A commenter on one of Steve Sailer’s blogs (can’t remember who) once had an insightful observation about liberalism. It’s largely motivated by narcissism. I think an example of this might be liberals enjoy being evolutionists because it makes them feel intellectually superior to all those Republican creationists and they enjoy being politically correct because it makes them feel morally superior to all those Republican “racists”.
But what happens when liberals find out that being an evolutionist makes you what liberals would consider a “racist”? A fascinating example of cognitive dissonance.
For decades creationists have been arguing that Darwin was a racist and that evolutionary theory is inherently racist. In some ways this argument is completely unfair. Darwin was actually extremely progressive for his era in the sense that he opposed slavery and had great compassion for black people. But on the other hand, in my opinion, it’s totally obvious that Darwin had views that modern liberals would consider racist. In my opinion, Darwin believed in HBD, and quite radical HBD at that.
For starters, Darwin was one of the first to infer that humans evolved from monkeys in Africa. This was long before we had much proof to that effect, so why would Darwin even think such a thing? He obviously thought that the monkeys in Africa (i.e. chimpanzees, gorillas) were especially human-like, or that the humans in Africa were especially monkey-like, or both.
Even more disturbing, was this quote from Darwin:
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 . . . 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.
Now liberals will have use believe that despite Darwin being caught red-handed with his pants down comparing certain races to apes, he did not really believe in HBD: “You see, what he really meant was….” It reminds me of when a man gets caught by his wife having sex with his secretary, his only rebuttal is “baby, it’s not what it looks like.” What it looks like is Darwin describing an evolutionary hierarchy: Caucasian > negro/Australoid > gorilla > baboon.
In a desperate attempt at revisionist history, liberals have swarmed to wikipedia, the media, academia, and other liberal-friendly platforms to argue that Darwin’s HBD extremism is actually HBD denial, once we understand the context. According to liberals, Darwin only meant that Caucasians would replace savage races because of their cultural superiority; biological superiority had nothing to do with it. And are we also supposed to believe that Darwin’s predicted demise of gorillas was also for cultural, not biological reasons?
Never mind that Darwin’s theory of natural selection was actually based on biology, not culture. Never mind that Darwin’s own cousin (Francis Galton) was the father of HBD. Never mind that Darwin’s own book on natural selection was subtitled The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Never mind that one of Darwin’s closest friends and disciples Thomas Huxley was a hardcore HBDer. Why let facts get in the way of a convenient rationalization.
According to racismreview.com:
…Darwin applied his evolutionary idea of natural selection not only to animal development but also to the development of human “races.” He saw natural selection at work in the killing of indigenous peoples of Australia by the British, wrote here of blacks (some of the “savage races”) being a category close to gorillas, and spoke against social programs for the poor and “weak” because such programs permitted the least desirable people to survive.
But many liberals can not accept Darwins’s HBDism because it would mean that either the creationists were right to condemn Darwin or that liberals were wrong to condemn HBD. In a choice between surrendering their intellectual or moral authority, liberals choose denial. For liberalism is like a religion, and Darwin was the prophet. Like all religions or cults, when the truth is exposed, people don’t stop believing. Just the opposite: They just come up with increasingly creative rationalizations to deny the truth, and the effort this takes makes them more and more psychologically invested in denying inconvenient realities.
Pumpkin Person 
Actually, as I already said there is the science and there is the man. So the man’s viewpoints are different from the science.
And I already cited direct quotes, that for whatever reason didn’t make it into this post, that establish a strong case for cultural selection.
The entire quote was him analogizing….
I don’t doubt that many individuals around Darwin and one strain of his followers developed his theories in a certain way. They did so by loosening language.
Even Marx was a racist, theorizing that communism could only work for European man, and he was right.
The only reason Darwin is considered racist stems from his views on culture.
It’s actually all right in his own writing, no “liberal revision” necessary.
Never mind that Darwin’s theory of natural selection was actually based on biology, not culture.
Never mind that Darwin himself stated that between tribes, non-biological, culturally determined traits determined survival.
Never mind that Darwin’s own cousin (Francis Galton) was the father of HBD
Too bad we’re talking about Darwin.
Never mind that Darwin’s own book on natural selection was subtitled The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
By ‘race’ he means varities, not literally ‘the human races,’ unless of course you believe that there are many different ‘racial groups’ (as defined in human terms) of cabbage.
Never mind that one of Darwin’s closest friends and disciples Thomas Huxley was a hardcore HBDer.
He did not base those beliefs on evolution, though.
Why let facts get in the way of a convenient rationalization.
You mean like these facts:
1) Darwin stated that moral qualities in a tribe do not result from natural selection
2) Darwin stated that these moral qualities determined differential survival of tribes
3) Darwin stated that the superior civilization of the time did not owe its superior status to inheritance, but culture
4) Darwin stated that all races have similar mental or inventive ability
…
Yes, why let what the man actually said get in the way of what you so badly want him to have said and meant.
Is Swanknasty auditioning for a job on MSNBC? He’s memorized all the liberal talking points.
Feel free to argue with Darwin’s actual words, Kate. The facts I mentioned come straight from his writings.
1) Darwin stated that moral qualities in a tribe do not result from natural selection
2) Darwin stated that these moral qualities determined differential survival of tribes
Scientific America disagrees with you:
Yet Charles Darwin himself argued for group selection. He postulated that moral men might not do any better than immoral men but that tribes of moral men would certainly “have an immense advantage” over fractious bands of pirates
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/whats-good-for-the-group/
3) Darwin stated that the superior civilization of the time did not owe its superior status to inheritance, but culture
He was talking about one caucasian civilization in comparison to other caucasian civilizations.
4) Darwin stated that all races have similar mental or inventive ability
Meaningless. Rushton said the same thing. Similar is relative. Compared to the huge cultural differences, biological ability is similar, but similar doesn’t mean equal.
Yes, why let what the man actually said get in the way of what you so badly want him to have said and meant.
What the man actually said was the most racialist extremism in the history of science. He compared entire races to monkeys. The fact that liberals hold up Darwin as an icon while calling modern HBDers racist is completely hypocritical
Scientific America disagrees with you:
Darwin agrees with me. And actually SA’s statement is consistent with me: group selection on non-biological traits.
He was talking about one caucasian civilization in comparison to other caucasian civilizations.
Feel free to show me where he said something different about any other ‘superior’ civilization. It’s all we have to determine his thoughts on superior civilizations. And it supports my interpretation.
Meaningless. Rushton said the same thing. Similar is relative. Compared to the huge cultural differences, biological ability is similar, but similar doesn’t mean equal.
Meaningless only if you take the statement outside the context of Darwin’s time, when such a statement was extremely controversial, sure.
What the man actually said was the most racialist extremism in the history of science.
Certainly not based on what he actually wrote. His own words support me in their plainest meaning. There is no liberal conspiracy. Darwin is considered a racist today because of his belief in cultural superiority, not because he believed in innate biological superiority.
Darwin agrees with me. And actually SA’s statement is consistent with me: group selection on non-biological traits.
Group selection on non-biological traits is not group selection. The whole concept of natural selection assumes traits are biological and can be passed down.
.Feel free to show me where he said something different about any other ‘superior’ civilization. It’s all we have to determine his thoughts on superior civilizations. And it supports my interpretation.
Darwin would not have said civilized races would exterminate savages if he only thought they differed culturally, because the whole point of his theory was that the biological fit replace the biologically unfit.
Further when Darwin said the break between Caucasians and baboons is greater than the break between negro/Australians and gorillas, what wider break do you think he was referring to? Obviously biological since he was putting humans and apes on a single continuum of high to low, unless you also believe Darwin though the gap between humans and apes was also just cultural.
Certainly not based on what he actually wrote. His own words support me in their plainest meaning.
Utter nonsense. In addition to arguing that some races are closer to monkeys than others, Darwin also said:
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, the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull, and even in the convolutions of the brain. But it would be an endless task to specify the numerous points of difference. The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatisation and in liability to certain diseases. 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.
Darwin was an HBDer. It’s not even remotely debatable.
There is no liberal conspiracy.
There doesn’t need to be. Humans are very good at knowing what team they’re on and advancing that political perspective. Just as you promote liberal views on blogs, other liberals promote them in the mainstream media, and still others promote them in academia and wikipedia.
Yes it would not be a species of natural selection. Darwin himself says as much.
The gap between Europeans and apes vs the gaps between savages and apes, by his writing, reflects a difference in culture that nevertheless would cause one to believe men were further from apes than they actually were/are.
We have his actual thoughts on every subject in this discussion. You’re trying to stretch one quote absent all those other quotes to fit your viewpoint which only works if we ignore the other quotes. It isn’t reasonable.
The quote you brought up nicely omits the part where he concludes there is no real distinctive character that can be discerned of any race despite the differences, because he observed a high amount variability in those differences. When we read this in context and don’t ignore other quotes, my interpretation still makes the most sense.
If I were on team liberal I would say that Darwin was racist because of his cultural beliefs. It also doesn’t really matter what Darwin the man thought, the whole discussion is a red herring….his concepts have a certain scientific meaning.
The quote you brought up nicely omits the part where he concludes there is no real distinctive character that can be discerned of any race despite the differences, because he observed a high amount variability in those differences
Rushton and Jensen said the exact same thing. They repeatedly emphasized that the racial differences they describe are only averages and that enormous variation exists within each race.
Rushton and Jensen said the exact same thing. They repeatedly emphasized that the racial differences they describe are only averages and that enormous variation exists within each race.
Did Rushton and Jensen also say that superior cultures owe their success to culture and not inheritance? I don’t think so.
The facts are as I listed them. The interpretation that fits all of those facts is mine.
Did Rushton and Jensen also say that superior cultures owe their success to culture and not inheritance?
Yes. Rushton felt Mongoloids were genetically superior to Caucasoids but conceded that Caucasoids had culturally surpassed them. This was a paradox he wanted to resolve.
.The facts are as I listed them. The interpretation that fits all of those facts is mine.
Not only does your interpretation not fit, but it goes against the essence of Darwinism: biology. Every time Darwin says something that fits perfectly with the biological theory he is famous for, you argue he actually had something cultural in mind. Makes no sense.
Every time Darwin says something that fits perfectly with the biological theory he is famous for, you argue he actually had something cultural in mind.
Plainly false. The comments I brought up stated that he did not believe natural selection operated on the traits that determined a tribe’s success and that he did not believe Western Europe’s success resulted from inheritance. Somehow you believe that ‘fits perfectly’ with biology. It doesn’t.
It ‘makes no sense’ only to you. Certainly not to the denizens that not only agree with my interpretation, but go further, casting Darwin as some sort of super egalitarian.
As I already said — your view on Darwin is at the very least very debateable. In fact, cursory examination showcases a healthy debate.
Pumpkin,
you call “liberals” as narcisistics but define yourself as “hbd celebrity”, period.
Darwin was the creator of natural selection theory, the fundamental theoric basis of hbd. Certain people need learn to interpret in the context. When Darwin talk about “culture” i very doubt that he talk only about set of rituals and collective traditions. Darwin theory is very clear to objective minds. Variety of types and selection based on environmental adaptability. Darwin don’t say “europeans are culturally superior but human races are cognitively equals”, he said??
Darwin was very direct about human racial hierarchy but he was pseudo-contextual subjective in their “liberal-like” quotes.
Even if Darwin believe in racial natural equality, i have two brown eyes to know what make sense and what no make sense. Theory of natural selection marry perfectly with my observations about real world since my childhood.
Teachers tend to be unconscious lamarckists. Teachers, journalists and psychologists, all have average iq 110-115, and they are the holly trinity of “liberalism” or “leftoidism”.
Darwin don’t say “europeans are culturally superior but human races are cognitively equals”, he said??
He said this almost exactly.
i have two brown eyes to know what make sense and what no make sense.
Blah blah blah.
Then, he deny himself, crazy bitch.
He stated that selection for “tribes” operates based on non-biological, cultural traits. He wasn’t ‘denying’ himself.
Pingback: The media gives Ivy League Democratic candidates a pass on being anti-science | Pumpkin Person
http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2013/10/can-your-personality-type-determine-your-salary-potential-infographic-
”He stated that selection for “tribes” operates based on non-biological, cultural traits. He wasn’t ‘denying’ himself.”
This type of subject, I think, be difficult for a monochromatic mind, like yours, to understand, because it is endowed with many nuances. I believe that if there is only one kind, then the fundamental differences between human races, is in the level of phenotype, or gene expression. Same genes, but combined and selected in the long run in different ways. As such, the same ingredients but with different recipes.
Even Darwin really was equal to you in level of leftism, first, why would he do a clear and objective statement like that, about ”inferior races be exterminated by superior races ” *** And even if were true, do you think that is correct then eliminate the white race by
mass immigration,
racial amalgamation
(wars **)
and low fertility ****
Darwin advocate about ”human equality”,
”then”, the differences among races is completely superficial,
then, people SHOULD miscigenate, specially and fundamentally, white (superficial white) people***
Everything is operated on the basis of biology. Culture is an indirect manifestation of human biology, is not a miracle or a divine apparition. Everything must have a cause and the cause of human culture are humans. The behavioral plasticity (not as plastic as well) of human beings do not want to indicate it does not do any biological or genetic influences. You indicate that our heritage is more malleable and influenced by personal decisions, like having a child with 37 years old or 22. This flexibility can be influenced by circumstantial events, cultural, but everything has a genetic basis. MTV has a genetic basis.
Blah blah blah. I quoted the man directly. If you have something to add, add it.
Answer my questions directly, bitch!! You could be kindness to do it???
why would he do a clear and objective statement like that, about ”inferior races be exterminated by superior races
He said civilized versus savage. And I have already explained ‘why.’ He was trying to indicate how one could observe apparent ‘breaks’ between species through analogy. Again, look at the other quotes to get context, instead of quote mining.
And even if were true, do you think that is correct then eliminate the white race by
This is a ‘do you still beat your wife’ question. A) the white race isn’t being ‘eliminated’ and B) nothing I said leads to the conclusion that I think that would be correct.
everything has a genetic basis.
About as meaningful as saying ‘everything you do has something to do with your genes.’ Gee.
Just gotta love Mugabe, Videla and Swanky for arguing different points under one person!
There are people who believe Southern Euro Meds, are more evolved and superior than the Nordic and Alpine types of the Northern Euro. More contributions to humanity means more evolution. The greatest thinkers came from the Mediterranean region.
An interesting question to ask in terms of evolution and IQ:
Why have East Asians not dominated the world in influence, despite their higher intelligence?
To be completely fair, even under an HBD paradigm this is fairly easy to explain if you just grant that ‘civilization success’ is not 100% determined by IQ.
To elaborate on my statement that group selection on non-biological traits is not a species of natural selection, but is a type of group selection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_group_selection
Of course, I only got this from pulling up quotes from Darwin and synthesizing the meaning.
Svankkki,
completely useless try “debate” with you, lunatic DOGMATIC retard.
Trash mattoid people like you should be put in a “mental health house”.
Identical than my retard drugger anti-white melungeon brother. Satanism is preparing revenge of conservatives. Retard “commonist” like will be exterminated.
Assynchronic development happen not only with gifted people. The end of brain maturation define cognitive diversity, where ridiculous “liberals” have deficient development of analytical capacity. Types of Conservatives will be lack of openess, tolerance with creativity and excentricity. The real superior people are a hybrid between childish ideological tribes. Two childrens with 9 years = 18 years of mental age, at least.
I’m completely different from you. You are identical in essence from biblical white conservatives, lolololol.
You, a DOGMATIC bitch, hate other dogmatic people, less if they agree with your mental sickness. When people talk about human racial differences, they based on simple observation, like see a group of birds in the air. Naturalistic intelligence, who you don’t. Is not, “is my personal opinion”. It is a objective abstract truth. I see a consistent long term pattern and take note about it. Dogmatic, “free willer”, positive vibration or positive thinker, miracle-believer and anthropomorphic.
A simple observation of natural human world that you called pseudo-science, stupid! Its loved “culture” is like a tatoo, a plastic surgery, is a superficialization of real world. Naked natural humans act exactly like other animals.
Blah blah blah.
You can dispute the quotes at any time and actually start debating.
D_O_G_M_A_T_I_C!!!!
Yes, it must be dogmatic to infer the plain meaning from quotes.
Sneak talking,
man were made by clay,
races doesn’t exist,
human intelligence differences are veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery superficial,
A jewish woman in Palestine is pregnant without vaginal-penial intercourse,
God is a blue elephant with piercing in the nipple,
blablabla….
I never see a man walking above the water. Enormous earth, specially for the first humans, different circumstances, different events in a completely different landscapes, like arctic and tropical forest, deserts and british islands AND human groups differences in intelligence and behavior is superficial. LOL.
You talk about Darwinism, Darwin, but you are a lamarckist, like most of ”liberals”.
Darwin said that human group differences are superficial. So I guess he must be a lamarckist and “deny himself.” To borrow a phrase you like to toss around ad nauseum: MORE COMPLEXITY, SANTO. MORE COMPLEXITY.
You are a completely LUNATIC, can’t understand your own contradictions. Summarizing for you=
DUMB.
I repeat, don’t care about Darwin said or not, but what my eyes are seeing. I don’t trust in a DEAD WHITE MALE, i trust in my own flair. If for a average woman, is difficult to understand it, imagine for lunatic hysterical ”liberal” ””women”, lol.
You can’t understand the simplicity, how could understand the complexity****
Identical like my retard drugger brother, a completely stupid zombie people.
The world is ending around and the jamanta stay same superficial discourse.
DOGMATIC LIKE BIBLICAL LITERALIST WHITE CHRISTIANS.
I repeat, don’t care about Darwin said or not, but what my eyes are seeing
Oh ok, you don’t care about the OP and want to go on your usual rant. Thank you for clarifying.
You can’t understand the simplicity, how could understand the complexity****
You were just awestruck by the fact that Darwin could have been, in some sense, a proponent of Lamarckism. That demonstrates ignorance. In Darwin’s time no one knew what genetics were. Darwin believed that acquired characteristics could be passed down to offspring and called it pangenesis. Once again, santo: MORE COMPLEXITY, MORE COMPLEXITY.
What
a HELL
your
PROBLEMY*******
Explain for US what you ”under-stand” about NATURAL SELECTION THEORY….
ugly bitch…
NOW.
You apparently don’t understand a lot of it as formulated by Darwin.
Answer the question.
There’s a difference between natural selection and heredity. One involves the distribution of heritable traits, and the other involves what traits can be passed on.
A internal diversity of types within the same population.
”Environment”= predators, climate, geology influence considerably selective pressures.
Moth – Darwin example.
Some phenotypes are more selected, i.e, procreate more than other phenotypes.
Species have same genotype but different genetic expressions or phenotypes.
Same genes, expressed in a different combinations….
Wrong***
Different height, different coloration type, different weaknesses and strenghts. Phenotypical variation… include, behavior or behavioral plasticity AND intelligence, levels and types.
Retardada.
You’re not saying anything different.
All selection acts on P, but natural selection is concerned with how that selection alters the distribution of heritable traits.
Here, learn something:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangenesis
Genes combination of mother and father + paternal and or maternal age. This is a phenotypical plasticity.
I HATE this real BLABLABLA elitist ”excessive sofistication of words” present in ”academic narrative”.
Most blacks never will understand this bullshit even if you modify completely their child-environment, even if you force them to memorize every word of this crap.
Eugenics is trivial, in this perspective, differences SEEMS more superficial.
Mental disorders are universal phenotypes. I believe creativity (specially) and higher intelligence or giftedness are direct result of this mental excess if the same first pattern can produce schizophrenia too.
I’m wrong, ”expert svant”, about my explanation**
”but natural selection is concerned with how that selection alters the distribution of heritable traits”
IS NOT but… i don’t say nothing different from it.
You really think that people here are stupid, its natural arrogance.
Your explanations prove that you all the time is in contradiction. It is typical of dogmatic people. Need walk on thin ice.
”Selection alters the distribution of heritable traits”
Like higher (average) caucasian intelligence compared with black (average) intelligence.
Right*
You no have shame to try continue debate here with this blatant lack of consistency****
Tell us, black because natural selection which alters the distribution of heritable traits are hereditably on average less smart than whites*** OR, is a ”cultural traits”.
Cultural traits is a superficial behavior traits, most of times and can be changed very quickly.
Liberals don’t have instinct, you ”evolved” more than psychoticist people like me, i’m a atavic, i’m more animal than you, or less domesticated than you. I’m not dreaming, i do would like but i can’t.
I’m not in contradiction. You just don’t seem to realize that we are talking about Darwin’s actual thoughts on natural selection in humans.
Your point about racial differences is misplaced. I’ve never said that there are no differences, first, and second, you’re confusing selection that would operate on humanity outside of civilization versus within civilization, etc.
You don’t change the disk*
Ofcourse, for you, differences are incredibly superficial. What the world you live** You walk in the streets* You interact with people** AHN, sorry!! Even if you were a hyper social person, you don’t understand human behavior. Better, people who really understand human behavior are generally the non-hyper social- outsider.
Very pathetic that european evolution ”finish” in this kind of people, completely blind.
Absolutely CLEAR, even in very mixed race country that average black behave differently than average white and average east asians and this differences are not caused by different cultures.
Stay with your delusions away from me. I live in a country with huge crime rate because of the extremely superficial differences between human races.
I should have given up, but the big culprit here is the pumpkin, which is extremely tolerant of nonsense that these crazy people try to push relentlessly. Looks like the Jehovah’s Witness that every single Saturday, appears in my house. Relentless madness to prove what does not exist, it is not real.
“Darwin was one of the first to infer that humans evolved from monkeys in Africa”
We didn’t evolve from monkeys, etc.
Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to believe that all animals and plants have descended from one prototype. But analogy would be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless, all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, their laws of growth and reproduction.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2015/02/darwin-never-said-descended-monkeys-darwin-myths/
This book by Darwin is currently one of the books I’m reading. Read it. It i s outstanding. Still very relevant information that’s applicable today.
“He obviously thought that the monkeys in Africa (i.e. chimpanzees, gorillas) were especially human-like, or that the humans in Africa were especially monkey-like, or both.”
He obviously inferred that all living organisms descend from one common ancestor. See above quote.
“Now liberals will have use believe that despite Darwin being caught red-handed with his pants down comparing certain races to apes, he did not really believe in HBD: “You see, what he really meant was….” It reminds me of when a man gets caught by his wife having sex with his secretary, his only rebuttal is “baby, it’s not what it looks like.” What it looks like is Darwin describing an evolutionary hierarchy: Caucasian > negro/Australoid > gorilla > baboon.”
I espouse these same views (sans Darwin not being a HBDer, he clearly was), not a liberal here, on the complete opposite side (inb4 horseshoe theory). Using the ‘you see, what he really mean was….” line is perfectly valid, because people interpret things wrongly all the time (your reading of phylogenies, for example). No hierarchy between races and ethnies, nor between organisms exists in nature.
I was reading Wonderful Life by Gould today and he says about the so-called ‘progression’ ‘noticed’ between eukaryotes to prokaryotes to multi-cellular organisms to humans:
“Step way way back, blur the details, and you may want to read this sequence in a tail of predictable progress: prokaryotes first, then eukaryotes, then multicellular life. But scrutinize the particulars and the comforting story collapses. Why did life remain at stage 1 for two-thirds of its history if complexity offers such benefits? Why did the origin of multicellular life proceed as a short pulse through radically difficult faunas, rather than as slow and continuous rise of complexity? The history of life is endlessly fascinating, endlessly curious, but scarcely the stuff of our thoughts and hopes.”
The Modal Bacter rules the earth, not complex organisms (whatever ‘complex’ means).
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_bacteria.html
“According to liberals, Darwin only meant that Caucasians would replace savage races because of their cultural superiority; biological superiority had nothing to do with it. And are we also supposed to believe that Darwin’s predicted demise of gorillas was also for cultural, not biological reasons?”
Superiority don’t real.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/11/12/complexity-walls-0-400-hitting-and-evolutionary-progress/
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/11/06/progressive-evolution-part-iii/
Just Nordicist/Afrocentrist/any-dumb-cist-or-ism unscientific ‘musings’.
“Never mind that Darwin’s theory of natural selection was actually based on biology, not culture. Never mind that Darwin’s own cousin (Francis Galton) was the father of HBD. Never mind that Darwin’s own book on natural selection was subtitled The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Never mind that one of Darwin’s closest friends and disciples Thomas Huxley was a hardcore HBDer. Why let facts get in the way of a convenient rationalization.”
Of course it is. Have you ever read that book, or any book by Darwin for that matter?
You do know the term ‘races’ is denoted for species by Darwin, right?:
single variety should be turned loose in its new home. Nevertheless, as our varieties certainly do occasionally revert in some of their characters to ancestral forms, it seems to me not improbable, that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil (in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributed to the direct action of the poor soil), that they would to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the wild aboriginal stock. Whether or not the experiment would succeed, is not of great importance for our line of argument; for by the experiment itself the conditions of life are changed. (Darwin, 1859: 15)
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F373&pageseq=30
Ever seen the conversation between Darwin and Huxley’s descendant, 1959 for the 100th year celebration of the publication of On the Origin of Species?:
Huxley: I once tried to define evolution in an overall way, somewhat along these lines: a one way process, irreversible in time, producing apparent novelties and greater variety leading and leading to higher degrees of organization.
Darwin: What is “higher”?
Huxley: More differentiated, more complex but at the same time more integrated.
Darwin: But parasites are also produced.
Huxley: I mean a higher degree of organization in general, as shown by the upper level attained.
“They just come up with increasingly creative rationalizations to deny the truth, and the effort this takes makes them more and more psychologically invested in denying inconvenient realities.”
=^)
We didn’t evolve from monkeys, etc.
We didn’t evolve from any extant species of monkey, but we did evolve from a species that any reasonable person would classify as a monkey/ape.
Pingback: Happy Darwin Day, Heathens « NotPoliticallyCorrect