Do I appear to be flirting with Darwinism?
John B. writes:
I’d advise you to stay away from all of these discussions about whether fair skin—or any other trait—was an “adaptation” to ultraviolet light—or a northern climate—or whatever. All of that is implicit Darwinism—in which mutations are “results,” whose “causes” have to be “identified.”
I’m perfectly prepared to believe that “whites” became “white” simply because they wanted to be. That’s my thinking re all evolution: It doesn’t have to be explained—it merely has to be tracked.
The material you and I have been discussing over the past few days—re, essentially, Carleton Coon’s thesis—raises the possibility that racial differences are old, predating Homo sapiens and maybe even Homo erectus. The “Out of Africa” theory—or, at least, some popular notion of it—contradicts this. That’s enough. That’s all that has to be pointed out.
These Darwinist discussions of the “causes” of individual traits are, to my mind, bootless. “The white man had to develop a large brain to survive the Ice Age.” Oh? Where, exactly, on Earth does increased intelligence not confer an “advantage”? Increased intelligence wouldn’t have been helpful to the Negroes—in the jungles of Africa? That seems questionable to me.
It all comes down, in my mind, to “evolutionary drive.” Some organisms have it; some don’t. The peoples who developed increased intelligence did so because they did so. That’s all. There’s no “why.” There’s only “is.” All we have to do is track it—not explain it.
Re white skin, in particular, by the way: The Australian aborigine in the photo from Coon’s book seems to have skin about the color of the Neave reconstruction—but he still looks “whiter” to me than the Neave reconstruction. Maybe some day, some DNA evidence or some such thing will prove that that aborigine is actually closer, in kindred, to Negroes than to whites. Fine. I’m just stating my reaction to what I see.
LA replies:
Understood. You don’t want me to get into discussions about environmental pressures that may have led to randomly mutated genes being selected and so leading to various morphological changes in the human race, all of which would legitimize or appear to legitimize Darwinism.
Let me explain my position.
I’ve always made a distinction between (a) the Darwinian theory of evolution, that is, the idea that random genetic mutations plus natural selection (RM plus NS) produce new species or life forms, indeed, that they have produced all species and life forms on earth; and (b) the idea that random mutations plus natural selection produce varieties within a species (or possibly closely related species). I acknowledge that the latter MAY be true, while I think Darwinian evolution is impossible.
Thus lesser melanin in northern latitudes MAY be a result of randomly appearing lesser-melanin individuals living longer and having more offspring than others. It’s a reasonable theory. So I give the idea at least that much respect.
Personally, however, I think that this is probably not the case. I suspect the truth of evolution is something completely outside mainstream thinking—an unfolding of potentialities that are already present within the organism/genome, and that are released/expressed as a holistic response of the organism to the environment. Like you, I believe that evolution is at bottom purposive. In any case, I don’t believe that the new genetic data in any given case, e.g., the genetic instructions for lesser melanin, or for a larger brain—are a result of random bad copies of genes. I think the organism is responding to the environment in a holistic manner and produces less melanin. In which case evolution by RM and NS is not only not true on the “new species” level, it’s also not true on the level of variations within a species.
I don’t present the above as a dogma or as something I am asserting is true, but as an intuitive-logical possibility that to me seems more likely than the established view. Call it a “story,” if you like. But since the Darwinian theory of the evolution of species consists of nothing but “stories,” why can’t I offer my story? At least I honestly admit that my story is a story, while the Darwinians would have us believe that their stories are the established, scientific truth.
At the same time, since I am such a hard-line critic of Darwinism, and since evolution by RM and NS is a reasonable hypothesis when it comes to small changes within a species, I find it useful and interesting and also a refreshing change for myself to participate in “normal” Darwinian discussions on this point. In doing so, I am not contradicting my position that the Darwinian theory of the evolution of species is false.
John B. replies:
I am 100 percent in agreement with you on this:
In any case, I don’t believe that the new genetic data in any given case, e.g., the genetic instructions for lesser melanin, or for a larger brain—are a result of random bad copies of genes. I think the organism is responding to the environment is a holistic manner and produces less melanin. In which case evolution by RM and NS is not only not true on the “new species” level, it’s also not true on the level of variations within a species.
Yes—ultraviolet light, or whatever—might have put some pressure on the organism; but at some deep level—even below the cellular level—maybe even deeper than DNA (whose operation is, to my mind, barely understood)—the organism responded to that pressure—actively responded to it—by setting out to construct for itself a shield of white skin—a shield that was the work of several generations. The organism was pursuing a goal that, at some deep level, it knew could be reached only by its descendants.
And PS: Don’t worry about trying to be “normal” from time to time. There’s no profit in it.
LA replies:
I am not trying to be “normal” on this issue. But when I am relatively “normal” on an issue, or at least speaking the same language as the “normal” people, as in this instance, it is a pleasant change.
- end of initial entry -
May 19
Steve R. writes:
Regarding your theory:
“I think the organism is responding to the environment is a holistic manner and produces less melanin.”
A few months ago I came by a book titled Quantum Evolution, by an internationally recognized molecular biologist, which had this line:
“Evolution may not be random at all, as recent evolutionary theories have taught: rather, cells may, in certain circumstances, be able to choose to mutate particular genes that provide an advantage in the environment in which the cell finds itself.”
What really caught my eye was a reference to John Cairns, a renowned molecular biologist, who in 1988 created a reproducible experiment in which e.coli, placed in a challenging environment, mutate at a rate that suggests the bacteria overcomes the handicap by altering their own genes. The process was dubbed adaptive mutagenesis.
Ever since then, Darwinians, with little success, have been waging a low profile war to disprove or marginalize the experiment. For instance, it’s quite suspicious that the Wikipedia entry, detailing the career of Cairns, neglected to mention his remarkable discovery. It’s amazing that they’ve been able to get away with this cover-up for 20 years.
Kristor writes:
Steve R. mentions the book Quantum Evolution, by John Joe McFadden. I highly recommend it.
John B.—agreeing with your statement that “evolution is … an unfolding of potentialities that are already present within the organism/genome, and that are released/expressed as a holistic response of the organism to the environment”—says, “at some deep level—even below the cellular level—maybe even deeper than DNA—the organism responded to that pressure—actively responded to it—by setting out to construct for itself a shield of white skin—a shield that was the work of several generations. The organism was pursuing a goal that, at some deep level, it knew could be reached only by its descendants.”
Yes. Exactly right. This is what I have been trying to get at in my many comments arguing that evolution—not just of biological systems, but of everything—is teleological, is driven by final and formal causation. McFadden explains quite precisely, at the quantum level, how this works. He explains how organisms could respond to differences in sunlight at the quantum level. In a nutshell—no, even the nutshell would be quite a long comment. [LA replies: Shakespeare must have been thinking of Kristor when he had Hamlet say, “Oh God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space.”] In a sentence then: what will happen next at the quantum level is the outcome of a decision derived from the relative values of the probable outcomes of the possible alternatives. The decision is not forced or mechanical—this is just another way of saying it is a real decision, that there is a real choice to be made.
And, as I never tire of pointing out, you can’t make a decision except by reference to some prior scale of value that transcends the domain of the decision. Mere freedom is chaos.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 18, 2009 10:28 PM | Send