Richard94611

There is a new book out called "Darwin's Sacred Cause" that describes some of Darwin's intellectual background. There was in his time great controversy about Blacks -- whether they were inferior, or even whether they were a separate species. Darwin had seen terrible examples of the mistreatment of slaves during his trip aboard the Beagle, and this served merely to harden his conviction that slavery was a terrible sin. The interplay between the mistreatment of slaves he witnessed, the intellectual ferment in England, the United States and Jamaica regarding whether or not slaves were the same species as Homo Sapiens, and his growing realization, as he studied more and more, that separate species were not "created one by one by God," but were the product of evolutionary forces are all described in detail in this book. "Darwin's Sacred Cause" by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, provides a type of background to the study of evolution that most of us have never been aware of.

Alicia Loc: NYC

************
Thank you. I'll be looking for the book, or ordering it online, as soon as the streets get cleared here.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

It always amazes me when people have to try to justify themselves or their race. Some go to extremes trying to find historical or scientific information to "prove" that they are just as good or knowledgeable as everyone else. The main problem in day-to-day life is that when you choose to dexify, you almost always sound guilty-as-charged. Posts like this keep in the immediate memory that there are differences in humans, and between races. Simply put, those that are pressed to find information that validate themselves or their race almost always see some part of themselves where they feel insecure, perhaps even wondering-fearing-believing that it must be true.

I may be wrong about your post.... you may be the self-appointed librarian for OPP and only suggesting a book, which in your opinion is good. If this is true, I will look for your recommended reading that highlights other races, history, or positions within the evolutionary process.

Richard94611

Pennylynn wrote:

I may be wrong about your post.... you may be the self-appointed librarian for OPP and only suggesting a book, which in your opinion is good. If this is true, I will look for your recommended reading that highlights other races, history, or positions within the evolutionary process.

Yes, I know how to read -- and even to write, since I have written four published books. But I am really not sure of what it is that you are trying to say. I came across a book that has some fascinating information about an important event in intellectual history -- the publication of Darwin's "Origin of the Species." I am not the self-appointed librarian for OPP, but I am definitely suggesting a book I found fascinating.

I am not going to dwell much on Darwin and discuss further books by or about him.

But I am going to suggest another book in which I found answers to another question I have had for many of my 77 years. "Why is it that Europeans conquered Africans instead of Africans conquering Europeans." The book is "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared M. Dimond. The answer to the question has nothing to do with intelligence and little to do with technology. I enjoyed this book because it was very well-written and contains a huge amount of information.

But, again, I don't consider myself as anybody's self-appointed librarian. Surely there are other people in this forum who read.

Kay Littrell

About 40% of Neanderthal DNA can be found in human DNA and all European and Oriental humans possess somewhere between 1% to 4% of Neanderthal DNA.

Sub-Saharan Africans on the other hand carry no Neanderthal genes. So in some regards Africans conquered Europe, although they did it one spermatozoa at a time.

eden

Thank you for the scholarly post and book review. A refreshing change from the neanderthal theater we have witnessed here in recent times.

PeterS

Oh it wouldn't hurt to have a book club. We bash each other over the head all the time it might be nice to have some reference. I'm in the middle of reading "What Paul Meant" by Garry Willis that's pretty revealing about on of the more important authors of the New Testament. Did you know that Thomas Jefferson viewed him as the "first corrupter of Jesus Christ?" I didn't, or that Nietzsche called Paul in the "Antichrist" the Dysangelist "the bad news bearer?" Or that George Bernard Shaw stated in 1928 that "it would have been better if Paul had never been born." But hey, I don't want to give too much away but it would be a good read, especially for those amongst us who think the bible perfect and without contradiction because, apparently, there are more than a few scholars who view it as severely flawed because of one of the principle author's of the NT.

RWNJ

How was evolution an important event? It has contributed nothing of value. In fact, if it had never been "invented" nothing would have changed, except for millions of people being deceived.

Richard94611

The very wording of your question shows that you are not thinking clearly.

RWNJ

My thinking is crystal clear. Can you name one benefit that evolution gave us? Just one.

PeterS

That's a bit like asking 'what benefit can you give to being able to finally see?' Modern biology is largely a product of evolution. Modern Medicine wouldn't exist save for our understanding of the evolution of disease causing organisms. Genetics and the genome are products of evolution. In fact, evolution has painted just about every corner of our world today...

RWNJ

BZZZZZZZT! Wrong again. There is no scientific evidence that evolution ever happened. Every discovery we've made in genetics is the result of the science of genetics. Also, disease causing organisms do not evolve. Viruses can exchange genetic information. But they are still the same virus. Bacteria can build an immunity to antibiotics, but it is not the result of evolution. You'd know this if you just did a little research. Why don't you do that? Google why bacteria gain immunity to antibiotics.

PeterS

The only thing evolution means "is to change." How can a bacteria build an immunity to an antibiotic if not through change? You are simply being obstinate under the pretense that if you keep your head in the sand long enough you are right. Evolutionists have given more that ample proof that Darwin's theory is fact. It's you who needs to learn to use google and stop pestering the rest of us...

RWNJ

Definition: Evolution.
the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

There is no evidence of increasing complexity in any life form. NONE! And what some people call evolution is nothing but adaptation. They are not the same thing. A living organism can only work with what's available. This is a scientific fact. There is not one example of DNA becoming more complex. Does it change? Yes. It does. But it does not become more complex. Mutations, the driving force of this mythical theory of evolution, destroys information. It does not create. It never has. It never will. Prove me wrong.

Alicia Loc: NYC

*******************
All of the scientific discoveries you mentioned have come about through evolution. Disease causing organisms do evolve as a protection against medicines man has created to fight them. Viruses that change genetic information evolve into different viruses. The same with bacteria. I believe you're just looking to see how you can screw things up with the use of semantics.

As an instructor I have found that today's kids have abilities for learning that those of 30 years ago did not have. Why do you believe that every generation, since time immemorial, has grown smarter than the preceding one? Even the physical shape of humanity has changed or haven't you noticed that today's young are, in general, taller and more slender? Take a look at sports today. Those involved are breaking records all over the place. They're still working with what is available to them. The only difference is that "mutation" has caused them to become more capable. That's the meaning of evolution.

The elders have always complained that they cannot understand "this new generation." That's genetics. Constant change for improvement of one's kind.