Um, I’m completely unaware of any difference between evolution and Darwinism. Are you using the latter to mean “The theory of evolution is true, plus eugenics is desirable”?
Evolution was fairly popular (at least, in some places) before Darwin and arguably many modern people have a pre-Darwinian (teleological) understanding of the idea. Darwin’s grandfather wrote poems about evolution before Charles was born, and some of his school mates were followers of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. There seem to be many people that wear “evolution” as attire (presumably to identify with some “educated”, “scientific”, or “secular” tribe), but that don’t really understand natural selection or think it stopped operating on humans some tens-of-thousands of years ago.
“Common descent”, “natural selection”, and “speciation through reproductive separation” are distinct elements of evolutionary theory. The idea of common descent is a lot older than the idea that effectively all biodiversity stems from variable survival and reproduction, and the formation of isolated gene pools.
Might this not just mean it changed direction, faced with an environment where strength size and intelligence were all now less reproductively important than resistance to disease?
Might this not just mean it changed direction, faced with an environment where strength size and intelligence were all now less reproductively important than resistance to disease?
If you mean that there was no such decrease, then that contradicts what I’ve read.
I do not mean that. I assumed MixedNuts was parodying the people I was referring to that don’t understand Darwinian evolution (but think they do), since his argument makes the same kind of error (“directional”, teleological evolution) I was lamenting.
Evolution was fairly popular (at least, in some places) before Darwin and arguably many modern people have a pre-Darwinian (teleological) understanding of the idea. Darwin’s grandfather wrote poems about evolution before Charles was born, and some of his school mates were followers of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. There seem to be many people that wear “evolution” as attire (presumably to identify with some “educated”, “scientific”, or “secular” tribe), but that don’t really understand natural selection or think it stopped operating on humans some tens-of-thousands of years ago.
“Common descent”, “natural selection”, and “speciation through reproductive separation” are distinct elements of evolutionary theory. The idea of common descent is a lot older than the idea that effectively all biodiversity stems from variable survival and reproduction, and the formation of isolated gene pools.
But it did! Look at the decrease in height, weight, and bone and dental health just after agriculture took off.
Might this not just mean it changed direction, faced with an environment where strength size and intelligence were all now less reproductively important than resistance to disease?
I’m pretty sure MixedNuts was joking.
If you mean that there was no such decrease, then that contradicts what I’ve read.
I think they mean MixedNuts drew the opposite conclusion to the one his referenced facts support.
I do not mean that. I assumed MixedNuts was parodying the people I was referring to that don’t understand Darwinian evolution (but think they do), since his argument makes the same kind of error (“directional”, teleological evolution) I was lamenting.