Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwin reader: Darwin’s racism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In the face of systematic attempts to efface from public view, Darwin’s racism, a friend writes to offer quotes from Darwin’s Descent of Man:

Savages are intermediate states between people and apes:

“It has been asserted that the ear of man alone possesses a lobule; but ‘a rudiment of it is found in the gorilla’ and, as I hear from Prof. Preyer, it is not rarely absent in the negro.

“The sense of smell is of the highest importance to the greater number of mammals–to some, as the ruminants, in warning them of danger; to others, as the Carnivora, in finding their prey; to others, again, as the wild boar, for both purposes combined. But the sense of smell is of extremely slight service, if any, even to the dark coloured races of men, in whom it is much more highly developed than in the white and civilised races.”

“The account given by Humboldt of the power of smell possessed by the natives of South America is well known, and has been confirmed by others. M. Houzeau asserts that he repeatedly made experiments, and proved that Negroes and Indians could recognise persons in the dark by their odour. Dr. W. Ogle has made some curious observations on the connection between the power of smell and the colouring matter of the mucous membrane of the olfactory region as well as of the skin of the body. I have, therefore, spoken in the text of the dark-coloured races having a finer sense of smell than the white races….Those who believe in the principle of gradual evolution, will not readily admit that the sense of smell in its present state was originally acquired by man, as he now exists. He inherits the power in an enfeebled and so far rudimentary condition, from some early progenitor, to whom it was highly serviceable, and by whom it was continually used.”

[From Denyse: Decades ago, I distinguished myself by an ability to smell sugar in coffee. It wasn’t very difficult, with a bit of practice, and it helped to sort out the office coffee orders handily. My best guess is that most people could learn the art if they wanted to. Most human beings don’t even try to develop their sense of smell – we are mostly occupied with avoiding distressing smells or eliminating or else covering them up. I don’t of course, say that we humans would ever have the sense of smell of a wolf, but only that Darwin’s idea here is basically wrong and best explained by racism. ]

“It appears as if the posterior molar or wisdom-teeth were tending to become rudimentary in the more civilised races of man. These teeth are rather smaller than the other molars, as is likewise the case with the corresponding teeth in the chimpanzee and orang; and they have only two separate fangs. … In the Melanian races, on the other hand, the wisdom-teeth are usually furnished with three separate fangs, and are generally sound; they also differ from the other molars in size, less than in the Caucasian races.

“It is an interesting fact that ancient races, in this and several other cases, more frequently present structures which resemble those of the lower animals than do the modern. One chief cause seems to be that the ancient races stand somewhat nearer in the long line of descent to their remote animal-like progenitors.”

[From Denyse: The nice thing about teeth is that, if they give trouble, they can simply be pulled. I would be reluctant to found a big theory on the size or convenience of teeth, given that this  fact must have occurred to our ancestors many thousands of years ago.]

“It has often been said, as Mr. Macnamara remarks, that man can resist with impunity the greatest diversities of climate and other changes; but this is true only of the civilised races. Man in his wild condition seems to be in this respect almost as susceptible as his nearest allies, the anthropoid apes, which have never yet survived long, when removed from their native country.”
[From Denyse: Native North Americans often perished from human diseases to which they had not become immune in childhood. That is probably unrelated to the inability of anthropoid apes to stand cold climates.]

This includes the degraded morals of lower races:

“The above view of the origin and nature of the moral sense, which tells us what we ought to do, and of the conscience which reproves us if we disobey it, accords well with what we see of the early and undeveloped condition of this faculty in mankind…. A North-American Indian is well pleased with himself, and is honoured by others, when he scalps a man of another tribe; and a Dyak cuts off the head of an unoffending person, and dries it as a trophy. … With respect to savages, Mr. Winwood Reade informs me that the negroes of West Africa often commit suicide. It is well known how common it was amongst the miserable aborigines of South America after the Spanish conquest. … It has been recorded that an Indian Thug conscientiously regretted that he had not robbed and strangled as many travellers as did his father before him. In a rude state of civilisation the robbery of strangers is, indeed, generally considered as honourable.”

“As barbarians do not regard the opinion of their women, wives are commonly treated like slaves. Most savages are utterly indifferent to the sufferings of strangers, or even delight in witnessing them. It is well known that the women and children of the North-American Indians aided in torturing their enemies. Some savages take a horrid pleasure in cruelty to animals, and humanity is an unknown virtue….. Many instances could be given of the noble fidelity of savages towards each other, but not to strangers; common experience justifies the maxim of the Spaniard, “Never, never trust an Indian.”

[From Denyse: If early modern Europeans in Canada had not trusted “Indians,” they would all have died off pretty quickly.]

“The other so-called self-regarding virtues, which do not obviously, though they may really, affect the welfare of the tribe, have never been esteemed by savages, though now highly appreciated by civilised nations. The greatest intemperance is no reproach with savages.”

“I have entered into the above details on the immorality of savages, because some authors have recently taken a high view of their moral nature, or have attributed most of their crimes to mistaken benevolence. These authors appear to rest their conclusion on savages possessing those virtues which are serviceable, or even necessary, for the existence of the family and of the tribe,–qualities which they undoubtedly do possess, and often in a high degree.”

[From Denyse: Charles Darwin, let me introduce you to Hollywood, before you say any more silly things about the supposed immorality of “savages.” ]

Making slavery understandable, though of course distasteful now:

“Slavery, although in some ways beneficial during ancient times, is a great crime; yet it was not so regarded until quite recently, even by the most civilised nations. And this was especially the case, because the slaves belonged in general to a race different from that of their masters.”

[From Denyse: Not really. In ancient times, slaves were typically unransomed captives in war, convicted criminals, or people who had fallen into irrecoverable debt. In Roman times, there would be nothing unusual about being a slave to someone of the same race as oneself. Slavery based on race alone was an early modern legal invention, aimed against blacks.]

Mass killings of savages is understandable as a type of species extinction:

“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.”

“The partial or complete extinction of many races and sub-races of man is historically known….When civilised nations come into contact with barbarians the struggle is short, except where a deadly climate gives its aid to the native race…. The grade of their civilisation seems to be a most important element in the success of competing nations. A few centuries ago Europe feared the inroads of Eastern barbarians; now any such fear would be ridiculous.”

“[Flinders Island], situated between Tasmania and Australia, is forty miles long, and from twelve to eighteen miles broad: it seems healthy, and the natives were well treated. Nevertheless, they suffered greatly in health….With respect to the cause of this extraordinary state of things, Dr. Story remarks that death followed the attempts to civilise the natives.” [–Obviously the problem was trying to civilize these barbarians!]

“Finally, although the gradual decrease and ultimate extinction of the races of man is a highly complex problem, depending on many causes which differ in different places and at different times; it is the same problem as that presented by the extinction of one of the higher animals.”

Of course the degradation extends to the intellectual:

“There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other,–as in the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body …Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Every one who has had the opportunity of comparison, must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes. There is a nearly similar contrast between the Malays and the Papuans who live under the same physical conditions, and are separated from each other only by a narrow space of sea.”

[From Denyse: I would imagine that the aborigines of South America felt some resentment over the loss of their continent to invaders from Europe … ]

” A certain amount of absorption of mulattoes into negroes must always be in progress; and this would lead to an apparent diminution of the former. The inferior vitality of mulattoes is spoken of in a trustworthy work as a well-known phenomenon; and this, although a different consideration from their lessened fertility, may perhaps be advanced as a proof of the specific distinctness of the parent races.”

“So far as we are enabled to judge, although always liable to err on this head, none of the differences between the races of man are of any direct or special service to him. The intellectual and moral or social faculties must of course be excepted from this remark.”

And… drum roll.., the main conclusion:

“The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely, that man is descended from some lowly organised form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many. But there can hardly be a doubt that we are descended from barbarians. The astonishment which I felt on first seeing a party of Fuegians on a wild and broken shore will never be forgotten by me, for the reflection at once rushed into my mind-such were our ancestors. These men were absolutely naked and bedaubed with paint, their long hair was tangled, their mouths frothed with excitement, and their expression was wild, startled, and distrustful. … He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins.”

[From Denyse: Sounds like a local rave to me. Not my ancestors (who were, as it happens, rigidly correct people, but my 2009 fellow Torontonians.)]

“For my own part I would as soon be descended from …[a] monkey, or from that old baboon… –as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.

[From Denyse: Yuh, I know. I know women who have divorced guys like that too … but, when founding a theory in science, it strikes me that … ]

And let’s not forget sexism!

“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman–whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands…We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on ‘Hereditary Genius,’ that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.”

“The greater intellectual vigour and power of invention in man is probably due to natural selection, combined with the inherited effects of habit, for the most able men will have succeeded best in defending and providing for themselves and for their wives and offspring.”

[From Denyse: Re women vs. men: Actually, if we leave Darwin’s obsession with natural selection out of the matter for a moment, we can come up with a simple explanation for the difference between men’s and women’s achievements. Men are far more likely to win Nobel Prizes than women – but also far more likely to sit on Death Row.

For most normal achievements, women will do as well as men, given a chance. Women do just as well as men at being, say, a family doctor, an accountant, a real estate agent, a high school teacher, etc.

It’s only in outstanding achievements – either for good OR for ill – that men tend to dominate. One way of seeing this is that the curve of women’s achievements fits inside the curve of men’s achievements, either way.

Natural selection does not explain this because most men who have outstanding achievements do not contribute a great deal to the gene pool as a consequence.

Either they produce few or no children, or their children do nothing outstanding. So Darwin did not really have a good explanation for this fact.

What should we do? Breeding of people and letting the weak die off:

“The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring.”

“We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”

[From Denyse: But how would anyone know who the “worst animals” are among people?]

Comments
----"This is why the typical “argument by analogy” offered by ID supporters is entirely nugatory.” You are confusing an induction with an analogy. Inductions do not depend on the degree to which examples are similar. I can draw the inference that explosions make things scatter, whether it be a firecracker, car bomb, or expanding universe. The inference to design does not depend on an analogy. Abductions have been in the scientist’s tool box for a long time.StephenB
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT
----"Metaphors may be “compelling”, but they in no way constitute a form of logical argument. This is why the typical “argument by analogy” offered by ID supporters is entirely nugatory." Do you labor under the misconception that a metaphor is synonymous with an analogy. If so, I am not the one that needs to be sent to a website for instruction. I did notice that you stated that there is no such thing as absolute truth. Are you "absolutely" certain that is true. If so, then you have refuted your own statement by uttering an absolute truth. If not, then your statement is false and truth exists. Did you say that you have been studying logic for 25 years?StephenB
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
45 Allen_MacNeill 02/15/2009 8:53 pm [...] What empirical research are you and the other ID supporters doing to validate your hypotheses?
fmri studies?sparc
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
“And from this eukaryote created by serial endosymbiosis, how many advantageous mutations would it take for it to develop lungs, limbs and a spine?” , , , We don’t know yet, What new observations would be required to model it?tribune7
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT
What empirical research are you and the other ID supporters doing to validate your hypotheses? You mean that evolution might have an edge?tribune7
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT
Serial endosymbiosis has been observed multiple times in nature. Perhaps the most notable example is in the protozoan Mixotricha paradoxa, an endosymbiont of the Australian termite Allen, the idea is that two prokaryotic cells become an eukaryote. Has this been seen?tribune7
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
In #41 tribune7 asks:
"And from this eukaryote created by serial endosymbiosis, how many advantageous mutations would it take for it to develop lungs, limbs and a spine?"
We don't know yet, but people working in the field of evo-devo are closing in on the answer to this and many other questions. What empirical research are you and the other ID supporters doing to validate your hypotheses?Allen_MacNeill
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
Metaphors may be "compelling", but they in no way constitute a form of logical argument. This is why the typical "argument by analogy" offered by ID supporters is entirely nugatory. See: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/01/tidac-identity-analogy-and-logical.html and http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/08/follow-up-post-on-analogies-in-science.htmlAllen_MacNeill
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT
Serial endosymbiosis has been observed multiple times in nature. Perhaps the most notable example is in the protozoan Mixotricha paradoxa, an endosymbiont of the Australian termite, Mastotermes darwiniensis. When first described and classified, Mixotricha paradoxa was considered to be a ciliated protozoan similar to the more familiar Paramecium. However, Lynn Margulis and her colleagues have shown that Mixotricha paradoxa is actually a composite organism, formed from the serial endosymbiosis of four different bacteria with a eukaryotic host. The resulting composite organism is both structurally and functionally very different from any of its components living separately. Ergo, the evolution of Mixotricha paradoxa via serial endosymbiosis is a paradigmatic example of macroevolution via serial endosymbiosis. You can read more about Mixotricha paradoxa here: http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/master.html?http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/0601/0601_feature.html There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of similar examples scattered throughout the three domains of life. One closer to home is the serially endosymbiotic protozoan Paramecium bursaria, which consists of a ciliated protozoan inside of which lives a green alga, Zoochlorella. Again, neither of the partners in this endosymbiotic relationship is genotypically or phenotypically similar to the composite when living alone, and so this is another clear example of macroevolution via serial endosymbiosis. See more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramecium_bursaria Yet another example is any common lichen. As Beatrix Potter (the author of The Tale of Peter Rabbit) first pointed out, lichens are actually an endosymbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. When grown separately, neither bears any resemblance to the lichen they form when living together. Lichens can also live in environments that would be lethal to either of the symbionts living alone. Ergo, here is yet another example of a macroevolutionary transition resulting from serial endosymbiosis. To read more about Margulis's theory of endosymbiosis and its relevance to macroevolutionary theory, I recommend the recent book she co-authored with her son, Dorian Sagan: Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species (2002) Amherst, MA: Perseus Books Group, ISBN 0465043917. For more about the significance of Lynn Margulis's work in evolutionary biology, go here: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2008/04/serial-endosymbiosis-and-intelligent.htmlAllen_MacNeill
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
----Jerry: "We have just had an example of the McNeill Gallop. He blusters in like a drive by shooter and spreads a lot of nonsense here then disappears to reappear another time. Makes a lot of outrageous claims based on periphery observations then gallops off like the headless horseman." Your metaphors are becoming quite compelling.StephenB
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
Allen -- Notice that I did not say who coined the term “biology”, but who popularized it. That person was Lamarck. You break me up Allen. You were the one who objected to my claim in post 24 that "biology was in use as a term before Darwin’s celebrated birth" And when I show that, well, "biology" was in use as a term before Darwin's celebrated birth you accuse me of "moving the goalposts." LOLOLOLOL Anyway, go back and check the link to the Online Etymology Dictionary . Lamarck started using it the same year. And with this interesting and enlightening segue into etymology out of the way, how about addressing those questions on the table that are in you area of expertise:
How often has serial endosymbiosis been observed? And from this eukaryote created by serial endosymbiosis, how many advantageous mutations would it take for it to develop lungs, limbs and a spine? At observed rates, how long can we expect this to take to occur?
tribune7
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
Ah, yes, Gottfried Reinhold Treviranus, a man whose name is on everyone's lips. Notice that I did not say who coined the term "biology", but who popularized it. That person was Lamarck. But, you just keep on backing up those goalposts, tribune7, you'll get somewhere eventually...Allen_MacNeill
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
Seversky @10: Let me make the point as clearly as possible: The Catholic Church has NEVER supported slavery in any way. More than any other institution, it was responsible for ENDING slavery. As you do your Googling, please discipline yourself in the fine art of uncovering responsible sources. The website that you allude to dispenses grossly inaccurate information conceived by an apparently disaffected Catholic who has some kind of ax to grind. Throughout history, the Church found itself among cultures practicing slavery and had to deal with it as best it could. In the beginning, the Church was in no position to combat slavery effectively because it simply didn’t have the power. What it did do is beg slave owners to be merciful. To ask a slave owner to be merciful when there are no other appeals that can be made is not to support the activity. Please make a note of that. In many cases, what we now call slavery was something more like indentured servitude, which is much milder and deserving of less condemnation. Also, a large number of these cases were made up of what is called “just title” servitude, which was just punishment for crimes against humanity, much like those in American prisons who are given hard labor. The constitution of the United States continues to allow for this provision. It is NOT SLAVERY. During biblical times, a man could voluntarily sell himself into slavery in order to pay off his debts (Deut. 15:12-18). But such slaves were to be freed on the seventh year or the Jubilee year (Lev. 25:54). The Church tolerated just-title servitude for a time because it is not wrong in itself, though it can be seriously abused. The Popes did, however, consistently oppose racial slavery which completely lacks any moral justification. I am not going to take time out to list the multitude of papal documents on record that condemn slavery. Suffice it to say, I could fill page after page with them. A few references are as follows: Popes Gregory XIV (Cum Sicuti, 1591), Urban VIII (Commissum Nobis, 1639) and Benedict XIV (Immensa Pastorum, 1741) condemned slavery and the slave trade. Some of these writings were aimed at the clergy, since the Church has always had traitors and corrupting influences in its ranks. In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI issued a Bull, entitled In Supremo. Its main focus was against slave trading, but it also clearly condemned racial slavery: For all their condemnations, Popes were largely ignored by the Catholic laity and clergy. That means that some Catholics and some Catholic nations did engage in the practice, and the scandal is there for all to reflect on. The same thing happens today. The Catholic Church condemns abortion, but clusters of visible and influential Catholics support it anyway, including the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. To sum up, you must learn to be more sophisticated in your analysis. You keep dropping these quick shot bombs right and left without thinking things through, and some of your comments are second, third and fourth order references to something that you “heard” about or something else that someone may have written. If you want to defend Darwin's views on race then have at it, but please stop injecting multiple irrelevant themes and peddling erroneous information. The fact that you seriously entertain the notion that Charles Darwin was a greater defender of human dignity than the Catholic Church ought to end forever any hope you have of being taken seriously.StephenB
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
Seversky What my point is with regard to Papal authority and secular politics it has always been common for people to call themselves Catholic and not be completely sincere about it; and sincere religious authorities have had to take that into account often to keep things from falling completely apart.tribune7
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
On Cornelius Hunter's site, there is a section challenging the endosymbiosis scenario but I have not read all of it in detail nor currently have the time. But maybe someone who is interested could read it and present both sides. See http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_3.2_Eukaryotes_evolvedjerry
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
Seversky But my understanding is that, for Catholics, the Pope is presumed to be speaking with the authority of God and his decrees are binding on the faithful, which includes the author. It has always been rather common for Catholics to make their own interpretations (or ignore or force changes to) Papal decrees, especially if those Catholics had wealth or power. Just consider the history of Europe and the popes and anti-popes and disobedient nobles etc. Really? Which type of slavery would you consider to be “not bad”? The next time -- assuming you are an American -- you happen to see a group of people wearing blaze-orange vests picking up trash along the highway followed by a sheriff's van, understand that what they are doing is without pay and under compulsion. I am fine with that :-)tribune7
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Allen, I never said that endosymbiosis was not a macro evolutionary event so this is an example of how Allen deflects nicely. Allen, were you a hockey goalie when you were young? I am typing this while watching the Rangers/Flyers game which just ended. The question is how in general, macro evolutionary processes developed all the new information. There was a lot more than just two prokaryotes getting together and I understand there is a literature challenging that. So I am non committal on whether or not the eukaryote developed as you believe. You seem to begging the question by assuming that this example is true and solves the issue. So we have another book to read. I just ordered it from Amazon so will see what it has to say. A year and a half ago you blustered in here recommending Evolution in Four Dimensions by Jablonka and Lamb. That was a great book and did not put one tiny dent in the ID argument and actually admitted in one place that there is no evidence for origin of at even one species. Thank you for the good read as it just made the ID argument stronger. I will see what the Vrba and Eldredge Book has to say. And when you gallop back in here some time in the future, we can maybe discuss it. Every book I read that supports Darwin or a naturalistic process for evolution ends up making the ID case stronger. So I look forward to the book.jerry
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
Allen --referred to as “serial endosymbiosis”, whereby the fusion of two prokaryotic cells formed the ancestor of all eukaryotes. That actually makes sense. Now, how often has this been observed or is it still handwaving? And from this eukaryote, how many advantageous mutations would it take for it to develop lungs, limbs and a spine? At observed rates, how long can we expect this to take to occur? The use of the term “biology” (or, more properly, “biologie”) to refer to the science of life was popularized by Lamarck in his landmark book, Philosophie Zoologique, published in 1809, which coincidentally was exactly the year of Darwin’s birth. Oh, I can see how that would certainly make him the father of it. And quite understandably you are incorrect. The word was introduced in 1802 by Gottfried Reinhold Treviranus. That would be 7 years before Darwin's sainted birth.tribune7
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill wrote:
[...]Darwin’s views on race, gender, or anything else outside the realm of evolutionary biology have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of his theory.
I guess he should have refrained from expressing such views in an ostensibly scientific book, then. All the Darwinians here are correct of course. Darwin publishing such views in his Descent of Man in no way could have been influentual in lending credence to social and/or racial Darwinism. I personally saw Francis Galton, Thomas Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and Ernst Haeckel turn their heads in disgust every time they spied the passages Ms. O'Leary quotes. Then I heard Darwin (pbuh) himself denounce these horrible men in his loudest voice when they formed eugenics groups that were of course completely unrelated to anything written by Darwin (bismallah) and even drew in the grandson of Darwin (blessed be his progeny).angryoldfatman
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
Nullasalus @ 17
This is all a distraction. I don’t see Denyse arguing that ‘Darwin was racist, therefore evolution is wrong’. But the quotes provided did illustrate Darwin’s views and thoughts on some particular subjects (and related to biology, no less), and how he was not only ‘politically incorrect’ but wrong. And also how that wrongness was related to his (unwarranted) extrapolations from his view of nature.
No, she did not write that in so many words but if you review what she has written there is clear evidence of an extended smear campaign against the man she characterizes as an "old Brit toff" on the grounds of his racism. These posts appear on sites supportive of Intelligent Design and it is hard to escape the inference that she is attempting to discredit Darwin's theory of evolution by highlighting passages in his published work which suggest attitudes that today we interpret as racist. And all this coming from a member of a church which has a history of acquiescing and, in some cases, active involvement in the practice of slavery.Seversky
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
You're quite welcome. As to the origin of macroevolutionary transitions, I've listed one in this thread: serial endosymbiosis. The fact that you didn't recognize it as such indicates that you, too, know virtually nothing about evolutionary biology. This, however, doesn't stop you from declaring it invalid, without providing even the slightest evidence to back up your argument. Rather than consume a huge quantity of bandwidth listing off the various mechanisms by which macroevolutionary transitions have occurred, I recommend Macroevolution: Diversity, Disparity, Contingency; Essays in Honor of Stephen Jay Gould, edited by Elisabeth S. Vrba and Niles Eldredge and published by The Paleontological Society. That is, I recommend it to anyone who is inclined to actually read about the subject and to weigh the evidence presented.Allen_MacNeill
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
"But my understanding is that, for Catholics, the Pope is presumed to be speaking with the authority of God and his decrees are binding on the faithful, which includes the author." I have never heard any Catholic make that argument and I know a fair number. So what you have is a couple instance of the longest institution in the world and one that oversaw most of the Western world for a long time. With that much time and that wide spread the extent of the Church's power, I am amazed at the paucity of your research. Maybe you should go back to the books. Having studied a lot of history I could offer a lot more but they are trivial with the good the Church has done. So again your self acclaimed allegations make the accused look, how should I say it, like a saint. Given all the opportunities there were to be bad or unfair. But as I said on another thread. Keep up the good work.jerry
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
We have just had an example of the McNeill Gallop. He blusters in like a drive by shooter and spreads a lot of nonsense here then disappears to reappear another time. Makes a lot of outrageous claims based on periphery observations then gallops off like the headless horseman. For those who don't know, Allen is an evolutionary biologist from Cornell who cannot tell us where macro evolutionary events come from. He occasionally disparages Darwin, but lionizes the Darwin week at Cornell. We love Allen here because his silliness with his comments makes our case so much easier. He has an almost complete knowledge of evolutionary biology but cannot dent the ID argument except by assertions and allegations. We have a lot of these type of self righteous people who come here who help grease the skid for ID arguments. If only they would put up a more coherent challenge. Thank you, Allen.jerry
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
Tribune7 @ 12
Seversky, your at 10 you’ve provided a list of largely anti-slavery statements by the Catholic Church. Do you really think the Pope is all powerful and every nominal Catholic would fall down and obey him?
Actually, counting them up, four oppose slavery to some extent but the majority, nine in all, condone or justify or support slavery. Although plainly there were a few individuals speaking out against slavery, the Church as a whole acquiesced in or actively supported it for centuries. Not being Catholic, what I think about the Pope is irrelevant. But my understanding is that, for Catholics, the Pope is presumed to be speaking with the authority of God and his decrees are binding on the faithful, which includes the author.
If Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi lived in Cuba circa 1540, I suspect they would be slaveowners and they would find some way of ignoring any command to be otherwise from the Church.
Quite possibly, we are all children of our times whether we like it or not. In a thousand years, the people of that time may be condemning us for attitudes that we think are perfectly natural and justifiable. Hopefully, slavery will be as abhorrent to them as it is to us.
And not all slavery is bad.
Really? Which type of slavery would you consider to be "not bad"?
Ask yourself this: are you, today, against slavery?
Yes, absolutely.Seversky
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
BTW, Darwin did not usually refer to the science that he studied as "biology". He, like virtually all of his British contemporaries, referred to it as "natural history". The French preferred the term "biologie" for obvious reasons (see my earlier comment on Lamarck).Allen_MacNeill
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
The use of the term "biology" (or, more properly, "biologie") to refer to the science of life was popularized by Lamarck in his landmark book, Philosophie Zoologique, published in 1809, which coincidentally was exactly the year of Darwin's birth. So, you also clearly know virtually nothing about the history of biology either. I would recommend that you start with Ernst Mayr's The Growth of Biological Thought, published by Harvard University Press.Allen_MacNeill
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
According to Lynn Margulis, the conversion of a one-celled organism into a simple eukaryote didn't require any mutations at all. Instead, it was the result of what is now commonly referred to as "serial endosymbiosis", whereby the fusion of two prokaryotic cells formed the ancestor of all eukaryotes. So, your lame attempt to invoke the standard "RM & NS" strawman argument doesn't even begin to address the issue of the origin of eukaryotes, which you would have known if you had even a passing acquaintance with modern evolutionary theory. BTW, Lynn Margulis is widely recognized as perhaps the most important female evolutionary biologist of the 20th century, and one of the top ten evolutionary biologists of all time, regardless of gender. And she completely rejects the "modern evolutionary synthesis" as an inadequate explanation of the major macroevolutionary transitions, such as the evolution of eukaryotic cells. And I, along with many other evolutionary biologists, agree with her. Why? Not only is her theory of serial endosymbiosis comprehensive and elegant, it has what ID "theory" completely lacks: a mountain of empirical evidence, amassed over four decades of hard, painstaking work by Margulis and her colleagues.Allen_MacNeill
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
Mendel is indeed lionized as the founder of the science of genetics, as Darwin is as the founder of the science of biology. You read some funny textbooks, Allen. Biology was in use as a term before Darwin's celebrated birth, and genetics and germ theory -- even cell theory -- have much more to do with organized "study of life" than horse breeding applied to nature.tribune7
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
Like ID, none of these arguments are remotely related to the natural sciences. As opposed to Darwinian handwaving? How many advantageous mutations would it take to turn a one-cell organism into the simplist eukaryote? At observed rates, how long can we expect this to take to occur?tribune7
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
As for the "modern evolutionary synthesis", it represented not only the integration of Darwinian biology and Mendelian genetics, it also included the integration of botany, ecology, paleontology, physical anthropology, and theoretical population genetics into the first "grand unified theory" of biology. The fact that we have now moved far beyond the limited purview of the "modern synthesis" in no way diminishes its importance for biology as a whole and evolutionary biology in particular.Allen_MacNeill
February 15, 2009
February
02
Feb
15
15
2009
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply