Racial Evolution 101

Let's look at that whole paragraph, shall we.

"HE WHO wishes to decide whether man is the modified descendant of some pre-existing form, would probably first enquire whether man varies, however slightly, in bodily structure and in mental faculties; and if so, whether the variations are transmitted to his offspring in accordance with the laws which prevail with the lower animals. Again, are the variations the result, as far as our ignorance permits us to judge, of the same general causes, and are they governed by the same general laws, as in the case of other organisms; for instance, by correlation, the inherited effects of use and disuse, &c.? Is man subject to similar malconformations, the result of arrested development, of reduplication of parts, &c., and does he display in any of his anomalies reversion to some former and ancient type of structure? It might also naturally be enquired whether man, like so many other animals, has given rise to varieties and sub-races, differing but slightly from each other, or to races differing so much that they must be classed as doubtful species? How are such races distributed over the world; and how, when crossed, do they react on each other in the first and succeeding generations? And so with many other points."

Now, reading the paragraph you should see what is going on. Darwin is merely asking if there is variety within humans. If you take a walk down the street, you will see that this is true. From reading the whole paragraph, it may also be clear that when Darwin spoke of races, he was speaking about variety within the species.

Now, was Darwin a racist? In the light of 21st century values he probably was. In the light of the values of his day, he would have been considered a liberal. Someone who spoke out against slavery.

But my question for you is why should this matter? Let's take the extreme position that Darwin was the worst man to ever live. How does that change modern biology? He could have been a racist to the core but that does not affect the study of evolution in the centuries since his death.

You seem to think that you can disprove an old earth through slander. It doesn't work. Try going after the actual evidence if you think evolution is so flawed. Going after the man is usually a sign of weakness in the position being advocted or else the facts would be used.

Still waiting on your citation for paleontologists giving up on using fossil remains to track the evolution of man.

 

I believe others were already beginning to recognize evolution before Darwin came along. Even if he had never been born, the science still would have been born, just you would be vilifying some other poor soul. It would still be the lynchpin that holds all of biology together.

 

There have not been other species of humans? Now, which of the following were fully human and which were non-human apes? And why?

Homo neanderthalensis
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo erectus
Homo rudolfensis
Homo habilis

And where is my citation justifying your claim that scientist have given up on the fosill record?

 

Come on. Please play the game. Give me some morphology reasons why you think these things are all fully human, as in Homo sapiens. It makes things much more interesting. Otherwise I'll have to spend a lot of time showing you why each of these are different species. It takes so long, I'll have to post links that you will not read. Then we will get no where.

 

Please, go ahead. By all means let's see if you can quote them in context.

I have yet to show you any pictures.

You go philosophical rather than morphology because you know that morphology is against you.

 

Does Pilbeam believe we evolved from apes or not? If he does, why are you quoting him? If he accepts human evolution, then all you can do is selectively pull out parts of what he has to say that you think might support your position while ignoring the greater part that shows that evolution is, in fact, true.

As for this quote, I told you the same thing in the last few days. There are a number of ancestors and we are not entirely sure which path is the right one. Some of the species we have fossils of were truely on the path to modern humans. Some were side branches, deadends. We do not always know which is which. There are likely even species that we do not know of which could be branches or could be the trunk. So specifically which path to draw can be debated. But it does not change that we have evolved.

 

Pilbeam is a supporter of evolution. To quote him, you are ignoring the bulk of the evidence he presents to pull out snippets that you can present as supporting your case. I fail to find that method very convincing as you must ignore most of what he says on the topic. Furthermore, since you are ignoring so much of what he has to say, it casts doubt on whether the quotes you actually use would be understood the same when presented in the context of his actually writings as they seem to be in the manner you present them.

As for the quote, again all we have is another quote that says the same thing I told you a few days ago and the previous quote you posted. There is not agreement on exactly which path through the fossils we have is the true path to humans. Some of the ones we have are likely side branches. There may even be direct ancestors for which we have no examples. That does nothing to change the collection of ancestors that we do have showing a progression from like the other apes to humans.

This kind of quoting also shoots the idea that evolution is a grand conspiracy in the foot. You are showing us that there is healthy debate within the scientific community. Scientists are fully willing to point out problems and shortcomings. You just confuse debate with fatal problems.

 

Another quote making the same statement. So we are going to keep making hay over the fact that the tree of life is bushy and when looking back in time at it we sometimes have trouble deciding which parts are the trunks and which parts are the branches. They still show we evolved even if we cannot tell the exact path.

You are also still making the mistake of quoting someone who does not hold your opinion. To do so, you are ignoring the bulk of her work and likely quoting her in a way where the true meaning would be different if it were in the context of the rest of her writing.

Are you quoting Jones and Rouhani next? If so, please read the discussion on puncuated equilibrium first.

 

Let's see.

Jones and Rouhani are referring to PE. Most change takes place in small isolated groups over relatively short periods of time. Therefore it is rare to catch change in the act. But it happens.

Maybe you should look up and read "A New Skull of Early Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia." Vekua, Lordkipanidze, Rightmire et al, Science, Vol.287, pg 85-89, July 5, 2002. They discuss a find in Georgia of skulls believed to be intermediate between H. hablis and H. erectus.

For Ridley, I simply offer you the following quote from him.

"Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media.
...
In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven.
...
So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy.
...
These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature."

This is from Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?" "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 June 1981. What Ridley is saying is that there is nothing wrong with the fossil record, but that there are at least three avenues that are even more convincing than the fossil record. Context, my brother.

Without context, and you have provided no references, I have no idea what Martin is talking about but I imagine that it is equally useless to your case in context.

You have to be quoting these guys out of context. If you look at the entire body of work of these people, the picture is clear. Evolution happened and happens. Why do you ignore all their work if you want to quote them?

 

No. It does not even take a trained scientist to see the differences between the species found. It is not a matter just of size. If I were to give you the skulls of Shaq and Mary Lou Retton, I think you would be able to tell they were of the same species despite the incredible difference in size between the two. Not to mention the differences in race and gender. Go ahead and try it for yourself. Follow this link to the Smithsonian and look through the skulls. Even you without any specialized training should be able to see the differences that mean these were different species and not just variations of one species.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

Now there is a point to be made in what you said. There have certainly been cases where members of the same species were classified into different species based on size or even gender. So what you said is not completely without merit. But I think most examples of this have been purged and consolidated.

There is no mental construct required. Go look at the skulls for yourself. Do not even read the accompanying text. Just look.

They are not contradicting themselves if you look at their complete works. Your Ridley quote is a great example. He is a zoologist and he thinks that the zoological evidence is the best. He thinks that the fossil record is the fourth best for evolution after the evidence from his own field. He is not calling evolution nor the fossil record into question.

And thanks for the high praise of calling evolution a theory. There is not much higher praise in science.