Darwin on the Rise and Fall of Human Races, Part 1 of 2

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (London: Penguin, 2004 [reprint of second edition, London: John Murray, 1879]).

Western intellectual life today is characterized by a marked schizophrenia. On the one hand, virtually everyone accepts the scientific theory of Charles Darwin concerning the emergence and evolution of the various species in the world, including humanity, through the process natural selection. The only exceptions to this rule are a few Creationist hold-outs. On the other hand, our culture denies the biological reality of race and the relevance of hereditarian thinking to human societies. Our egalitarian culture rejects heredity’s implications in toto — both the descriptive (in-born human differences between individuals and races) and prescriptive (e.g. eugenics). Given how taboo racialist thinking still is, it is then useful — in order to think freely — to go back to the roots of evolutionary thinking by looking at what Darwin himself had to say about human evolution and racial differences.

The concept of race or lineage is central to Darwin’s evolutionary thinking. His classic The Origin of Species is indeed subtitled By Means of Natural Selection of the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. In one place, Darwin defines a race as the “successive generations” of a particular population (102). Darwin’s model for evolutionary change is simple and powerful: every species will tend to bear too many offspring, leading to overpopulation, a huge percentage of these will die before reaching maturity or in competition with others (whether of the same species or not), those who survive this struggle will be those with the traits best suited for their particular environment. The constant generation and culling of “races,” that is to say new of populations with different traits, is then central to his system, which also applies to human evolution.

The foundation of Darwin’s entire system is the reality of heredity — that the offspring of plants, animals, and humans tend to inherit the physical and/or mental characteristics of their parents. Concerning humans, Darwin follows the observations of the ancient philosophers in asserting that man’s specificity is in being both a social and rational creature.[1] This, along with his free hands, have enabled humanity’s remarkable conquest of the Earth: our intelligence and dexterity allowed our prehistoric forbears to fashion tools, our social instincts enabled us to work together to bring down much larger animals, and the combination gave us a unique ability to adapt to the most varied environments. Darwin says concerning intelligence and sociability: “The supreme importance of these characters has been proved by the final arbitrament of the battle for life” (68). Our hands and brains were incidentally developed at considerable cost: we are awkward bipeds and the tension between enormous heads and narrow hips means that childbirth is quite dangerous to our women.

Darwin takes differences in intellectual ability for granted, both between individuals and races: “The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention the greater differences between the men of distinct races, is so notorious that not a word need here be said” (45). Furthermore: “The individuals of the same species graduate in intellect from absolute imbecility to high excellence” (100). He had no doubt that psychological traits such as personality and intelligence were heritable:

[I]n regard to mental qualities, their transmission is manifest in our dogs, horses, and other domestic animals.[2] Besides special tastes and habits, general intelligence, courage, bad and good temper, &c., are certainly transmitted. With man we see similar facts in almost every family; and we now know through the admirable labours of Mr [Francis] Galton, that genius which implies a wonderfully complex combination of high faculties, tends to be inherited; and, on the other hand, it is too certain that insanity and deteriorated mental powers likewise run in families. . . .

Domesticated animals vary more than those in a state of nature; and this is apparently due to the diversified and changing nature of the conditions to which they have been subjected. In this respect the different races of man resemble domesticated animals, and so do the individuals of the same race, when inhabiting a very wide area, like that of America. We see the influence of diversified conditions in the more civilised nations; for the members belonging to different grades of rank, and following different occupations, present a greater range of character than do the members of barbarous nations. (45–46)

Humanity’s Moral Improvement Through Perpetual Tribal Warfare

An “uncontacted tribe” in the Amazon responds to a helicopter.

Darwin asserts that the same relentless struggle for survival was the driver for humanity’s evolution into a more intelligent, social, and even moral being. Human tribes spread across the globe, reproduced beyond the ability of their environment to sustain them, and entered into relentless competition and warfare with other tribes.

Darwin considers the emergence of pro-social traits such as sympathy, love of kin, shame, and regret to be central to human evolution. These feelings were certainly not universal however. He observes that prehistoric tribes, like modern savage tribes,[3] were perpetually at war with one another. “It is no argument against savage man being a social animal, that the tribes inhabiting adjacent districts are almost always at war with each other; for the social instincts never extend to all the individuals of the same species” (132).

Darwin firmly believes that group selection was the mechanism by which many human psychological traits emerged. Group selection means that traits not necessarily beneficial to the individual but rather to the group (such as altruism) spread through competition between groups (for instance: one tribe defeats and exterminates another tribe through its individuals’ superior willingness to sacrifice themselves). The group selection hypothesis is considered controversial today in some evolutionary circles. Darwin for his part wrote:

A community which includes a large number of well-endowed individuals increases in number, and is victorious over other less favoured ones; even although each separate member gains no advantage over the others of the same community . . . [Certain mental] faculties have been chiefly, or even exclusively, gained for the benefit of the community, and the individuals thereof, have at the same time gained an advantage indirectly. (83)

Strikingly, Darwin affirms that humanity was intellectually and even morally improved through such relentless tribal warfare:

[N]atural selection arising from the competition of tribe with tribe . . . together with the inherited effects of habit, would, under favourable conditions, have sufficed to raise man to his present high position in the organic scale. (85)

These [intellectual and moral] faculties are variable; and we have every reason to believe that the variations tend to be inherited. Therefore, if they were formerly of high importance to primeval man and to his ape-like progenitors, they would have been perfected or advanced through natural selection. Of the high importance of the intellectual faculties there can be no doubt, for man mainly owed to them his predominant position in the world. We can see, that in the rudest state of society, the individuals who were the most sagacious, who invented and used the best weapons or traps, and who were the best able to defend themselves, would rear the greatest number of offspring. The tribes, which included the largest number of men thus endowed, would increase in number and supplant other tribes. (153)

When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came into competition, if (other circumstances being equal) the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other. Let it be born in mind how all-important in the never-ceasing wars of savages, fidelity and courage must be. . . . Selfish and contentious people will not cohere, and without coherence nothing can be effected. A tribe rich in the above qualities would spread and be victorious over other tribes: but in the course of time it would, judging from all past history, be in its turn overcome by some other tribe still more highly endowed. Thus the social and moral qualities would slowly to advance and be diffused throughout the world. (155)

Darwin also argued that humans had an in-born proclivity for other pro-social behaviors, such as language and religiosity.[4]

Adaptive Traditional Culture

Mankind’s specificity is also in being both a genetic and profoundly cultural being. Our individual and collective behavior are powerfully influenced by both our genetic inheritance and our particular, highly-fungible cultural norms and practices. We would expect the tribes with both a genetic propensity and a culture favoring group-solidarity and organization to overcome less well-endowed tribes.

[A]n increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. (157)

Indeed, Darwin sees traditional cultures in general as prescribing, in a very rough-and-ready way, particular norms and behavior on the individual which are beneficial to the community as a whole:

The judgment of the community will generally be guided by some rude experience of what is best in the long run for all the members; but this judgment will not rarely err from ignorance and weak powers of reasonings. Hence the strangest customs and superstititons, in complete opposition to the true welfare and happiness of mankind, have become all-powerful throughout the world. (146)

The adaptive nature of traditional culture is notably evident in Herodotus’ encyclopedic overview of the nations of the ancient world: these typically emphasize adherence to local cultures, family formation, filial piety, loyalty to one’s kin and nation against foreigners, and martial prowess and manliness.[5]

Nature’s Communitarian Ethos

Bees commonly exterminate their fellows if this is beneficial to the hive.

Darwin personally adhered to a liberal, high-minded and humane Christian-inspired morality typical of the Victorian middle classes. Yet, he cannot help but observe that nature’s law is extremely cruel, with the proverbial “favored races” often triumphing through a ruthless ethos brutally subordinating the interests of the individual to that of the group. Darwin takes the example of bees, an even more social animal than humans, who when under resource pressure exterminate superfluous individuals:

In the same manner as various animals have some sense of beauty, though they admire widely different objects, so they might have a have sense of right and wrong, though led by it to follow widely different lines of conduct. If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering. (122)

Darwin adds in a footnote that primitive human patterns are quite similar: “many or most savages [solve] the problem by female infanticide, polyandry and promiscuous intercourse” (122). (From a strictly evolutionary point of view, a human community under pressure from other tribes and a poor environment may benefit from fewer females, preferring to dedicate scarce resources to fighting males.)

Darwin’s critics were quite cognizant of the potential threat posed by his theory to liberal and Christian ethics. He writes:

Miss Cobbe, in commenting (‘Darwinism and his Morals’ ‘Theological Review’, April, 1872, pp. 188-191) on the same illustration, says, the principles of social duty would be thus reversed; and by this, I presume, she means that the fulfillment of social duty would tend to the injury of individuals; but she overlooks the fact, which she would doubtless admit, that the instincts of the bee have been acquired for the good of the community. She goes so far as to say that if the theory of ethics advocated in this chapter were ever generally accepted, ‘I cannot but believe that in the hour of their triumph would be sounded the knell of the virtue of mankind!’ It is to be hoped that the belief in the permanence of virtue on this earth is not held by many persons on so weak a tenure. (122-23)

Darwin observes that animal communities are collectivist and hierarchically organized, with different roles according to the nature of each individual, so as to optimize collective well-being and survival. When threatened, bull bison form a ring around the herd, protecting the young and females in the center (124). Put another way, the herd instinctively and collectively discriminates against males, putting their security at risk, so that the herd as a whole benefits from their superior strength and the sacrifice of their reduced reproductive value (sperm is far more easily replaced than ovaries).

Darwin adds that both herd animals and human tribes exterminate weaker members to promote the survival of the group:

[Animals] will expel a wounded animal from their herd, or gore or worry it to death. This is almost the blackest fact in natural history, unless, indeed, the explanation which has been suggested is true, that their instinct or reason leads them to expel an injured companion, lest beasts of prey, including man, should be tempted to follow the troop. In this case their conduct is not much worse than that of the North American Indians, who leave their feeble comrades to perish on the plains; or the Fijians, who, when their parents get old, or fall ill, bury them alive. (125)

Darwin concludes: “actions are regarded by savages, and were probably so regarded by primeval man, as good or bad, solely as they obviously affect the welfare of the tribe — not that of the species, nor that of an individual member of the tribe” (143).

Darwin claims that the “low morality of savages” is due to the limitation of sympathy to their own tribe and their inability to reason through the negative consequences of their behavior. He does not indiscriminately endorse such savage practices. His position is ambiguous, typical for evolutionary liberals, at once lamenting the cruelty and welcoming the evolutionary consequences of the brutal struggle of the survival of the fittest:

It is impossible not to regret bitterly, but whether wisely is another question, the rate at which man tends to increase; for this leads in barbarous tribes to infanticide and many other evils, and in civilised nations to abject poverty, celibacy, and to the late marriages of the prudent. But as man suffers from the same physical evils as the lower animals, he has no right to expect an immunity from the evils consequent on the struggle for existence. Had he not been subjected during primeval times to natural selection, assuredly he would never have attained to his present rank. (168)

Today, even seven decades after World War II, in the background of all this looms the legacy of Adolf Hitler. Evolutionary and hereditary principles were widely accepted in the early twentieth century. In that intellectual and cultural context, Hitler transformed his nation politically and culturally, believing that a zealous, communitarian, warlike, expansionary, racial, and ethno-nationalist ethos would enable Germany’s salvation and the biological and spiritual improvement of mankind. Hitler believed his leadership and politics adhered closely to what he called “the law of life.”[6] It is indeed an uncomfortable fact for many evolutionists that many of passages in Mein Kampf are eerily reminiscent of Darwin’s own account of human history, in particular the emergence of morality through eons of tribal warfare.

In the end, Darwin seems to endorse a communitarian ethic moderated and informed by reason (my emphasis):

In the case of the lower animals it seems much more appropriate to speak of their social instincts, as having been developed for the general good rather than for the general happiness of the species. The term, general good, may be defined as the rearing of the greatest number of individuals in full vigour and health, with all their faculties perfect, under the conditions to which they are subjected. As the social instincts both of man and the lower animals have no doubt been developed by nearly the same steps, it would be advisable to take as the standard of morality, the general good or welfare of the community, rather than the general happiness; but this definition would perhaps require some limitation account of political ethics. (145)

This argument appears to be a critique of English philosopher J. S. Mill’s argument for ‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number’ as the yardstick of morality. Instead, Darwin is advocating something remarkably close to the ancient principles of political philosophy, as notably expounded by Aristotle (whose background as a biologist actually informed his politics): the organization of society so as to enable the community’s collective flourishing, with individual roles and social goals appropriate according to the individual’s and the species’ particular biological nature (in the case of man, that of a rational social animal).

Personally, I believe the ancient republican principles are overwhelmingly superior to the modern and would endorse an Aristotelian-Darwinian political philosophy as particularly appropriate to our scientific age.

The ideas of Locke and Rousseau — extolling equality, rights, and the popular will as ends-in-themselves — have led to perpetual confusion among our people and to our inexorable collapse since the beginning the twentieth century. In 1914, we essentially dominated the world and made up a third of human population. Before 2100, a blink of an eye in historical let alone evolutionary terms, we will have lost control not only of our colonial empires but even of our own homelands, being reduced to minorities in not only North America but even Western Europe. We will make up less than 5 percent of the global population. The triumph of liberal-democracy’s individualist and egalitarian principles  have coincided with Europeans’ evolutionary suicide.

End of Part 1 of 2.


[1]Indeed, Darwin approvingly refers to the Roman philosopher-emperor Marcus Aurelius in places (121, 148). He also, like many philosophers, considers familial affection to be the foundation for social affection (129).

[2]Darwin acknowledges that humans had never so subjugated another human population as to carefully breed them as we do domestic animals (although, we might observe, human reproductive patterns have been profoundly influenced by very varied power asymmetries and socio-cultural norms). He notes however the existence of infanticidal eugenics in ancient Sparta and that Frederick William I of Prussia had created a regiment of tall grenadiers on whom “it is asserted that many tall men were reared in the villages inhabited by the grenadiers and their tall wives” (47).

[3]We recall the recent case of the Asian-American missionary John Allen Chau who visited the indigenous tribesmen of North Sentinel Island in order to convert them to Christianity and was promptly massacred by them. Between 1970 and 2005, tribal peoples killed about 120 workers of Brazil’s National Indian Foundation (FUNAI), mostly in episodes of first contact.

On the extreme cruelty of tribal peoples towards outsiders, Darwin observes that Amerindian women and children joyously participate in the torture of captives and that “common experience justifies the maxim of the Spaniard, ‘Never, never trust an Indian’” (142).

[4]Darwin writes:

There is no evidence that man was aboriginally endowed with the ennobling belief in the existence of an Omnipotent God. . . . If, however, we include under the term ‘religion’ the belief in unseen or spiritual agencies, the case is wholly different; for this belief seems to be universal with the less civilised races. Nor is it difficult to comprehend how it arose. As soon as the important faculties of the imagination, wonder, and curiosity, together with some power of reasoning, had become partially developed, man would naturally crave to understand what was passing around him, and would have vaguely speculated on his own existence. . . . The feeling of religious devotion is a highly complex one, consisting of love, complete submission to an exalted and mysterious superior, a strong sense of dependence, fear, reverence, gratitude, hope for the future, and perhaps other elements. No being could experience so complex an emotion until advanced in his intellectual and moral faculties to at least a moderately high level. (116–18)

Darwin argues that fear of God encourages, but is not necessary for, moral behavior.

[5]Guillaume Durocher, “Culture and Nationhood in the World of Herodotus: An Evolutionary Analysis,” The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 17, no.4, winter 2017–2018.  https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/07/08/culture-and-nationhood-in-the-world-of-herodotus-an-evolutionary-analysis/

[6]On which see Israeli historian Yuval Harari’s fairly balanced appraisal of Hitler: Guillaume Durocher, “Towards a Global Biopolitics?: Review of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankindby Yuval Noah Harari,” The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 1, Spring 2018. https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/12/29/towards-a-global-biopolitics-a-review-of-yuval-hararis-sapiens/

19 replies
  1. James Bowery
    James Bowery says:

    If it is the hive to which we “should” aspire, where are the citations to E. O. Wilson’s “The Social Conquest of Earth” which is rather more up to date than Darwin?

    http://longnow.org/seminars/02012/apr/20/social-conquest-earth/

    We are now able to identify the approximate point in primate evolution when gangs began to form: CHLCA

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor

    We are also able to identify a likely major contributor to the evolution of human eusociality in firemaking, resulting in conditions not unlike those conditions incipient to eusocial insects: progressive provisioning of young in a protected nest.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279739/

    But perhaps the most important feature of eusocial evolution is the parasitic castration of sterile worker castes as part of specialization — most essentially specialization of reproductive roles which Wilson describes as the sine qua non of eusociality.

    We’re at the threshold of being able to specialize reproduction in a profound way with the only barrier being the invention of an artificial womb in which the next generation specialized tissues of the body politic may be cultured.

    A Brave New World for The White Race!

    http://fairchurch.org/Harland-BraveNewWorld-ADifferentProjection-1984.pdf

  2. J
    J says:

    But the most “controversial” bit in Descent Of Man -the gap between- bit…is not mentioned here. Darwin believed the higher races would wipe out the others…I guess he could never have anticipated that they would end facilitating the uncontrolled population growth of the others. In one hundred years Africans will make up 40% of the world’s population. Get yer head around that one.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      “In one hundred years Africans will make up 40% of the world’s population.”

      Only if Whitey continues to feed them, and only if Whitey is still around.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      The reason the West eagerly embraces its own demise is because the circumstances today are new and never happened ever in the past, so ‘nature’ or ‘natural selection’ never had an opportunity to correct this self-harm behaviour.

      Having so much that you decided to be friendly and invite over other races (who are not friendly) to share it for altruistic reasons – this simply never happened in the past. This behaviour never manifest itself ever in the past in order to be ‘corrected’. It never had a chance to manifest itself because life was a struggle – now life is not a struggle and we can afford to be generous. This removal of the struggle for food and shelter never happened before. Now we are overfed and have too much. This is why we cannot learn from history, Never before in history have the strong and successful (and friendly) populations invited the weak (and unfriendly, just tribe-loyal) populations to join them and in the end to be conquered by them.

      It happens because the whites with lefty genes hate white races, as their lefty genes make them hate anything superior, which is just how they are wired to be, as it is a strategy their genes gave them – hate the better, gang together, take what the better have. A strategy that worked in the past in prehistoric times, but the lefty 15% were ‘meant to’ just carry on parasiting on the rest and were not ‘meant to ‘ actually take over and destroy the host.

      Those wired to be true lefties have an inner hatred of the better – we see this in everything they do – including hating Israel for being civilised in contrast to their arab neighbours (and this explains why the Right like Israel, as they are unaware that this support is not reciprocated). The left hate the better and as they identify their own race as better, therefore they hate their own race. It is in their genes and their is no logic to it, no self-interest, no gain, it is just a behaviour strategy that they are wired with that in another time and place might have conferred benefits, but now confers none. And they hate their own race with a passion. They devote their lives to acting on this hatred. Just look at their dedication to bringing down white S.Africa – they want to do the same to their own country.

      Now that the West is wealthy it has provided the conditions in which those whose passion is to hate and destroy anything better – it has provided the conditions in which they can act on their hate, such as providing them with the media and a political system in which those who WANT to be political end up in politics, whereas in the past politics was more about fighting for control of land.

      So our vast wealth has provided the circumstances in which the whites who hate the whites have been able to take over the culture and the leadership. These people now act to destroy the hated white race by inviting over other races to outnumber us.

      How many white people have genes that make them object strongly enough to actually do anything about it, even if ‘doing something’ only involves voting for a low-immigration candidate at election times instead of an open-borders politician? Actually, not many. But we do exist. The question is whether there will ever be geographical separation of these types, such as nationalists moving to the southern states, or Europeans moving to Poland.

      Another factor is how will the white behaviour change when white people are no longer safe and rich. Will they still let their left tell them to carry on hating themselves?

  3. jerry27
    jerry27 says:

    neither could they blush:

    12 Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore shall they fall among them that fall: in the time of their visitation they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.

    I heard Kris Rock make a cute joke that he is not racist, but his dick is.

    I mentioned in my 6 am local bible study group that since Jerimiah was not written for humunoids that could not blush (non-whites) they should not worry so much about the races that are in debt to “the race that blushes.” This seems to have struck a nerve, but they do not think I am serious.

    thanks,
    Jerry

  4. T L
    T L says:

    I am a proud white man, but we also have our faults, don’t we? We are suckers for a pyramid scheme, the first ones to sign up for a cult and enthusiastic consumers of junk science.

    Darwin’s theory is laughable. I always ask, what is the name of the process by which genetic sequencing, which sounds so benign but is actually everything, is altered by environmental changes? We have a name for photosynthesis, a name for digestion and another process name for say, cellular division. So, what is the name for the genetic deletion, addition and/or restructuring of the sequence to produce new species based solely on extenuating environmental conditions or any other existential pressure? I was never shown that video in school.

    If DNA is so acute and even conscientious of and adaptable to its environment, then it ought not be that difficult to place stem cells in an environmental test chamber and watch DNA work its magic. After all, that’s genetic response and modification at just a cellular level, forget systemic. Should be easily and quickly handled by evolution.

    To add complexity to an already dubious and, as yet, unknown resequencing process, the new genetic information has to be found to be reproducible and sustainable within the species’ existing community. As well as the other members of the hive have to find the individual socially acceptable so they don’t kill the mutant.

    And wouldn’t infanticide and femicide lead to a massive reduction of the genetic changes and advantages so desperately willed by this semi conscious process called evolution. After all, what if, evolution forbid, the child you just killed contains the genetic mutation and advantage you were all along hoping for? To play genetic roulette, you need as many participants as possible to expedite the cause and you need to also ensure you do not inadvertently stamp out a winning number, as it were.

    According to Darwinism, humans were being counter productive to their own advancement in this manner. Evolution should have quietly informed them the more genetic possibilities, the better, ergo murder is wrong. After all, evolution is capable of all sorts of guidance and even outright inspiration if one reads a science article today.

    Modern science attributes all the former acts of God to evolution. They have simply swapped an uncomfortable truth of an invested, Omnipotent God for a cold, unmerciful natural force that requires only their savage best. Science has made evolution the God they most desire, one powerful enough to transcend our capabilities but amoral enough to leave us the hell alone when dealing with personal shortcomings.

    Darwin claims that genetic mistakes, such as mutations, provide the species with a new genetic take on an existing environmental or existential problem and then is selected as advantageous or rejected if not. The problem is that genetic mutations almost always prove to be advantageously neutral at best, and most often detrimental to the mutant, often leading to a shortened life cycle for the mutant as well. In addition, the body does its best to either reject the mutation in vitro or to ensure it can’t reproduce should it make it through childbirth into a full adult. This fact is never ever discussed in classrooms.

    There are so many holes in Darwinian and evolutionary thought, from logical inconsistencies to just outright fraud and conjecture, that we could go on for days. Instead of proper inquisition of this fallacy, we have raised it to a place of metaphysics, thereby evolving evolution itself.

    We are such a crafty creature, if not still so totally beguiled as to what this life really is and its true purpose.

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      I have always seen the current view of Darwin’s theory, as it pertains to animals (other than humans) in particular, as an obvious fraud. In all of his observations in the Galapagos, there is not one reference of a finch becoming a turtle or an iguana, and vice versa.
      In the plant world, it seems that no one has ever seen a carrot become a rose.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      T L : “They have simply swapped an uncomfortable truth of an invested, Omnipotent God for a cold, unmerciful natural force”

      You weaken your argument by revealing that you have a commitment to an alternative explanation to Darwinism, ie a benign God, and that could be your motive for doubting evolution.

      Personally I have no such commitment and despite this I still consider Darwinism to be a weak theory that is protected from proper scrutiny due to having supporters who have a belief system (atheism) and that belief system is their motive for their support. I have no problem with the idea that we are here by some natural process that involves no god or miracles, but for me Darwinism fails as the possible explanation, simply because it makes predictions that are not fulfilled.

      Regarding a benign God – if there is a designer, the designer give clues that he is totally without compassion, as he designs some nasty viruses and diseases that exist only to cause misery, including the misery of the plague for the nuns and monks who served God, but had to stop doing so when they caught the plague that God created, and the combined effort of thousands of nuns and monks praying for God to protect them from the plague (praying being the way God told us to ask for him to do things) simply not working. If thousands of nuns praying achieves nothing, what kind of God is that?

      The world we see looks more like one designed by a computer program, totally indifferent to suffering.

      Darwinism makes many predictions. These are not fulfilled, but the theory is let off, like someone failing an exam but being given a pass anyway.

      One of these predictions is the one you mention. Nobel prizes and eternal fame awaits those who can produce the Holy Grail of Darwinism – namely a demonstration in the lab of the actual mechanism taking place. Fruit flies are used in the main for this, as they have so many eggs and such a short life cycle that they can easily go through in the lab the equivalent of that which is supposed to have led to significant human evolution – and the flies can go through such a period of significant change in a short time in the lab. This has been going on intensely for decades, ie seeking to demonstrate the mechanism in action with fruit flies. And using radiation to help the process. But decades later – nothing.

      All we see is extinctions, no new species. Even Darwin’s finches were shown to be able to interbreed.

      I will concede that if you put an insect in a dark cave to live for thousands of years it could lose its eyesight, or birds on an island could lose their ability to fly – but this is as close as we get to genetic changes, ie losing features, not gaining them.

  5. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    “the tension between enormous heads and narrow hips means that childbirth is quite dangerous to our women.”
    This should be an EASY challenge for evolution to resolve, and failure to do so suggests the scope for variation might have some limit. It is the same with dogs – they can be quickly changed over just a few decades with intense breeding be separated into labradors & pitbulls, but then – halt, no more change occurs. The limit – supplied by the gene pool – is reached. Dogs are currently strongly selected to communicate with humans and the theory of evolution predicts that therefore they will one day develop speech and talk to us. Anyone who has reservations about this happening is revealing a lack of faith in the theory – as this is clearly one of its predictions. You are subconsciously admitting that there are limits by doubting that dogs will talk.

    The reason this point is important is that there is no need to invoke full on evolution (ie new genes) in order to explain human race differences, or what is going on with our species at present. There is no need to go down that path and study evolution. All that needs to be studied is variation within a species, variation that can lead, over just a few years, as with dogs, to hugely significant differences. How does the fully theory in any way add value to this study? A theory that cannot even be demonstrated to produce new genes (as opposed to deteriorating genes) in fruit flies -a prediction – is not going to add value. When full evolution works, and can be shown to work, by all means include it. But until then we should stick to what is proved and known, not branch out in to that which is believed and assumed and not yet demonstrated.

    Also, discarding full evolution helps us to better understand our situation, or plight as a race, which seems to be more of a struggle to stop bad genes emerging, not a place in which new genes keep arising and take us up to a higher level. This has implications regarding cousin marriage, which, the full theory of evolution predicts, should reveal new and improved genes. This is why it is not helpful, as it stops us seeing ourselves how we are – struggling to not degenerate.

    And we can get significant variation between races that are not even put there or guided by ‘natural selection’, and are simply guided by random human preference. For example, in just a few years you could get a ginger haired race from a more brown haired one, even though Nature is not discriminating hair color herself, if the king and his family prefer the ginger haired, and take lots of non-ginger wives but have ginger-haired children, then form a sub group, and then for some reason geographically separate (eg exiled or flee). This is how changes occur more than from mutations.

    All the capacity for massive differences between races are already in our CURRENT genes and gene pool – just as they are with dogs – differences that give us the pitbull and the labrador, with no new genes involved in providing such differences. Personally I am not religious so I am not plugging creation. (Incidentally there are more than two options – evolution or 7-day miraculous creation).

    The fact that all human races can breed, this shows that the situation is comparable to dog breeds, not to full evolution, which involves mutations and new genes.

    When we discuss race differences, dog breeds are very relevant. If it is known for certain (as it is) that a pitbull has genes that make it as a breed/’race’ more aggressive, why should this not also apply to humans, ie that genes make some human races more prone to violence (or to possessing an inner feeling of hostility to other tribes)) ? There are rules that say this is not allowed, (equality and diversity legislation) and the only differences that Nature is allowed to make in humans are the physical ones we can see, and all the bell curves for all other features MUST fully align, but how does the current ‘scientific’ elite force Nature to comply with their rules? There are already precedents for Nature’s disobedience, for example, they ordered the planet to warm up according to their AGW theory and it defied them. Such insolence from the planet, disrespecting our scientists.

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      Excellent comment, thanks.
      One presumes that natural selection was at work in endowing the king (or his forebears) with those physiological/personality traits an authority figure must possess in order to rule successfully over others. A proclivity for red-heads in a humble peasant might have gone nowhere.

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        Trenchant – correct about the qualities of the king, and when such types fled/emigrated/formed a sub group, they would have the king’s qualities and also other shared values (some from the genes) as they were more closely related. As the king also took healthy females with good teeth etc this meant that such subgroups in such examples had a superior set of genes, and this is how changes occur in populations (sub groups forming) rather than changes occurring gradually to a large population.

  6. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    “Darwin adds that both herd animals and human tribes exterminate weaker members to promote the survival of the group:”

    And Nietzsche adds that it’s exactly this that produces genius, which, from thie Darwinian perspective could be seen as a combination of high learning ability and orientative flexibility. And both of those attributes could be seen as matters of intelligence and personality.

    The group’s focus is on what it sees as adaptability, and it soon achieves it. But, as a glance at history has proven, it’s never enough. Because, adaptation leads to conformity and the shadow of conformity is stupidity.

    And it’s this conformity become stupidity that keeps the group from seeing that its adaptational strategies are really maladaptive. This is exactly what the genius can see that the group can’t. And it’s the genius who has the courage to turn the tables on society and tell them that their obsession with stability is actually a maladaptation.

    In short, the genius innovates. Just as language is species-specific, the quality that separates man from the animals, so too is innovation, the product of genius, what separates the White Race, specificially White men, from every other Race.

    It’s this fact, combined with the fact of Jewish criminal psychopathology that explains exactly why the discussion of Race and IQ is strictly forbidden today.

    As everyone is beginning to see, or at least feel, our malaise, our disorientation, is arising in part, from the fact that we are becoming vaguely aware that the consequences of this situation are immense, that they are, in fact, more than we can manage. And by “we” I mean everyone, friend and foe alike.

    Jewish Supremacy is characterized by an obession with a social stability that it sees itself as predestined to manage and control, and a corresponding antipathy toward high-level problem-solving and significant innovation in the realm of social-management.

    Hence the extraordinarily dysfunctional and maladaptive societies that they are making wherever they are in control. This was put rather neatlly in comment made by a Jew a long time ago when he said, “We are the smartest and dumbest people at the same time.”

    Speaking of maladaptive, there’s a tendency in our circles to make a fetish, even a boogie man, out of Jewish power. This is a conclusion made in error.

    On the contrary, Jewish Supremacy equals Human Extinction. Even they sense this in their insane projection – taught at Harvard! – that “Treason against Whiteness is loyalty to humanity” when just the opposite is true.

    The only way out of our current dilema is if Whites regain control of the civilization they created. Only this time with stability and innovation balanced equally “by the light that moves the sun and other stars.”

    But to do this requires that we ditch the Right/Left, Communist/Fascist paradigm once and for all. They’re obviously maladaptations.

  7. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    “the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other.”

    This represents competition BETWEEN tribes/populations. There is also competition WITHIN populations of different gene types. The thief is king in the land of the honest. If the thief or taker (or one who thinks wealth should be redirected to him by the state), or the rapist and pillager genetic type is 2%, at this low level he has a great advantage WITHIN his own population as there are rich pickings from the rest of the people who are in an unguarded state and not used to fighting. The rapist gang can just help themselves if everyone else is being co-operative and friendly and not used to fighting. So the takers spread their genes. (It reminds me of the way the white Americans in Los Angeles reacted a few years ago when black gangs went on the attack – there was no retaliation, although in this example there was no capturing of women, just a few rapes, plus just the removal of a few people of white genes and the stealing of their property. This was more a case of two populations clashing rather than genes within one population, but the example still illustrates genes for co-operation versus another type)

    But after a while when the parasites or takers WITHIN the population get too numerous, guess what happens – there are fewer hosts in their population for them to live off and so their advantage diminishes. When 90% are thieves and violent, there is no-one left to store food for the winter and the whole population is decimated.

    However, the population is more likely to be decimated in places where it is harder to get food, like the North, but not decimated if there is food just lying around all the year round, such as in Africa near the lake with fish for the taking. So in places where food is plentiful, like Africa, we can expect more fighting for easy-to-get-resources and less co-operation. All you need to get all that fish is fighting skills, and gang-forming skills, not the ability to make tools or clothes even, or to have differentiation of tasks for example merchants and craftsmen.

    An equilibrium results WITHIN the Western population, similar to any host-parasite equilibrium except that this is within a population and not between different species. Contrast this with dogs, for example, where if domestic breeds go to the wild after a disaster, after a while they all end up like each other. Humans are more like bees in this respect, where there are workers and soldiers and a queen – completely different types co-existing although in bees the differences are not due to gene differences they are due to genes being activated or not.

    Let us suppose this equilibrium leads in the end to a level of 15% of takers/genetic lefties in the Western populations, who are wired, from their genes, to see it as right and proper that those who have more (a) should hand it over (b) the ones they are going to attack are ‘hateable’ people. (As whites are now hated for being racist, colonialists, dominating the world, being successful – actually, for being superior, so the left in the end hate the superior).

    It is necessary to ‘hate’ the ones they intend to parasite on, as the hate part makes it a GOOD thing to attack them and steal their things. The left see it as a GOOD thing to hate whites and to be anti-white. So expect the gene type that wants to take and rape and pillage – expect it also to have a hatred for the ones they prey on. The hatred justifies to themselves what they do and makes them feel at ease with doing it. It stops the conscience from operating to inhibit them.

    If we look at this 15% we can also expect them to be the type who sit around plotting how to take things, more than to be the type who works 8 hours a day on the farm. Thinkers, not makers, like academia and media people. Expect them to be sophisticated, not at making things, rather at how to trick others, to defeat others, to be manipulative, to be more dishonest, to be good at lying , to have no principles, to be at ease with being bad and at ease with bad people. And to be more drawn to politics.

    In fact these are the characteristics of the left (and allies)). They spend more time thinking about politics (and the Js spend their time thinking about imaginary enemies) than they do about other interests or hobbies. In fact politics is their whole life for a lefty. Whilst the other 85% are getting on with doing other things, the 15% are being active politically. So in the end, when the West became wealthy, they gravitated to the political type of professions and end up taking over (teaching, politics, the media). This is because although they are 15% they have intense motivation to act on their politics, whereas the 85% want to do other things. Ian Smith, Prime Minister of Rhodesia, wanted to leave politics and do other things, but the people insisted he carried on.

    The gene of leftism is often in the rich and clever and socially very successful (including many billionaires and politicians and media people), whereas the opposite gene can exist in a poor person who has little, suggesting that it is not environment that makes someone a socialist, it is genes. If it was environment, the billionaires would seek security and stability, not to overthrow the system that provides their wealth.

    In the past in the West the 15% of genetic lefties/takers did not have power within the population, but recently over 150 years the parameters changed to favour them, and so now the 15% are able to dominate the rest by controlling the culture.This is how they took over (a natural gravitation) more than by a plan.

    Another complication is that the gene can be present in the parent and not the children or vice versa. This makes it harder for a geographical separation to occur eg nationalists moving to the south of America and globalists to the North. Separation is harder if the gene is like intelligence in the way it is passed on, ie not straightforward.

  8. Timothy S
    Timothy S says:

    “Darwin acknowledges that humans had never so subjugated another human population as to carefully breed them as we do domestic animals”

    I have reservations about domestic breeding of human beings as a project. I don’t think it’s futile, but it is dangerous. Evolution is not a directed process, we can never be certain which adaptations will prove ueful in the future. It’s simply a terrible idea to breed a race of tall, ectomorphic people. (As the saying goes, the thin starve before the fat lose weight…) In this connection, the concept of Human Biodiversity is a useful one. As someone pointed out, random variations – including those without immediate adaptive value – are the raw material by which evolution proceeds.

    Evolution operates over time scales for which the human mind has very limited adaptation. The limitations of rationality, which rationality is often ill suited to analyse, call us to humility. Those who seek a perfect man are of the same cast of mind as those who wish to build a global utopia. Simply put, the range of traits for which we are capable of selecting in humans are fewer than that of nature. On of the reasons evolution is so powerful a theory is that the frequency of many genes can be selected for simultaneously.

    Several commentators made comments typical of creationists or expressed misunderstandings of the nature of evolutionary ‘design’. Such misunderstandings are not surprising or particularly risible. We are not born with scientific knowledge. Darwin did not, indeed, observe finches transform into iguanas. Fatal mutations do indeed put a limit on the frequency of variations on which selection operates AT ONE TIME in any given population.

    We aren’t born with the knowledge. In fact, my adherence to creationism inspired a relentless Karl Popper-like skepticism that drove me to understanding far more about evolution than my peers who simply accepted it.

    For those who ARE interested in the scientific study of evolution – or if you think it is a pseudo science that should be overthrown, the best single website is
    http://www.talkorigins.org/

    talkorigins.org addresses all the misunderstandings expressed here and provides a multidisciplinary view which will make the overwhelming evidence quite clear. If you are not sufficiently curious, than there is no remedying your ignorance. That applies as much to the unthinking believers in evolution every bit as much to unthinking doubters.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      Timothy S
      “As someone pointed out, random variations – including those without immediate adaptive value – are the raw material by which evolution proceeds.”

      Eternal fame equal to that bestowed on Darwin or greater awaits the person who can demonstrate this genetic process actually occurring, for example in fruit flies, where fast breeding, large numbers of young, and radiation all make it a prediction of the theory that such flies should demonstrate changes in our lifetimes greater than the changes that occurred over millions of years of human evolution. This is the holy grail sought for. Huge amounts of time and money have been put into this project.

      And any new genes/changes are carefully nurtured in the lab so the new genes do not actually have to produce anything useful, just be for new features.

      This prediction of the theory – that evolution can be demonstrated – is not fulfilled.

      I am not saying that there has been any violation of the laws of physics involved in why we are here – all I am saying is the predictions of evolution are not fulfilled, so we need to look for other theories. The theory enjoys massive protection from scrutiny similar to the protection AGW receives. This protection of a bad theory hinders the progress of true science.

      The motives for the protection are different, but in both cases those who seek to differ from the consensus get no grants or positions.

Comments are closed.