A quote 31 Oct 2007 From J. B. S. Haldane’s 1932 The Causes of Evolution: … I must … discuss a fallacy which is, I think, latent in most Darwinian arguments, and which has been responsible for a good deal of poisonous nonsense which has been written on ethics in Darwin’s name, especially in Germany before the [first world] war and in America and England since. The fallacy is that natural selection will always make an organism fitter in its struggle for the environment. This is clearly true when we consider members of a rare and scattered species. It is only engaged in competing with other species, and in defending itself against inorganic nature. But as soon as a species becomes fairly dense matters are entirely different. Its members inevitably begin to compete with one another. I am not thinking only of the active and often conscious competition between higher animals, but also of the struggle for mere space which goes on between neighbouring plants of closely packed associations. … [p119] Evolution Race and politics Social evolution
Cognition 50 words for snow 5; species 15 Oct 20171 Mar 2019 Series Conceptual confusion The economics of cultural categories What are phenomena? What counts as sociocultural? Species Constructing phenomena Explanations and phenomena All classificatory terms are impossible of exact definition. Their use always has and always will depend upon the consensus of opinion of those best qualified by wisdom, experience and… Read More
Evolution Nature makes no leaps… 26 Jan 2008 Reacting to Jerry Coyne’s guest blog on The Loom, Brian Switek at Laelaps discusses, among other things, the objection to Darwin’s theories that Huxley put forward, both in personal correspondence and in print: The only objections that have occurred to me are 1st that you have loaded yourself with an… Read More
Evolution On the supposed bottleneck 70,000 years ago 3 May 2008 John Hawks has a very nice post for people with basic math, explaining why a recent press release announced that 70,000 years ago the human species encountered a population bottleneck of 2000 individuals, and why it’s most likely wrong. In the process he explains effective population size. It’s a tad… Read More
Several points. One is that leading evolutionary theorists were attacking eugenics before the second world war. Another is that so-called adaptationists were not always keen to draw moral conclusions about superiority of variants and took into account the role of non-ecological selection. Later in the same book, Haldane allows that Kropotkin’s “mutual cooperation” is also a factor in evolution. Given the myth of some that neo-Darwinism, so-called, was always a moral claim, that only survival matters, and so on. Think of it as a signpost along the way…