Skip to main content

Getting Darwin Wrong

Most people get Darwin wrong by confusing him with Social Darwinism. I just heard an interview with author Lawrence Goldstone and he had really good grasp of Social Darwinism and how it's really more of an excuse for social discrimination than a scientific theory.

Social Darwinism attempts to do something very ancient in Western Tradition which is the application of a "natural law" to social order. Since Darwin had just upended the traditional creationist view of the world at the time, many intellectuals sought to apply this new knowledge to old "natural laws" similar in a way to what Newton did. This turns out to be hogwash. Not too different from kings claiming divine lineage to justify their position in life, now the rich could use Social Darwinism to claim superior fitness, and justify their position in society. A feeling that still lingers today in some circles, with claims of superior intelligence and books like "The Bell Curve." Goldstone's explanation of Social Darwinism is fantastic and worth hearing (it's around minute 19 of the interview).

Goldstone get's Social Darwinism right but then stumbles by saying that evolution is a "as most people know a slow process of individual mutation" which is mostly wrong. Evolution as described by Darwin, let's call it Darwinian Evolution, is not slow. It's generational so it depends on the span of the generation. So bacterian evolution can happen in a matter of hours, and it's not that slow generationally either with noticeable evolution of populations having been noted on Darwin's finches on the Galapagos in as little as one generation. So slow is relative, but it's not this glacial over millions of years story I was sold in High School. Its pace can be fast or not so fast, depending on the traits and organism involved. But that's really a niggle compared to the very misleading assertion that evolution is a process of individual mutation.

While evolution, which means merely 'change', can be driven by mutation, that's the least common engine for change in species. The most common is sex. For whatever reason most organism in this planet interchange their genetic code with other individuals of the same species. This allows for the offspring to be different from the parents. So unlike aphids that can rapidly clone themselves most organisms go to the trouble of having sex. While there is no causative reason for this, the ability to drive variation in the population that allows for evolution by natural selection, must have enough value (provide a survival benefit) for sex to be this widespread. So sex is the number one engine of variation in populations. Thus the number one engine of evolution. Yes mutations happen, and they drive evolution too, but they're not how evolution happens.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Contrasting Styles of Writing: English vs. Spanish

There is interestingly enough a big difference between what's considered good writing in Spanish and English . V.S. Naipul winner of the 2001 Nobel prize for literature publish an article on writing . In it he emphasizes the use of short clear sentences and encourages the lack of adjectives and adverbs. Essentially he pushes the writer to abandon florid language and master spartan communication . This is a desired feature of English prose , where short clipped sentences are the norm and seamlessly flow into a paragraph. In English prose the paragraph is the unit the writer cares about the most. This is not the case in Spanish where whole short stories (I'm thinking this was Gabriel Garcia Marquez but maybe it was Cortázar) are written in one sentence. Something so difficult to do in English that the expert translator could best manage to encapsulate the tale in two sentences. The florid language is what is considered good writing in Spani...
3 comments
Read more

Building my own home.

I've decided. I want to build my own home. There is something special about building your own things. I built a desk for my tiny room when I first moved to L.A. My room was so small that I had to sit on the bed to use the computer so I build a high desk so I could sit on the bed and work on the computer. My roommate Trentity helped me cut the ply-wood to the right side. I still have that desk. It now sits on the living room covered by a cloth hiding the surplus of costume parts my current roommate Sean uses in his creations. Learning to build and fix things continue. And the feeling of satisfaction from fixing even small things is great. So a few years ago I heard on the NPR program the Story about a couple of educators that moved to a tent in their back-yard so they could rent their house and afford to send their kids to college. They had a special type of tent called a yurt and cooked and showered in an RV they had parked next to it. I thought I could do that. Housing in Lo...
2 comments
Read more

My Fake Resume

Inspired by the over aggrandized bio of Joseph Rakofsky I want to write my own. If you don't know who he is; Joseph Rakofsky is a lawyer who earned a mistrial for a criminal client due to his (alleged) incompetence as reported on the Washington Post . There has been quite a few commentaries on his "Streisand-house" approach of suing all the bloggers and even the Washington Post and American Bar Association for reporting his (alleged) ineptitude. ("Streisand-house" is what happened to Barbara Streisand who wanted to have a picture of her mansion removed from the internet and she sued to have it removed. Unfortunately suing requires the filing of public documents with a picture of her house. The lawsuit had the direct opposite effect it intended. Everybody now could see legally, since it was a public document, a picture of her house.) But all that internet gossip aside I'm most impressed by his resume. Here is a quote from the website: Prior t...
1 comment
Read more