Charles Darwin and Evolution

[Tommy-K]

This is a thread to discuss the view and musings of the great Charles Darwin and his (entirely correct, in my opinion) theory of evolution. Discuss..........

[Apka]

You should read Kropotkins Mutual Aid (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html)

[Revolution67]

*****

[KC]

I am actually reading mutual aid right now and it is VERY interesting. I suggest it to anyone interested in the subject of Darwinism/Evolution. It's a pretty easy read and it's not too long.

[rioters bloc]

hmm, i haven't read the origin of the species

however, i can hardly agree with ideas such as this:


Originally posted by Darwin [emphasis mine
]

The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by [b]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. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive both of composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. 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.

...

Man being more powerful in body and mind than woman, keeps her in a far more abject state of bondage in a savage state than does the male of any other animal.

...

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... 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 civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.




i'm not incredibly well read on the subject, but if anyone has any explanations for the above passages it would be much appreciated.

from what i have read though, i think [as with any grand narratives] its best to keep a cynical mind about his writings.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by rioters bloc+Dec 2 2005, 11:23 AM--> (rioters bloc @ Dec 2 2005, 11:23 AM) hmm, i haven't read the origin of the species

however, i can hardly agree with ideas such as this:


Darwin [emphasis mine
]

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. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive both of composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. 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.

...

Man being more powerful in body and mind than woman, keeps her in a far more abject state of bondage in a savage state than does the male of any other animal.

...

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... 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 civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.




i'm not incredibly well read on the subject, but if anyone has any explanations for the above passages it would be much appreciated.

from what i have read though, i think [as with any grand narratives] its best to keep a cynical mind about his writings.
I’ve read the origins of species a while ago but can’t remember reading those lines but we know that Darwin was a conservative of types who delayed publishing his seminal work because socialist propagandist were promoting theories of social evolution to justify post-capitalist societies. Thus being a Man of ‘good’ breeding in 19th century England with a social conservative disposition you’d expect him to have such views. I don’t doubt that your sourcing the origins of specifies because I found it rather boring with large sections going in one ear and out the other kinda like when I read wealth of nations.

[Severian]

Darwin shared the common prejudices of his time, place, and class. The superiority of males and whites was simply assumed.

The effect of the theory, though, was to weaken the scientific justifications for racism. For example, Darwin's theory supported the common descent of all "races" from a common ancestor (monogenic theory), in contrast to the idea of a different origin for different races (polygenic theory.)

And as biologists' understanding has grown, and the fight against racism and sexism has advanced in society generally, the scientific support for racism has been pretty well overthrown. That's in part thanks to Darwin, for his role in advancing the understanding of biology.

The Mismeasure of Man by biologist Stephen J. Gould is a pretty good history and debunking of attempts to justify racism and sexism by means of science. All of Gould's other books are good introductions to evolutionary theory.

***

The Origin of Species is worth reading, and can deepen anyone's understanding of evolution. It does have a couple of scientific flaws compared to today's knowledge.

One, Darwin didn't know anything about genetics. He didn't know where the variation came from, that natural selection worked on, or how it was inherited. The knowledge of Mendelian genetics, when it became widespread, strengthened the support for Darwin's basic theory - if inheritance was "blending" rather than "particulate", the theory would be in trouble for reasons I'm not going to get into.

Two, Darwin at times relied partly on Lamarck's theory of evolution by inheritance of acquired characteristics, which is now disproved. For example, he explains the blindness of cave fish by means of "the effects of disuse"....where he could have explained it simply by natural selection, that eyes are of no advantage in a cave, and the calories to grow and maintain them are better used for otherwise.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by Monty [email protected] 2 2005, 11:42 PM
I’ve read the origins of species a while ago but can’t remember reading those lines but we know that Darwin was a conservative of types who delayed publishing his seminal work because socialist propagandist were promoting theories of social evolution to justify post-capitalist societies. Thus being a Man of ‘good’ breeding in 19th century England with a social conservative disposition you’d expect him to have such views. I don’t doubt that your sourcing the origins of specifies because I found it rather boring with large sections going in one ear and out the other kinda like when I read wealth of nations.
argh, im sorry - i thought i'd written this, but obviously i hadn't:

i haven't read 'the origin of the species.' those quotes are from 'the descent of man'. :)

thanks

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 3 2005, 06:05 AM

argh, im sorry - i thought i'd written this, but obviously i hadn't:

i haven't read 'the origin of the species.' those quotes are from 'the descent of man'. :)

thanks
That’s cool I was a bit perplexed that those comments wouldn’t have spiked my interests like Smiths referral to workers as a lower species and other derogatory comments.

[unite2fight1984]

Im not sure how many of you are American or not but in the states it is scary.

“Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get intelligent design — which really means the reality of God — before the academic world and into the schools,” said Phillip E. Johnson, the former University of California law professor who launched the intelligent-design movement in the early 1990s.

This is what realty has been facing for well beyond a decade. Accordinga2005 Harris Poll, 55 percent of Americans want schools to teach more than just evolution. Creationsim and Intelligent Design fanatics claim that Evolution is "just a theory" in an attempt to push there religious doctrines forward. Well so are the theories of gravity, cell structure and genetics.

However, truth does not matter in America.
Participants|Creationsim|Theistic| Naturalistic
All Adults | 44% | 39% | 10%
Scientists | 5% | 40% | 55%

Scientists was includes include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, etc. That explains the 5%

Other definitions -
Creationism - God God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.
Theistic - Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation
Naturalistic - Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.

It can all be found at American Public Beliefs about Evolution (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm)

[Janus]

Yes, this has been a major controversial issue recently particularly in states where religious leaders still have considerable power. I think it was the required teaching of intelligent design that reignited this issue recently. I remember that in Texas, the teachers were forbidden from teaching evolution except as a theory. It is deeply disturbing how much influence fundamentalists and other religious people are able to wield in the US.