What is the full title of Charles Darwin's book "The origin of species?" Do you believe in Darwinian (macro) evolution?
Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?
At the very least does that not then make you unintentionally racist? If you believe in macro evolution isn't it true that you must believe that some races or people groups are more evolved than others? Forcing you to place them on a higher/more important sociatal level than others? Simply because of their appearance and location of ancestry?While simultaneously hoping for the demise of "less evolved" races or people groups? So that they do not re-enter the gene pool and slow the evolutionary process. Isn't elimination the best outcome for a less evolved people group in an "evolutionists" world view?
*if you post then Please answer the questions that I'm asking on yahoo......Answers.
- jon pikeLv 73 weeks agoFavorite Answer
The full title is: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Why is no one answering the question?
- Dr. DLv 73 weeks ago
The full title was, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".
However you error on several fronts. You assume there's been no scientific advancements to Darwin's original theory. You also assume that the concept of race hasn't changed in 200 years.
Yes, the overwhelming fossil evidence, and genetic evidence, does support macro evolution. Please take a college course on the subject and learn all about transition species.
- BrianLv 73 weeks ago
I forget where, exactly, Darwin (or any REPUTABLE scientist) goes into "macro" vs "micro" evolution. I'm sure you have a cite for that.
- CowboyLv 63 weeks ago
Darwin's theory was 19th century and has been substantially modified since. Our current theory - still subject to revision - is the Modern Synthesis, from the mid 20th century.
So you see, you have no idea what evolution is and what it is not.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- Annsan_In_HimLv 73 weeks ago
Charles Darwin's father Erasmus believed what his son later came to believe and greatly expanded upon. Charles also required reading of Charles Leyell's 1st volume of 'Principles of Geology' while sailing on 'The Beagle' January 1832 to then come up with an 1844 essay. To distinguish it from the 4-volume book he'd expected to write, in 1858 he submitted for publication "An Abstract of an Essay on the Origin of Species and Varieties through Natural Selection". Darwin yielded to the demand of his publisher, John Murray, that he shorten the main title to "On the Origin of Species" and it was published on 24th November, 1859.
What is not generally known was that in the late 1860s the work of Gregor Mendel was published but it wasn't until 16 years after his death (in 1884) that his work was rediscovered and its importance realized. The problem with Mendel's ground-breaking discoveries about God's fundamental laws of inheritance (genetics) was that they disproved one of Darwin's most important assumptions about natural (as opposed to divine) selection. After a while, evolutionary thinking re-emerged in a slightly different form which was said to be quite consistent with Mendel's genetics, but the two are not consistent, and both cannot be true. Darwin's theory rested on the claim that (e.g. with colours of flowers) a new characteristic would be acquired by young plants that their parents had not possessed. After all, a race of plants / birds / mammals has got to acquire new characteristics if it is ever going to evolve (according to the theory).
Mendel showed that the characteristic had not been acquired. It had been present all the time in the parents' generation, though masked by a more dominant gene. Mendel showed that it might be possible to lose some genes by killing off those individuals that possessed them, but that it was not possible to acquire new genes. After a while, Darwin's supporters rescued his now-floundering idea about that, by a new theory that said genes could sometimes change to completely new forms. That radical change in the gene is known as a mutation. Here ends the historical background to Darwin's book.
As for evolutionists being 'racist' with regard to human species, that was not what Darwin's book was about. However, the public quickly began to think in terms of less-evolved (hence 'inferior') species of humans, helped by illustrations published all over the place, showing artists' impressions of animalistic-looking humanoids alongside photos of primitive tribal groups (once cameras were invented). What with that and the development of genetics, it wasn't long before eugenics was in vogue. And today we have the science of 'gene-editing' which no doubt will greatly alleviate suffering in humans, but we all know the dark side to that - the potential to start eliminating undesirable (i.e. inferior) genetic traits to produce a super-race. Modern eugenics.
- RichardLv 53 weeks ago
Why aren't you asking evolutionary biologists?
- Huh?Lv 73 weeks ago
There is so much wrong with your answer it is hard to decide where to start. First, Darwin was the first to recognize Evolution by Natural Selection, but his book is 160 years old. I don't understand why people like you believe all investigation, all further research stopped with the publication of his book. That is absurd. There are things Darwin got wrong which have been corrected, other things have been expanded upon, but in 160 years many things including genetics have provided evidence to support the basis of his theory.
The other thing that I can't understand is how you can get a high school diploma with such a profoundly poor understanding of basic scientific principles. There is no such thing as "more evolved." Natural Selection is about the traits that give a species (as a population) the best possible chance of surviving and procreating in their environment.
A cockroach is equally evolved as a species as a human. They are well suited to survive in their environment, are prolific in creating off spring, and will probably survive long after the human race is extinct. The idea that we are "more evolved is a flawed understanding of Evolution. It is not a ladder with a species reaching the next rung on their climb to the top, it is a tree with species branching off from a common ancestor. Your entire question about race is nonsensical, you clearly are scientifically illiterate.
You need a basic biology course at the grade school level. You should stop talking about evolution until you take such a course because all you have done with this question is expose your ignorance or stupidity. I am serious, you have made yourself look like a fool.
- Anonymous3 weeks ago
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
- PyriformLv 73 weeks ago
Oh dear! You've been trying to learn about evolution from Creationists, haven't you?
The 'favoured races' in the title, 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life' refers to plants, not people. As far as I know 'race' is not used as a scientific term with regards to people. It is more a social construct.
"Do you believe in Darwinian (macro) evolution?"
I would not say I believe in 'Darwinian evolution'. The science has moved on since Darwin's time, but the basics have been confirmed by evidence.
"At the very least does that not then make you unintentionally racist?"
"If you believe in macro evolution isn't it true that you must believe that some races or people groups are more evolved than others?"
No. What do you even mean by 'more evolved'? We have all been evolving for the same length of time. I suppose some groups which have moved more than others will have been subjected to greater environmental pressures than others, and may have gone through more evolutionary change. How does recognising that possibility make one racist, and in what way is it any different from what a Creationist would believe. If you accept that micro-evolution has happened in the human species to produce slight variations, then you believe just the same thing abut us as I do.
"Forcing you to place them on a higher/more important sociatal level than others? Simply because of their appearance and location of ancestry?While simultaneously hoping for the demise of "less evolved" races or people groups? "
Why do you keep using question marks instead of commas? Those are not separate sentences. They are all clauses within one clumsily long sentence. No. The fact that some people may have been subject to more environmental pressure than others does not mean that they are on a higher level.
- PaulLv 73 weeks ago
Biological evolution is not something people "believe in". It is a well understood natural process people either know something about, or are ignorant of. The human species only appeared fairly recently in evolutionary time, and therefore has not had time to form subspecies, or any other significant genetic differences. And since we now have the means for all the different groups of humans to meet one another and breed with one another, even the various forms that have evolved are becoming less distinct.
- bartyLv 73 weeks ago
If you had actually read the book, which you clearly haven't, you'd know that the "races" in the full title does not refer to races of humans but to variations within a population of plants or animals. The book does not deal with humans. So tell us, why are you spreading malicious lies? Is it out of ignorance, or out of pure malice? Which religion taught you that lies were acceptable?