Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!dual!ptsfa!qantel!ihnp4!rosevax!hogan
From: hogan@rosevax.UUCP (Andy Hogan)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Common mis-definition of "evolution".
Message-ID: <651@rosevax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 4-Oct-86 11:20:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: rosevax.651
Posted: Sat Oct  4 11:20:36 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 10:01:16 EDT
References: <5160@decwrl.DEC.COM> <3566@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU> <194@BMS-AT.UUCP> <599@dg_rtp.UUCP>
Organization: Rosemount Inc., Eden Prairie, MN
Lines: 37
Summary: Darwin and evolutionary "higher states"

In article <599@dg_rtp.UUCP>, throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
> > stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman)
> > The whole concept of evolution
> > is interesting: we are evolving to higher and higher states.  This
> > implies some 'high state' toward which we are moving.  There must be
> > some ideal to which we achieve closer and closer appoximations.  Where
> > did this ideal come from?
> Well, since in Darwinian evolution there is no such reference to
> "evolving to higher states", the answer is that in Darwinian evolution
> the ideal didn't come from anywhere, since it doesn't exist.
> This "definition" of evolution as directed towards "higher states" is a
> common misconception.  Darwinian evolution is talking about adaptation
> to environment, not change directed to some "ideal form".  
> Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw

In fact, if I remember my lessons, Darwin and his work were thoroughly
attacked *because* his theory dropped this notion of Man being on top
of a ladder of lower-to-higher forms of life.  This ladder, as generally
thought of in Darwin's day, had simple creatures at the bottom, and
moved "up" through reptiles into mammals.  Then it very carefully put
monkeys, great apes, Negroes, Asians, and (European) Caucasians as the
last few rungs of the ladder.  Nice little bit of racism built right
into scientific thought, eh?

Darwin's writings on evolution and natural selection knocked this ladder
over, stating quite clearly his view that Man was not a pinacale, but 
just the most well adapted and succesfull animal.  This flew directly 
in the face of the *common* perceptions (and almost directly into the
teachings of the various Christian churches.)  And as far as I can tell,
this has been a basis of the problems evolution has had with support in
the general populace ever since.
 
-- 
Notice how they do not so much fly, as plummet. {appropriate head movement}
                                    --Monty Python (Flying Sheep Sketch)
Andy Hogan   Rosemount, Inc.   Mpls MN
path: ...ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!rosevax!hogan