Evolution : Myths and misconceptions

[SkepticLance]

A nice reference for those interested has just been placed by New Scientist.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn13620

 

This is a good resource, with lots of information about evolution, and based on good science. It describes a lot of poorly understood matters. For example : Why do males have nipples? Why are some people homosexual? etc.

 

Take a look.

[ydoaPs]

Darwin was a racist.

[BumFluff]

Darwin was a racist.

Have you ever actually read any of Darwin's books? I'm reading "The Voyage of the Beagle" right now and in it he sees how the natives and such are continually harrassed and he stands up for them and speaks about how unethical the differences are between people of different colours are treated. He was a naturist. He was nowhere near as racist as the majority of other people were in the early 1800's. His intense racism is another one of those internet myths much as him changing his mind about the evolution of man on his deathbed is.

[PhDP]

I think yourdadonapogos' point was that "Darwin was a racist" is a myth.

 

I'm not very fond of science mags like the "New Scientist", but I must admit their section "Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions" is really well done. Some professional evolutionary biologists are embracing some of the myths included.

[MedGen]

I was quite impressed with the actual article in the print version of New Scientist, considering it is normally lay people interested in science that read it. A little bit of conscious raising for evolution is always good, not something that is readily available in journals such as Nature and Science, and a lot more accessible.

[CDarwin]

Darwin was a racist.

 

Actually, by today's standards Darwin probably was a racist. But of course so was Abraham Lincoln. He was an abolitionist and he actually learned taxadermy from a black naturalist. That's about as non-racist as you can get in the 19th Century.

[waitforufo]

I as well do not think we can judge people of the past by today's standards. We can and should however judge what they believed and promoted particularly where they went wrong. Doing so reminds us of the hubris of all people, including those of great accomplishment. For example, the liberty many of us enjoy today may not have come about without the efforts of men like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington both of whom were slave owners.

 

Darwin for example encouraged and supported the work of this half cousin Francis Galton the author of "Hereditary Genius." Francis Galton is known as the father of eugenics.

[CharonY]

Also, the personality of Darwin should not have an impact on the validity of modern evolutionary theories.

[thedarkshade]

A great share Lance, thank you very much.

 

And still I just don't see how creationists can back up themselves when saying evolution is wrong:rolleyes:

[SkepticLance]

I am actually very fond of New Scientist. As well as its appeal to lay people, I think it has a real place as a source for updated information across the board for scientists. Lots of scientists are operating within deep specialties, and read only material related to their narrow specialties. New Scientist provides a quick and easy read of a range of stuff - helping specialists to gain a wider knowledge.

[CDarwin]

I really love the illustrations too. The magazine almost worth buying for those. But that's off topic.

[lucaspa]

Actually, by today's standards Darwin probably was a racist.

 

Somewhat. The entire culture was suffused with racism and sexism so that people didn't even notice. One of the more cogent objections to natural selection came from Fleeming Jenkins and was based on the idea of inheritance prevalent in the day: blended characteristics. It was based on unrealized racism.

 

But, at the time, evolution was seen as anti-racist. The idea was that if we all descended from a common ancestor instead of being separately created, then the races are not inherently different.

 

Of course, it didn't take long for racism to try to warp evolution. Within 30 years of the publishing of Origin, Virchow, Haeckel, and others were stating that some "races" were "more evolved" than others. Guess which race they thought was the "more evolved"?

[Daecon]

Of course, it didn't take long for racism to try to warp evolution. Within 30 years of the publishing of Origin, Virchow, Haeckel, and others were stating that some "races" were "more evolved" than others. Guess which race they thought was the "more evolved"?

 

Their own?

[lucaspa]

Their own?

 

Got it in one!