Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Motorcycle Mama · 10-23-2002, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:


What is "Darwinian evolution," and how does it differ from the type of evolution that you think we should embrace?

Rick

Darwinian evolution is evolution through the mechanism of natural selection. For an alternative, try Brooks and Wiley, Evolution as Entropy.
MM

tgamble · 10-23-2002, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz:


That he dated a black woman? Not only is the whole concept of 'dating' an anachronism, but despite his relative liberality, it is unlikely to the extreme that an upper class Victorian gentleman would have any kind of romantic liaison with a black woman.

He said he was intimate with one.

Motorcycle Mama · 10-23-2002, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin:
I don't believe Motorcycle Mama is arguing against evolution; she is arguing against attributing the idea to Darwin.

Thank you MrDarwin. You got the point.
MM

tgamble · 10-23-2002, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KCdgw:
I think the idea of him dating a black woman comes from a misinterpretation of Darwin's use of the term 'intimate'. Wasn't the word used as the equivalent of 'acquainted' in Darwin's time?

Cheers,

KC

That was probably it. It doesn't change the point really. A racist is unlikely to be friends with a black person...

Motorcycle Mama · 10-23-2002, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sensate:
Motorcycle Mama, I was wondering if you could name one person for Darwin's time and background who wouldn't be considered racist and/or sexist by today's standards. I look forward to your reply.

Very simple. Alfred Russel Wallace. See my original post.
MM

pz · 10-23-2002, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:
He said he was intimate with one.

Not a black woman, a black man. He was referring to John Edmonstone, a freed black slave, from whom he learned taxidermy.

The word "intimate", as has already been mentioned, did not carry the modern association of a romantic relationship. All he meant by it was that this was a fellow with whom he'd had many conversations, so that he knew him well.

Xixax · 10-23-2002, 08:40 AM

MM, since I can't find much more than blurbs from the book _Evolution as Entropy_, and it will be some time again before I have time to pick up another book, would you care to give as breif a summary to the alternative they present as possible?

Are they misrepresented as Gould is at times as being 'against' Darwinian evolution, when really they are just refining certain points of the theory?

I'm curious, since their work ( in the short 'reviews' I've seen ) seems to be dismissed as a poor application of physical laws to evolution ( like the constant whine of the 2cnd Law of Thermodynamics ).

pz · 10-23-2002, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Motorcycle Mama:


Thank you MrDarwin. You got the point.

Unfortunately for that point, it is simply wrong. Darwin does have priority on the idea, and made the most extensive published exploration of the initial concept. You may not like him very much, but that's the way it is.

Albion · 10-23-2002, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Motorcycle Mama:


Thank you MrDarwin. You got the point.
MM

But what do his personal deficiencies have to do with his claim on the theory of evolution?

Wallace is on record as attributing the theory to Darwin, isn't he?

tgamble · 10-23-2002, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albion:
"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole structure be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate."

<a href="http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-07.html" target="_blank">http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-07.html</a>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-23-2002, 08:40 AM	#37
Xixax Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 2,101	MM, since I can't find much more than blurbs from the book _Evolution as Entropy_, and it will be some time again before I have time to pick up another book, would you care to give as breif a summary to the alternative they present as possible? Are they misrepresented as Gould is at times as being 'against' Darwinian evolution, when really they are just refining certain points of the theory? I'm curious, since their work ( in the short 'reviews' I've seen ) seems to be dismissed as a poor application of physical laws to evolution ( like the constant whine of the 2cnd Law of Thermodynamics ).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.