Monday, May 10, 2010

Charles Darwin, Inbreeder.

Surprised by that? I was. Think about this. Darwin influences our world alot. Likely more then realized. His 'survival of the fittest' theory, affects us daily in the ordering of society. But, should this man's theories, who by the way, was trained as a Church of England priest really be as influential as they are?

Who do his theories really serve? Other then the elite classes? The elite classes that Darwin was a card carrying member of.

Reading John Taylor Gatto's book, Weapons of Mass Instruction, I learned about Darwin's 'well to do', and well connected background. Gatto writes about this in a letter to a student named Bruno.
Bruno writes to Mr. Gatto and inquires about the elevation of Darwin theories of survival of the fittest versus the theories of another man Wallace and his theory of adaptation and cooperation.
You can read his reply here, entitled Living by Omission. This link will take you to pg 114 of the Weapons of Mass Instruction book, where you can read the response entirely. I do urge you to read it.

Now, onto what really got me started on this post. Here we have Darwin, spouting off about survival of the fittest, and if you fail then your bad, you're at fault. You think this man, who espoused such theories would understand that inter-marriage would be detrimental to the genetic well being of the human species. Oh, he understood it all right, but that didn't stop him from inbreeding.

Was Charles Darwin's family a victim of inbreeding?

Published in the May 2010 issue of the journal BioScience, the study looked at 25 families and 176 children across four generations of the Darwin clan.

It found that mortality rates were higher if a child was born into part of the family that had a higher "inbreeding coefficient."

Researchers concluded that inter-marriage "could be involved in the high childhood mortality experienced by Darwin progeny" and that Darwin's fears over the effects of interbreeding in his family "appear to have been justified."

Darwin's mother, Susannah Wedgwood, was born from third cousins and his wife, Emma Wedgwood, was his first cousin

Like many an elitist who marries with in their own families to keep a tight rein on the money and power, he was far more enamored of wealth and influence then of good genetics. He shares this ardor with other powerful people in the world. Like the Royals, and certain banking families.

Since he was blinded by these other factors he doomed his bloodline to ill health.

Which really got me wondering, why this obviously foolish man, trained as a priest, should be as influential as he is ? Unless his theory serves, shall we say, initiators of class warfare.
Divide and conquer?
Just a thought.

8 comments:

  1. Pen as a Biologist with some years experience in watching life process I can say that Darwin was right on virtually every statement that he made in regards to the survival of the fittest and following that the process of natural selection. Sure there were gaps in his theory but considering the time he was spot on, and his theories have never once been disproved. The only ones who ever really tried to disprove it (and rather unsuccessfully I might add) were the morons in the church many of whom still believed that the earth was flat and that the sun circled this small planet earth. And we all well most of us know how that worked out.

    Besides stating the obvious the only thing that Darwin's theory did was relegate the belief in some fictional god to it's Rightful place, on the topmost shelf, next to the dusty canister labeled "Discarded Nonsense", for one cannot believe in a God and
    Evolutionary fact, the two are not inclusive.

    As for his private life, he could have been fucking pigs for all that it matters, the only thing that his personal choice and that of his bloodline proves is that his theory was correct, insofar as genetic diversity enables evolution while a small gene pool becomes extinct. This is Not evolutionary theory this is evolutionary fact, and I challenge anyone to prove this wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am not so much discussing his theories, well not exactly as I am discussing the way in which his theories are used to order societies.

    What is called social darwinism.

    Where survival of the fittest means, in the case of the elites vs the masses. The elites claim because they are 'superior' and this is an acclaimed genetic superiority, they are entitled, therefore they deserve their wealth and privalege.
    The masses, genetically inferior, to bad.
    This social form of darwinism is what caused Darwin's theories to come to the forefront and be the predominant theory of survival.

    As for Darwin knocking religion out of the picture, he was a trained priest, he spent his entire life surrounded by the Anglican church.

    He was also influenced by another church goer Thomas Malthus, an Anglican Priest and economist.

    To say that religion did not play a role in his theories??? I am not so sure of that.

    His theories fit in with many of those espoused by the churches.
    If you are bad 'not pious' you are going to be 'punished by a god.
    For Darwin, the god was replaced by the gene, if things didn't go well, inferior genetics.


    The other man Alfred Wallace, has his own thoughts, but, he sided with the masses and was for social justice,

    Darwin, was an elitist and didn't concern himself with anything like social justice

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace

    Wallace published his theory on evolution due to natural selection prior to Darwin publishing his theory.

    When you read through the section on Wallace, you read that he very much had social justice on his mind.

    "he entered the debates over trade policy and land reform in earnest. He believed that rural land should be owned by the state and leased to people who would make whatever use of it that would benefit the largest number of people, thus breaking the often-abused power of wealthy landowners in English society"
    He criticized the UK's free trade policies for the negative impact they had on working class people.

    In other words, he was attempting to help the masses, to better themselves but helping them gain access to resources that the priveleged classes, with their alleged superior genetics, kept away from them.

    Darwin used his class privelege in the same manner as the royals and banker families do to hold onto wealth and control, they intermarry.
    seems a strange life for a man who espoused the theories he did?

    difficult topic, but, Darwin ain't all he is cracked up to be. and Wallace's theories may have been just as valid, but, they didn't serve the interests of the elites, so they are omitted.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It most definitely IS a theory, Silverfish. Not proven. Many holes. You should know . . . but then again, maybe not. If you are a biologist, you've had years of school programming to iron out any logic leaps and doubts you may have had along the way.

    And evolution and religion are most certainly not exclusive, this is also a ridiculous statement you have made.

    I am utterly surprised at your vitriol against the great Darwin, Silv . . . why the fur up for this aforementioned "pig-fucker"?

    ReplyDelete
  4. @slozo

    your reading comprehension is lacking. Silv didn't accuse Darwin of pig fucking, but only said that even if he had been one, that wouldn't change anything at the validity of his work.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am utterly surprised at your vitriol against the great Darwin, Silv . . . why the fur up for this aforementioned "pig-fucker"?
    Tsk Tsk Slozo you do read through a very small lens indeed. Perhaps you should read again and tell me please were EXACTLY I said anything negative about Charles Darwin.
    So just in case you are incapable of such an endeavor ,I will make it a little simpler for you. What I said was that his personal choices in life had NOTHING to do with his scientific observations.
    and also please give me just ONE example were Evolution and religion meet, Please just ONE example.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gallier:
    Tsk tsk, waiting for an opportune moment to attack me since the last time we argued?

    My reading comprehension is fine, sir. Just because I called him a "pig fucker", doesn't mean I thought he actually fornicated with pigs, nor that I thought Silv had implied such a thing. It only indicated my overall disrespect towards the man (Darwin), and employed Silv's own strange choice of phrase . . . I thought it was appropos, considering that such reverence is used towards Darwin, and I feel he is well below such sentiments.

    So, even if Darwin IS constantly lauded as some genius, and even if his theories ARE constantly worded and taught in ways that make people think it is fact and not theory - doesn't make it so.

    Using a phrase "pig-fucker" as opposed to accusing the man of beastiality or some such claim should have been the tip-off. Ironic indeed that you accuse me of poor reading comprehension.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Silverfish:
    "Tsk Tsk Slozo you do read through a very small lens indeed. Perhaps you should read again and tell me please were EXACTLY I said anything negative about Charles Darwin."

    ? I didn't accuse you of saying anything negative towards Darwin, but I can see how you thought that from this excerpt of mine - "I am utterly surprised at your vitriol against the great Darwin, Silv . . . why the fur up for this aforementioned "pig-fucker"?"

    I should have said, "why the vitriol against people putting down Darwin (as Penny was doing in her article) . . . why the fur up in defence of this aforementioned "pig-fucker". My bad, typing quickly with very little time.

    You go on further:
    "So just in case you are incapable of such an endeavor ,I will make it a little simpler for you. What I said was that his personal choices in life had NOTHING to do with his scientific observations. "

    Yeah, I got that. I also think the points Penny made had nothing to do with this point, and I find it a strawman.

    "...and also please give me just ONE example were Evolution and religion meet, Please just ONE example."

    Why would I have to find where they 'meet'? I simply said that they are not necessarily incongruent . . . I know the creation vs evolution thing has been beaten to death as having to be incongruent, but really, only if you are a small child who reads the bible literally. Even though I personally don't believe in God or the bible as the word of God, it doesn't mean that it wasn't well written and easily transferrable in allegory to evolution . . . 7 days can be 7 eons or ages or whatever scale of time you want, you know. And in the past, many of the "miracles" - like manna from heaven, like the parting of the red sea and the plagues and the great flood - have had extensive scientific research back them up in mainstream media publications (like National Geographic) as quite plausible and possibly true.

    Anyways, as the whole bible is written on purpose in such a way as be vague, misleading and totally open to interpretation, it is easy enough to fit the theory of evolution in the 7 days of creation story.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @slozo

    My comment was only targeted at the discussion at hand. I do not put enough importance on disagrements in blog comments to hold lasting grudges against virtual people. If at every turn we happen to clash in disagrement, it's probably that there is a big difference between how we function, buy that's not a problem.

    ReplyDelete

TROLLS & SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS