A few weeks ago, I got a chance to watch a shocking video on this forum that showed human beings brought from different regions of the world to the U.S. to exhibit them as missing links in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. I am paraphrasing the messaging in the video.
What a surprise that what many thought a work of science become a terminal corruption of the human faculty. It is illustrative of a delusion as a work of science. Bias is the biggest disease that a faculty can inflict upon itself.
I say a terminal corruption of the human faculty because the definition of evolution and the portrayal in the video are irreconcilable. Here is why I think this is the case.
The definition of evolution in Biology is "the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations." I didn't come up with this definition. I merely copied it.
History has documented that the British Isle where both Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution were born were uninhabited before the first Millennium BC. The Meroe were building pyramids in present day Sudan long before then. If these historical accounts of two different places in the world are irrefutable, there could be no refuting that more generations of people must have lived in Meroe than the British Isle. This in turn suggests that, according to the theory of Charles Darwin of Britain, on a time scale of evolution, the contemporary generations in Meroe are more evolved than the contemporary generations in the British Isle unless the latter had priori evolutions elsewhere or a faster rate of evolution by just being on that island.
The uprightness of the human physique has been used to portray Darwin's theory of evolution. On this account as well, one needn't raise Leonardo Da Vinci who drew the Vitruvian Man in order to anecdotally compare the uprightness of the physiques of the British born Charles Darwin and the South Sudanese born British model Alek Wek. I don't think one needs computer models for this simple comparison.
This is to put the fallacy of Charles Darwin in perspective on his own accord even though I am personally not in a position to rewrite Jared Diamond's narrative in his book Germs, Guns, and Steel. It goes to show that the people of the British Isle are no less or no more evolved even if the English language stands, as Isaac Newton would say, on the shoulders of the African hieroglyphic. Just because some people, including Charles Darwin, can speak the English language doesn't mean that they are versed in speaking scientifically.
So, if there is a point to be made here, why is it that people like Charles Darwin would come up with such a fallacious theory as a work of science and others tried to exhibit it as an illustration of science?