Two questions here, and it would probably help if I told you that I’m currently debating a white supremacist on my blog (probably fruitless, but if I can help one ignorant, then it’s worth the effort).
He has asserted that “whites are still 100,000 years more evolved that the blacks, even Darwin admitted as much.” Does Darwin actually say that in The Origin of Species? Even anything that could be construed to say that?
I need an example of a place where Darwin was wrong in The Origin of Species, so that if the above quote exists, I can show the guy that Darwin made mistakes, anyway.
If he did say that, it wouldn’t have been in origin of the species, it would’ve been in his later book, the descent of man. I’ve never read it, so I can’t give you any advice. But I highly doubt it, there is no such thing as “more evolved” that’s a mis-conception. Evolution is not a one way path. And if anything was to be more adapted to the environment, it would be blacks, not whites.
And even so, 100, 000 years of evolution won’t barely put a dent in anything.
As I recall, Darwin sort of leaned toward the inheritance of acquired characteristics. I’m quite sure that he mentioned that the hands of the children of laborers were larger on average than the hands of the children of the gentry.
Mendel’s work on the genetics of inherited characteristics was either still in the future, or else it was buried deep in some obscure library and wouldn’t come to general light for another 50 years or so and Darwin had no real mechanism with which he could explain his theory on that level.
Darwin had the facts of what happens and lots of data to support his view of the facts but he had no theoretical foundations for an explantion of the “cause” of those facts.
Well if you can’t even get him to admit that there’s no such thing as “more evolved” then I don’t think that you can prove what you’re trying to prove. Because that’s the basis of the entire argument. We can’t talk in terms of more evolved because there isn’t such a thing. And I very much doubt Darwin said anything laong those lines as well.
Tell him to stand out in the sun doing hard labour all day next to a black person doing the same thing, and see who comes off better? Tell him his poor white skin and lack of muscle will pale in comparison when push comes to shove.
XWalrus2
If you give him an example of a mistake Darwin may have made in “Origin of Species” then you are likely to get into a Creationism argument with him.
Granted if he’s talking about evolution that seems unlikely but still he may suddenly become a Creationist.
Everything alive today, from you and me to the E. coli bacteria living in our guts, has evolved for exactly the same length of time. (Assuming life only started once on the planet)
“In the future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be securely based on the foundation already well laid by Mr. Herbert Spencer, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Much light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history.”
That last sentence is pretty much the extent of Darwin’s discussion on the evolution of humans in The Origin of Species. So, in terms of an absolute true or false, it is false that Darwin said any such thing in Origin.
Some others of Darwin’s writtings do indicate that he adhered to the general philosophy of his era - that Whites were superior to pretty much everyone else. However, a couple of his writings stand out in this regard:
“I believe if the world was searched, no lower grade of man could be found…Their red skins filthy and greasy, their hair entangled, their voices discordant, their gesticulation violent and without any dignity. Viewing such men, one can hardly make oneself believe that they are fellow creatures placed in the same world.” Here, he was speaking of the Fuegians of South America.
“Those who look tenderly at the slave owner and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put themselves into the position of the latter; what a cheerless prospect, with not even a hope of change! Picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little children - those objects which nature urges even the slave to call his own - being torn from you and sold like beasts to the first bidder! And these deeds are done and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbors as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that his Will be done on earth! It makes one’s blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty.”
I would think it evident that whatever his beliefs toward the various races of men, he would not have stated what the indivdual claimed he had. As others have mentioned, I’d ask for a cite, where specifically he supposedly “admitted as much”.
Darwin himself wrote in a letter to Hugh Falconer in 1862, “I look at it as absolutely certain that very much in the Origin will be proved rubbish; but I expect and hope that the framework will stand.”
Darwin was, indeed, a believer in the inheritance of acquired characters, as David Simmons mentioned. Unlike Lamarck, however, he felt they were a lesser force in molding organisms.
Also, in earlier editions of Origin, he also made an unfortunate speculation about the origin of whales (or whale-like animals) from bears:
“In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.”
This example was widely criticized (as being profoundly silly, if for no other reason, even in his day!), and he eventually retracted the example and removed it from later editions (in my copy, for example, only the first sentence is included).
Lack of muscle? Please explain this to a guy who is descended from a culture who thinks tossing telephone poles around is the height of fun, and at only 5’7" can himself incline leg press close to 900 pounds.
My concern is that in your explanation you may leave open the possibility that if some groups of people are stronger than others, then obviously those that are weaker have to be smarter to survive and compete. A position I find objectionable. If the reality is different then I guess I’ll have to adjust my worldview.
No that’s true. But it depends on what the guys means is more “evolved”. I was trying to make the point, that in a physical competition, this guy may pale. Where as in the real world, he may be the stronger one. It all depends on the situation. Hence, there being no such thing as “more evolved”. (and to think there’s a thread open about the incorrect use of quotation marks"
Your first mistake is trying to debate with a white supremacist.
Then his statement makes it clear that he does not, like many, understand evolution. There is no such thing as ‘more evolved’, so I doubt Darwin said any such thing. Once we set aside that, the rest of his statement makes no sense.
I would concentrate on this rather than worrying what Darwin did or did not say.
Like I said in the OP, being a paid member of the SDMB, it would almost be wrong to just turn away from him. How else can you fight ignorance but one at a time?
Don’t waste your time arguing with someone who doesn’t even give citations. It’s not worth it. The guy you’re arguing with hasn’t even read Darwin himself, so he doesn’t remotely understand what he’s talking about. Even if you were to disprove one of his claims, he’ll just retreat to another ridiculous claim. He’s just attempting to make you spend your time making sense of his absurd claims.
Well, I kind of implied it in “(probably fruitless, but if I can help one ignorant, then it’s worth the effort)”, but you’re right, I didn’t say it outright.
And yeah, it is paying. Paid would imply that they pay me.
Why is this silly? He did not say whales came from bears, only something as monstrous as a whale could be produced from a bear, given enough time -which I am sure is true. As whales probably came from land-animals at one stage, it wasn’t a bad guess.
