[__ Science __ ] One of Evolution’s Most Famous Stories Gets a Rewrite

[Barbarian]

There isn't a citation or quotes around Darwin's statement, nor any mention of Fitzroy near this text:
“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.” Descent of Man p131

Obviously, slavery was beneficial to people who owned them. Darwin merely noted that it was generally a matter of racism. Which he called "a great crime." You seem to have made my point for me.

But the fact is Darwin's writing was racist and created social Darwinism.

As you learned earlier, he considered even letting the weak among us die, was a great evil. C'mon. He specifically rejected allowing anything like natural selection in humans.

Compare to the modern creationists Henry Morris and William Tinkle who endorsed eugenics and/or considered other races to be genetically inferior in intelligence and spirituality. And then consider modern Darwinists like Morgan and Punnett who showed that the creationist agenda of eugenics was not merely evil, but also scientifically impossible.

 

[Vaccine]

Obviously, slavery was beneficial to people who owned them. Darwin merely noted that it was generally a matter of racism. Which he called "a great crime." You seem to have made my point for me.

When you attributed the comment to Fitzroy it was "...the once mention of white supremacy". Now, it's merely noting racism. Which is it?

Darwin didn't specifically mention slave owners, merely that slavery is beneficial. He referenced p 72, so he could have meant slavery is beneficial due to a nation "passing from the first stage of civilisation into the second stage" p 72 Physics and Politics.
No matter how you, or Darwin, want to spin it slavery is not beneficial. It's bad for the owners soul and bad for the slaves themselves.

As you learned earlier, he considered even letting the weak among us die, was a great evil. C'mon. He specifically rejected allowing anything like natural selection in humans.

Darwin wrote:
"NATURAL SELECTION AS AFFECTING CIVILISED NATIONS"

"But some remarks on the action of natural selection on civilised nations may be worth adding."

"Advancement of the intellectual powers through natural selection-- Importance of imitation--Social and moral faculties--Their development within the limits of the same tribe--Natural selection as affecting civilised nations--Evidence that civilised nations were once barbarous."

Applying natural selection to humans is the main theme of his book. Darwin invented social darwinism. It's a good thing he was compassionate, unlike Hitler. Darwin's solution isn't to slaughter those he deems inferior, rather to stop them from breeding.
";but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."
This contradicts the assertion Darwin rejected of your claim.

Although, Darwin knew people with less compassion than him would have another solution:
"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."

Compare to the modern creationists Henry Morris and William Tinkle who endorsed eugenics and/or considered other races to be genetically inferior in intelligence and spirituality. And then consider modern Darwinists like Morgan and Punnett who showed that the creationist agenda of eugenics was not merely evil, but also scientifically impossible.

It's good to know modern Darwinists proved Darwin's ideas are scientifically impossible. But it doesn't change the fact Darwin was racist, believed in white supremacy, and invented social darwinism.
He "scientifically" determined black people were inferior by comparing them to gorillas.
It's one thing to compare humans to apes in order to identify a common ancestor. It's entirely different matter to compare specifically black people, or "savages" as he frequently called them, to gorillas. It's objectively racist.

Darwin believed savages stood closer to animals and were therefor inferior. But Darwin is full of race based assessments to show which is superior and which is inferior:
"This may be inferred from civilised men having been found, wherever compared, to be physically stronger than savages."

Darwin's white supremacy:
"The western nations of Europe, who now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors, and stand at the summit of civilisation, owe little or none of their superiority to direct inheritance from the old Greeks, though they owe much to the written works of that wonderful people."

Darwin laying the foundation for eugenics:
"Thus the weak members of civilised 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."

Morris and Tinkle are terrible people for endorsing eugenics. However, Darwin is much worse for laying the foundation for eugenics.
"first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye." (Matthew 7:3-5).

 

[Vaccine]

While Darwin could be considered progressive for his time, especially since he was anti-slavery. I wonder if he would be considered progressive today.

Darwin on the dangers of immigrants:
"Notwithstanding that savages appear to be less prolific than civilised people, they would no doubt rapidly increase if their numbers were not by some means rigidly kept down. The Santali, or hill-tribes of India, have recently afforded a good illustration of this fact; for, as shewn by Mr. Hunter (60. 'The Annals of Rural Bengal,' by W.W. Hunter, 1868, p. 259.), they have increased at an extraordinary rate since vaccination has been introduced, other pestilences mitigated, and war sternly repressed. This increase, however, would not have been possible had not these rude people spread into the adjoining districts, and worked for hire."

Darwin on foreigners:

"; common experience justifies the maxim of the Spaniard, "Never, never trust an Indian."

Darwin on women:

“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"
"With savages, for instance, the Australians, the women are the constant cause of war both between members of the same tribe and between distinct tribes.

Darwin on poor people:

"Man accumulates property and bequeaths it to his children, so that the children of the rich have an advantage over the poor in the race for success, independently of bodily or mental superiority.

"If in each grade of society the members were divided into two equal bodies, the one including the intellectually superior and the other the inferior, there can be little doubt that the former would succeed best in all occupations, and rear a greater number of children"

Darwin on black people:

"Hence the capacity for high musical development which the savage races of man possess, may be due either to the practice by our semi-human progenitors of some rude form of music, or simply to their having acquired the proper vocal organs for a different purpose.

So Darwin thought immigrants ruined things, didn't trust foreigners, thought women are inferior and caused problems for men, thought poor people are inferior, didn't lake black people's music, and to top it all off he was racist and believed in white supremacy. Based on what Darwin wrote, he'd be right at home with conservatives.
.

 

[Barbarian]

Darwin didn't specifically mention slave owners, merely that slavery is beneficial.

He said it was a "great crime. " I don't think that picking words out of a passage and ignoring the passage is a good thing to do.

Darwin laying the foundation for eugenics:

Based on his biographical studies, Galton believed that desirable human qualities were hereditary traits, although Darwin strongly disagreed with this elaboration of his theory.

Eugenics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Thus the weak members of civilised 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.

Let's continue with the part that was edited out from that quote:
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil.
This is a condemnation of eugenics as a "certain and great present evil."

Darwin on poor people:

"Man accumulates property and bequeaths it to his children, so that the children of the rich have an advantage over the poor in the race for success, independently of bodily or mental superiority.

"If in each grade of society the members were divided into two equal bodies, the one including the intellectually superior and the other the inferior, there can be little doubt that the former would succeed best in all occupations, and rear a greater number of children"

So Darwin here regards success as a matter of culture and upbringing, not biology. This seems to undermine your claims.

"; common experience justifies the maxim of the Spaniard, "Never, never trust an Indian."

Which again is based on culture, as Darwin points out. Not some inherent biology.

Darwin on black people:

"Hence the capacity for high musical development which the savage races of man possess, may be due either to the practice by our semi-human progenitors of some rude form of music, or simply to their having acquired the proper vocal organs for a different purpose.

He didn't say "black people", but notice he attributes the high musical development found in all races to evolution from pre-humans to humans. Again, you seem to be undermining your own argument.

 

[Vaccine]

He said it was a "great crime. " I don't think that picking words out of a passage and ignoring the passage is a good thing to do.

I've quoted that passage from Darwin several times in this thread and it's the first time I forgot to add that part. Touche.
Let's see the whole passage again nothing gets ignored:
"Slavery, although in some ways beneficial during ancient times (34. See Mr. Bagehot, 'Physics and Politics,' 1872, p. 72.), is a great crime; yet it was not so regarded until quite recently, even by the most civilised nations."

Darwin was a compassionate person. He was anti-slavery. But why does he get a pass for saying it was beneficial and not Desantis?

Based on his biographical studies, Galton believed that desirable human qualities were hereditary traits, although Darwin strongly disagreed with this elaboration of his theory.

Eugenics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm going by what Darwin actually wrote. If you can find the actual text where Darwin strongly disagreed with this elaboration of his of his theory I'd like to see it. Otherwise the foundation of Eugenics is laid by Darwin:
"Thus the weak members of civilised 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.

Let's continue with the part that was edited out from that quote:
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil.
This is a condemnation of eugenics as a "certain and great present evil."

That's a condemnation of apathy, not eugenics or social darwinism. What's evil is intentionally neglecting the weak and helpless:
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination;"

Just because Darwin was compelled to have sympathy for "savages" doesn't mean he was any less racist, nor opposed eliminating inferior races, albeit in humane ways, for the greater good. The surgeon is civilized nations and the greater good is removing the inferior races of man:
"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."
He didn't say exterminating or replacing "savages" was evil. Of course apathy toward them is evil. But he approved of not allowing inferior races to breed, aka eugenics.

Which again is based on culture, as Darwin points out. Not some inherent biology.

Darwin agreed with this: "Never, never trust an Indian."
What do you call ?
Racism.

He didn't say "black people", but notice he attributes the high musical development found in all races to evolution from pre-humans to humans. Again, you seem to be undermining your own argument.

Elsewhere he made the connection between the savage races and black people or Australians.
"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."

You still don't see referring to black people or Australian as the "savage races" as racist? What do you call discriminating against people (calling the men, women, and children savages) on the basis of their membership to a particular racial or ethnic group? The answer is: racism. Darwin was racist.

 

[Barbarian]

I've quoted that passage from Darwin several times in this thread and it's the first time I forgot to add that part. Touche.
Let's see the whole passage again nothing gets ignored:
"Slavery, although in some ways beneficial during ancient times (34. See Mr. Bagehot, 'Physics and Politics,' 1872, p. 72.), is a great crime; yet it was not so regarded until quite recently, even by the most civilised nations."

Darwin was a compassionate person. He was anti-slavery. But why does he get a pass for saying it was beneficial and not Desantis?

The difference is that DeSantis said it was beneficial for the slaves. Obviously, slavery was beneficial for the people enslaving others, as Darwin pointed out, even as he also pointed out that it was a great crime.

"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

And here, Darwin considers "civilized" people (a cultural difference) to be superior to those who are not civilized. So he's seeing culture as an evolutionary process. As he pointed out, culture was the difference between "savages" and "civilized" humans.

At the same time, he notes that whites are in some ways physically more like gorillas than blacks. But he cites evidence to support this; it's not prejudice. Like Abraham Lincoln, who was born on the same day as Darwin was born, Darwin opposed slavery, and insisted that all humans deserved rights and freedom. Unlike Lincoln, he asserted that even "savages" were mentally the same as "civilized" people, and other than superficial things like ear lobes were physically the same as whites.

 

[Barbarian]

Darwin agreed with this: "Never, never trust an Indian."
What do you call ?

Cultural observation. If I were to say "never trust an Italian" would that be racism or merely bigoted against another culture?

Racism.

I disagree.

 

[Vaccine]

The difference is that DeSantis said it was beneficial for the slaves. Obviously, slavery was beneficial for the people enslaving others, as Darwin pointed out, even as he also pointed out that it was a great crime.

Fair enough, there is a difference. But I don't agree slavery actually benefits the people owning slaves. Mark 8:36

And here, Darwin considers "civilized" people (a cultural difference) to be superior to those who are not civilized. So he's seeing culture as an evolutionary process. As he pointed out, culture was the difference between "savages" and "civilized" humans.

Darwin said civilized races, not civilized people. This is about the evolution of the races, not civilizations. This is the original quote:
"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." -Darwin, Descent of Man

At the same time, he notes that whites are in some ways physically more like gorillas than blacks. But he cites evidence to support this; it's not prejudice. Like Abraham Lincoln, who was born on the same day as Darwin was born, Darwin opposed slavery, and insisted that all humans deserved rights and freedom. Unlike Lincoln, he asserted that even "savages" were mentally the same as "civilized" people, and other than superficial things like ear lobes were physically the same as whites.

I missed where he noted "that whites are in some ways physically more like gorillas than blacks." Can you point it out?
Because a standard theme in his book is white people are more evolved than black people. That black people are closer to animals than white people:
"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."
Caucasians, "the highest men of the highest races" stand at the "very summit of the organic scale". While black people, the "lowest races" are at the bottom of the races of man. The idea whites are in some ways more like gorillas than blacks is the opposite of the theme of Descent of Man.

 

[Vaccine]

Cultural observation. If I were to say "never trust an Italian" would that be racism or merely bigoted against another culture?

Of course we understand race has no biological basis. But Darwin didn't know that. He was making a race based assessment of the Indian race as he understood it.

I disagree.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But if you don't think Darwin was racist you're in no position to judge Morris racist. Unless there's a double standard.

 

[Vaccine]

There's no doubt Darwin was a compassionate person and thought slavery is criminal. He said neglecting the weak and helpless was evil.
";but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil."- Darwin Descent of Man

However, he didn't think the civilized races eliminating the savage races was evil. He said it is inevitable:
"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." - Darwin Descent of Man

Instead of seeing one race eliminating another as evil, he thought it was natural selection in action. Natural selection is neither good or evil. Darwin saw it as "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".
But he didn't stop there, he hoped the elimination of the savage races would actually put man in a more civilized state:
"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."- Darwin Descent of Man

It's driven home in the first half of the passage about neglect being evil:
"The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; "- Darwin Descent of Man

Darwin highly approved of social darwinism.

 

[Barbarian]

Of course we understand race has no biological basis. But Darwin didn't know that.

He seems to have thought so. Not just his comments that all the characteristics found in all races were there in the original human population, but also in his assertion that civilization made the difference in different groups of people.

However, he didn't think the civilized races eliminating the savage races was evil. He said it is inevitable:
"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." - Darwin Descent of Man

Clearly, he didn't think it was a good idea. Just because he thought it was inevitable, doesn't mean he approved. This is something I often hear from creationists; "if you think evolution is so good..." That's like yelling at Newton "if you think gravity is so good..." I don't think you've given this sufficient thought.

Instead of seeing one race eliminating another as evil, he thought it was natural selection in action.

"Instead of seeing a person dying from a fall as evil, he thought it was gravity in action."
Nature is neither good nor evil. When Darwin assailed even a passive application of "social Darwinism" as a great evil, he was distinguishing man (who is a moral agent, capable of good or evil) from nature which is neither good nor evil in it's actions.

As you see, Darwin was highly critical of what others called "social Darwinism."

 

[Vaccine]

He seems to have thought so. Not just his comments that all the characteristics found in all races were there in the original human population, but also in his assertion that civilization made the difference in different groups of people.

If you think Darwin seems to have thought races were not a biological construct, can you provide a quote to that effect?
He routinely cited differences in races. Such as ears, teeth, smell, and mental capacity. Civilization is a noun not a verb. It can't make anything Darwin asserted natural selection accounted for differences, not civilization.

Clearly, he didn't think it was a good idea. Just because he thought it was inevitable, doesn't mean he approved. This is something I often hear from creationists; "if you think evolution is so good..." That's like yelling at Newton "if you think gravity is so good..." I don't think you've given this sufficient thought.

Darwin wrote:
"...for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope,..."
Darwin hoped one race would "exterminate" another race. Clearly, he thought it was a good thing. That once one race exterminated another they would be in a "more civilised state". He would think Hitler evil. But only due to his methods, not his motivation. Darwin's solution to exterminating another race was more humane, just don't allow them to breed.

"Instead of seeing a person dying from a fall as evil, he thought it was gravity in action."
Nature is neither good nor evil. When Darwin assailed even a passive application of "social Darwinism" as a great evil, he was distinguishing man (who is a moral agent, capable of good or evil) from nature which is neither good nor evil in it's actions.

As you see, Darwin was highly critical of what others called "social Darwinism."

Darwin wrote:
"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." - Darwin Descent of Man
It's obvious Darwin applied "natural selection" to the races of man. He thought pure whites had beneficial variations while black people and Australians had injurious variations which would be eliminated.

There's nothing natural about one race exterminating another race.

Gravity doesn't target a race of people. But people can and do. Darwin actually hoped for it and thought it would put man in a more civilized state. Can you agree hoping for the extermination of a race of people is bad?

Darwin assailed even a passive application of "social Darwinism" as a great evil

The great evil he spoke of was neglecting the weak members of society. He explains we should endure those individual members, but as a whole they should not be allowed to breed.
Are you sure you've read Descent of Man?
There's an entire sub-heading for:
"NATURAL SELECTION AS AFFECTING CIVILISED NATIONS"
Far from being critical, Darwin wholly approved of social darwinism. Just in a humane fashion.

 

[Barbarian]

If you think Darwin seems to have thought races were not a biological construct, can you provide a quote to that effect?
He routinely cited differences in races. Such as ears, teeth, smell, and mental capacity.

You cited a point where Darwin noted that whites were apparently more closely related to gorillas than blacks. But since Darwin said that all characteristics of humans seem to have come from some prehuman ancestor of all humans, that's pretty much the story.

The great evil he spoke of was neglecting the weak members of society. He explains we should endure those individual members, but as a whole they should not be allowed to breed.

No, it wasn't Darwin who never said they should be prevented from breeding. That was a modern YE creationist, Dr. William Tinkle. But unlike Darwin, Tinkle was a social Darwinist.

Are you sure you've read Descent of Man?

Notice that I've had to correct you on it several times, including one passage that was edited to make it seem that Darwin approved of "social Darwinism." I'm not saying you did it. I suspect you found that quote elsewhere and didn't know what the complete statement was.

There's an entire sub-heading for:
"NATURAL SELECTION AS AFFECTING CIVILISED NATIONS"

It's still happening. Remember Darwin didn't necessarily think this is a good thing, any more than Newton thought that his laws of motion were "good." They just are.

Should we talk about natural selection in the present day human population?

Far from being critical, Darwin wholly approved of social darwinism.

He considered it a "great evil."

Just in a humane fashion.

Darwin's point was that it could not be humane.

 

[Barbarian]

"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." - Darwin Descent of Man

He thought it was wrong, and often said so. And since he saw civilization a process of culturation (which it is), his preference was for civilization to spread.

It's obvious Darwin applied "natural selection" to the races of man. He thought pure whites had beneficial variations while black people and Australians had injurious variations which would be eliminated.

Show us that.

There's nothing natural about one race exterminating another race.

Turns out, chimps commit genocide. Troops of chimps have been observed systematically wiping out other troops. Humans have just done it on a larger scale.

 

[Vaccine]

You cited a point where Darwin noted that whites were apparently more closely related to gorillas than blacks. But since Darwin said that all characteristics of humans seem to have come from some prehuman ancestor of all humans, that's pretty much the story.

Perhaps you should go back and read what I quoted. Darwin compared black people to gorillas, not white people. Darwin made it clear whites much more evolved than black people since black people were closer to animals.

No, it wasn't Darwin who never said they should be prevented from breeding. That was a modern YE creationist, Dr. William Tinkle. But unlike Darwin, Tinkle was a social Darwinist.

Demonstrably false claim:
"; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."
-Darwin Descent of Man

Notice that I've had to correct you on it several times, including one passage that was edited to make it seem that Darwin approved of "social Darwinism." I'm not saying you did it. I suspect you found that quote elsewhere and didn't know what the complete statement was.

The reason I asked if you read it is because you said:
Darwin compared whites to gorillas, he didn't.
Darwin argued that the differences were cultural, he didn't
Darwin regarded race as more cultural than physical, he didn't.
Darwin said if "savages" were brought to England, they'd be just like Englishmen in a few generations, he didn't.
Darwin inferred humans were essentially the same, he didn't.
Darwin didn't apply natural selection to humans, he did.
I provided quotes contradicting every one of those claims. Frankly, making those assertions in the first place makes me think you didn't read Descent of Man anymore than you read this article where you asserted he was an angry creationist. This thread has been like watching the Daily Show interview Trump supporters.

It's still happening. Remember Darwin didn't necessarily think this is a good thing, any more than Newton thought that his laws of motion were "good." They just are.

Should we talk about natural selection in the present day human population?

Sure, let's talk about this:
"natural selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of an ape." -Descent of Man

Darwin the "great scientist" and stable genius he was cites incredibly subjective and racist ideas as evidence of natural selection in action.

 

[Vaccine]

Show us that.

I have no problem showing you Darwin applied "natural selection" to the races of man:
"natural selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of an ape." -Descent of Man

Turns out, chimps commit genocide. Troops of chimps have been observed systematically wiping out other troops. Humans have just done it on a larger scale.

Earlier you compared natural selection to gravity, an indifferent force of nature. Now the goal posts have moved to include the intentional actions of a species. The term genocide hardly applies to chimps, but sure they do kill each other off. Humans know better so one race exterminating another is evil. It's something Darwin actually hoped for and thought would put man in a more civilized state.

 

[Barbarian]

Earlier you compared natural selection to gravity, an indifferent force of nature. Now the goal posts have moved to include the intentional actions of a species.

No, you just don't want to accept that Darwin thought that the mental facilities of humans were a common feature that distinguished us from other apes, having been evolved before races existed.

The term genocide hardly applies to chimps, but sure they do kill each other off.

One troop was observed, over a period of years, to systematically wipe out another troop. If you don't think that's genocide, we've found the problem.

It's something Darwin actually hoped for

As you learned earlier, he never said it was to be hoped for, nor did he ever give any indication he wanted it to happen.

 

[Barbarian]

The reason I asked if you read it is because you said:
Darwin compared whites to gorillas, he didn't.

You brought it up. He pointed out the similarity of ears in whites and gorillas, noting that many black people did not have that similarity.

Darwin argued that the differences were cultural, he didn't

You brought it up. He attributed the difference in humans to "civilization", which is cultural.

Those naturalists, on the other hand, who admit the principle of evolution, and this is now admitted by the majority of rising men, will feel no doubt that all the races of man are descended from a single primitive stock
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man
Starkly displaying his own readiness to apply his ideas to society, he observed in The Descent of Man that "the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world".

Though he hoped that man would by then have reached a "more civilised state ... even than the Caucasian," he expressed no hope that extermination might be prevented by the kind of moral and political pressure that had by then achieved the prohibition of slavery in the US.

Did Charles Darwin believe in racial inequality?

His anniversary has thrown a fresh spotlight on ideas about race that still excite his friends and foes. Marek Kohn looks at a troublesome legacy

www.independent.co.uk

Darwin didn't apply natural selection to humans,

You're wrong. I showed you that he did. Would you like me to show you again?

It's still happening. Remember Darwin didn't necessarily think this is a good thing, any more than Newton thought that his laws of motion were "good." They just are.

Should we talk about natural selection in the present day human population?

Sure

O.K.
In a striking example of natural selection, the Bajau people of South-East Asia have developed bigger spleens for diving, a study shows.
The Bajau are traditionally nomadic and seafaring, and survive by collecting shellfish from the sea floor.
Scientists studying the effect of this lifestyle on their biology found their spleens were larger than those of related people from the region.

The bigger spleen makes more oxygen available in their blood for diving.
The researchers have published their results in the academic journal Cell. Located close to the stomach, the fist-sized spleen removes old cells from the blood and acts as a biological "scuba tank" during long dives.

Bajau people 'evolved bigger spleens' for free-diving

In an example of human natural selection, Asia's Bajau people have evolved bigger spleens for diving.

www.bbc.com

Mutation in key gene allows Tibetans to thrive at high altitude​

The gene mutation is much more common in Tibetans than Han Chinese and may represent the strongest instance of natural selection ever documented in a human population

Mutation in key gene allows Tibetans to thrive at high altitude

Researchers say the mutation may represent the strongest instance of natural selection ever documented in a human population

www.theguardian.com

Structural and functional consequences of the Milano mutation (R173C) in human apolipoprotein A-I ​

Structural and functional consequences of the Milano mutation (R173C) in human apolipoprotein A-I - PubMed

Carriers of the apolipoprotein A-I(Milano) (apoA-I(M)) variant, R173C, have reduced levels of plasma HDL but no increase in cardiovascular disease. Despite intensive study, it is not clear whether the removal of the arginine or the introduction of the cysteine is responsible for this altered...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"natural selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of an ape." -Descent of Man

Darwin was a gradualist, who supposed that evolution proceeded by small steps. So he thought the first humans would have brains only a little better than those of other apes. He happens to have been right about that; the first fossil species of humans do have brains only a little larger than those of other apes.

Human ancestors that lived more than 3 million years ago had brains that were organized like chimpanzee brains, but had prolonged brain growth like humans, new research from the University of Chicago and other leading institutions shows.
That means these hominins — the species Australopithecus afarensis, made famous by the Lucy and Dikika child fossils found in Ethiopia — had a mosaic of ape and human features, a hallmark of evolution.

Ancient hominins had small brains like apes but longer childhoods like humans

Using precise imaging technology to scan fossil skulls, researchers found that as early as 3 million years ago, children had a long dependence on caregivers.

www.uchicagomedicine.org

I provided quotes contradicting every one of those claims.

See above. You seem to have been a little confused over some of them.

This thread has been like watching the Daily Show interview Trump supporters.

I wouldn't go quite that far, but you do seem to have some major misconceptions about Darwin.

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 differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians 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
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man

For whatever reason you resist such facts, it's probably time to make some peace with them.

 

[Vaccine]

No, you just don't want to accept that Darwin thought that the mental facilities of humans were a common feature that distinguished us from other apes, having been evolved before races existed.

*90-My assertion: Instead of seeing one race eliminating another as evil, he thought it was natural selection in action.
*91-Your reply: Nature is neither good nor evil.
#92-My reply: There's nothing natural about one race exterminating another race.
*94-Your reply: Turns out, chimps commit genocide.
Your answers aren't consistent. Is natural selection an indifferent force of nature, like gravity, or the intentional actions of a species?

One troop was observed, over a period of years, to systematically wipe out another troop. If you don't think that's genocide, we've found the problem.

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.
The problem is redefining a term reserved for people to include chimps. Shifting definitions of terms such as genocide or natural selection is nothing less than a desperate attempt to avoid acknowledging the awful truth. Darwin didn't think one race exterminating another race was evil. The great evil he spoke of applied to neglecting the "weak members". He didn't say "exterminate" was evil. He actually hoped it would happen.

As you learned earlier, he never said it was to be hoped for, nor did he ever give any indication he wanted it to happen.

This is as entertaining as Pence repeatedly saying Trump never said that during the debates:
"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."
Not a word about extermination being evil. Quite the opposite, he saw one race exterminating another as a good thing.

 

[Vaccine]

You brought it up. He pointed out the similarity of ears in whites and gorillas, noting that many black people did not have that similarity.

Darwin wrote:
"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."- Descent of Man
White people are not being singled out here, only black people. I can't imagine a more mangled misinterpretation than thinking Darwin was comparing whites to gorillas. Darwin is racist for saying black people are closer to gorillas. Which is absurd. No Homo sapien is closer or farther away to a gorilla. All modern humans share the same genes. "the 0.1% of DNA that is different between humans doesn’t align neatly with race: the concept of race is not backed up by genetics."

You brought it up. He attributed the difference in humans to "civilization", which is cultural.

Those naturalists, on the other hand, who admit the principle of evolution, and this is now admitted by the majority of rising men, will feel no doubt that all the races of man are descended from a single primitive stock
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man

Actually you brought it up with this comment:
"Actually, Darwin thought that Englishmen were superior to other white people, too. He thought it was cultural."
Still waiting for a quote to back it up.

Nowhere does Darwin attribute any variations to civilization. Civilization is a noun, not a verb. Darwin isn't so ignorant as to attribute differences in humans to civilization. He attributed differences in humans to natural selection.
It's absurd to speak of cultural differences when Darwin's book explores the development of man from some lover life form. He spoke of differences body and mind.
Differences in ears, teeth, and sense of smell aren't cultural. No culture is based on a "brain a little superior to that of an ape". A lack of morals in one race, according to Darwin, isn't a cultural difference. He cited differences in body and mind as evidence of the superiority or inferiority of the races.

You're wrong. I showed you that he did. Would you like me to show you again?

Show me again where Darwin didn't apply natural selection to human races.
Because this is from his book:
"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."-Descent of Man
Survival of the fittest?

It's still happening. Remember Darwin didn't necessarily think this is a good thing, any more than Newton thought that his laws of motion were "good." They just are.

Should we talk about natural selection in the present day human population?


O.K.
In a striking example of natural selection, the Bajau people of South-East Asia have developed bigger spleens for diving, a study shows.
The Bajau are traditionally nomadic and seafaring, and survive by collecting shellfish from the sea floor.
Scientists studying the effect of this lifestyle on their biology found their spleens were larger than those of related people from the region.

The bigger spleen makes more oxygen available in their blood for diving.
The researchers have published their results in the academic journal Cell. Located close to the stomach, the fist-sized spleen removes old cells from the blood and acts as a biological "scuba tank" during long dives.

Bajau people 'evolved bigger spleens' for free-diving

In an example of human natural selection, Asia's Bajau people have evolved bigger spleens for diving.

www.bbc.com

Mutation in key gene allows Tibetans to thrive at high altitude​

The gene mutation is much more common in Tibetans than Han Chinese and may represent the strongest instance of natural selection ever documented in a human population

Mutation in key gene allows Tibetans to thrive at high altitude

Researchers say the mutation may represent the strongest instance of natural selection ever documented in a human population

www.theguardian.com

Structural and functional consequences of the Milano mutation (R173C) in human apolipoprotein A-I ​

Structural and functional consequences of the Milano mutation (R173C) in human apolipoprotein A-I - PubMed

Carriers of the apolipoprotein A-I(Milano) (apoA-I(M)) variant, R173C, have reduced levels of plasma HDL but no increase in cardiovascular disease. Despite intensive study, it is not clear whether the removal of the arginine or the introduction of the cysteine is responsible for this altered...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Darwin was a gradualist, who supposed that evolution proceeded by small steps. So he thought the first humans would have brains only a little better than those of other apes. He happens to have been right about that; the first fossil species of humans do have brains only a little larger than those of other apes.

Human ancestors that lived more than 3 million years ago had brains that were organized like chimpanzee brains, but had prolonged brain growth like humans, new research from the University of Chicago and other leading institutions shows.
That means these hominins — the species Australopithecus afarensis, made famous by the Lucy and Dikika child fossils found in Ethiopia — had a mosaic of ape and human features, a hallmark of evolution.

Ancient hominins had small brains like apes but longer childhoods like humans

Using precise imaging technology to scan fossil skulls, researchers found that as early as 3 million years ago, children had a long dependence on caregivers.

www.uchicagomedicine.org

See above. You seem to have been a little confused over some of them.

Good examples of evolution. I admit I am confused at what those examples have to do with this:
"natural selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of an ape." -Descent of Man
Apart from his deeply rooted racism, what scientific evidence could Darwin have for this?
We know today the "savage" brain is the same brain as all Homo sapiens.

I wouldn't go quite that far, but you do seem to have some major misconceptions about Darwin.

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 differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians 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
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man

For whatever reason you resist such facts, it's probably time to make some peace with them.

This is from post #53.
"He inferred humans were essentially the same, citing a black man who taught him a great deal about natural history."
Now you quote:
"The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named;"
I've been belaboring that very point, that Darwin didn't think humans were essentially the same, since post #53. In fairness, he pointed to our mental similarity. But reading the full text we discover:
"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, etc., 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."

Ah, the mental similarities are unimportant or singular in nature because they're explained by a common ancestor. Too bad Darwin didn't put two and two together to figure out there's no biological basis for race. Darwin's white supremist world doesn't allow for essentially the same humans, somebody has to be superior and somebody has to be inferior.
"Differences of this kind between the highest men of the highest races and the lowest savages, are connected by the finest gradations."-Descent of Man