
reply
1 up, 2 replies
I accept that evolution happens, and I believe the theory is very well-supported by the evidence. I don't know if "support" is the right word, though. I support teaching it in schools, yes.

If someone tries to use it to say that white people are more evolved than black people, then no, they are wrong.
reply
1 up
"because it did what the previous prevailing belief of creation couldn't do - lend credibility to racist idealogy, since it nixed the brotherhood of man as descended from Adam & Eve as created by God, allowing for some to be more 'evolved' than others."

Major derp on my part, as I was in a rush. I negelcted to mention that obviously religion has been used to such ends, usually by claiming those of other faiths have no value or some other lame excuse. Just that Darwinism has been used as justification for it in modern times when we've 'progressed' beyond religious justifications...
reply
0 ups
That explains something.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Darwin, as was popular during that era, considered the English to be the apex of culture, tech - and as he stole & published as his own idea - evolution. (my quip the other day about the Jesus image almost English and other comments in line with this are based on that notion).

I searched in vain for a diagram I had seen associated with him since I was a child depicting an evolutionary tree with an portly Hottentot looking African situated between ape and white man. Perhaps someone else was responsible for it, not him.

But he was openly racist. And the theory of evolution not only easily lends itself to it, but was influenced by such beliefs as well. Evolution was originally concieved of as rather linear (with some side branches lower down), culminating in Angloman. Evolution being a progressive accumulation of changes leading to greater complexity via natural selection was immediately adopted by racists (Social Darwinism), because it did what the previous prevailing belief of creation couldn't do - lend credibility to racist idealogy, since it nixed the brotherhood of man as descended from Adam & Eve as created by God, allowing for some to be more 'evolved' than others.
reply
0 ups
Darwin's views were in all likelihood no more or less racist than was entirely common in that era. But it's all completely irrelevant anyway, because his racist views don't delegitimize his discoveries, as many people seem to want to think.
Flip Settings
One Does Not Simply memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
DARWIN SAYS WE ALL COME FROM APES; DARWIN IS THE ORIGINAL RACIST
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back
Feedback