Darwin Dawkins and Evolution

The focus has for years been on Darwin’s “Origin of Species” while his companion work “The Descent of Man” has either been ignored entirely or sort of lumped into his general Theory of Evolution. Of course the thrust of Darwin’s second view of evolution is that human beings were descended from apes who in turn were descended from still more primitive animals. This is a heavily flawed book whose flaws are explained away today by pointing out that Darwin was a “man of his times” and “science” has come a long way since the book was written. Darwin never actually addressed the “Origin of Species” nor did he ever address the origin of life. Instead those issues were left to modern believers, like Dawkins, who totally excludes God and embraces his religion of Evolution and his Darwin as his God replacement. So Dawkins goes where Darwin feared to tread and the logical end of this evolutionary thread is that man is a direct descendant of pond scum. If you have seen Dawkins you can see the family resemblance. But suppose Dawkins is right, that all of humanity is descended directly from lower animal forms and thus subject to the laws of evolution. What are the ramifications of this?

The ramification of course is according to Darwin and Dawkins the strongest and fittest survive while the weakest perish under the relentless action of evolution. It was Darwin who stated that more individuals in a species are born than can possibly survive, so it is natures way to eliminate the weak through their struggle to survive thus those individuals who have even the slightest advantage are naturally selected. The implication of this when applied to humans would indicate that the evolutionary path of humanity would lead to a superior form of human both physically and mentally. Males would get larger and stronger while females would become more fertile and attractive. Alas – even a casual look at humanity would show that some at taller, some weaker, some less intelligent, and certainly some are less attractive, but these are all subjective evaluations and really don’t address the variations in skin color, body types, eye color, hair color, or appearance.

The logical conclusion is that humanity today is the logical result of “breeding” and not necessarily the evolutionary result of the survival of the fittest. The implication is that mankind is result of breeding much like dogs and cats or any other animal. It then follows that humanity can be improved through programs where only the “best examples” are allowed to breed. Of course this was a policy adopted in ancient times and is best exemplified by the Spartans who only allowed the strongest babies to live. A more recent example of this approach, now given the name “Eugenics” was carried out by Adolph Hitler. Both of these programs were public policy but Darwin himself noted that the “civilized people” were eliminating the “savages” through their superiority, where superiority was defined through intellectual achievement and living standard. The shallowness of this position is generally ignored today but Darwin’s basic position remains intact in the eyes to people like Dawkins, who pick and choose their facts while ignoring those that don’t fit their belief.

This brings us to those variations which according to Darwin are the result of natural selection and for Dawkins the result of mutations caused by cosmic rays. The corollary here is that any mutation that failed to improve the chance of survival would fall by the wayside since the mutant would be eliminated and off spring would not survive. This immediately leads to the conclusion that all of the observed variations are evolutionary changes that have improved humanity’s survival ability. But for Darwin, there was the gorilla, the Negro (savages), and the ultimate top of the evolutionary scale – the Caucasian. This is one of those Darwinian things that Dawkins chooses to ignore; instead he leans toward mutation and sexual selection. But then which is which? Are blonds more attractive than brunettes? Is black skin more attractive than white? The argument is that skin color, hair color, and curly hair versus straight are in fact evolutionary advantages. But this brings us back to survival of the fittest. Certainly the record of man shows that the barbarian, the one who is stronger and has the morality of a sociopath is the preferred evolutionary form. The logical path indicates that morality, sympathy, empathy, or any deep emotion must be weaknesses that cannot lead to a stronger human form, but must be eliminated through natural selection since the men with these characteristics would not be allowed to mate. Clearly this isn’t the case, so these must be traits that describe the strongest and fittest human. But realistically – does the ability to care for another human being, or to have a conscience enable an individual to survive a drought, a famine, or a war?

Darwin simply stated that man was descended from a lower form and was an animal subject to the same rules of evolution that other animals are. What is missing is any real proof that evolution as described by Dawkins is a fact. Darwin never addressed speciation and Dawkins explains speciation through cosmic rays and mutation but offers no empirical proof whatsoever. In fact the fossil record seems to support environmental adaptation which accounts for the variations in humans, but it does not indicate how one animal morphs into another or how pond scum became human.

Cavemen – White – Blonde

Science is a wonder and sometimes you wonder what they know and what they don’t know and if they know they don’t know it. In fact science seems to follow the patter of observing, theorizing, speculating, repeating, and then converting the speculation into common factual knowledge because everybody knows it. Evolution falls into this category but rejecting any part of Darwin makes you a nincompoop because everybody knows that Evolution is a fact although those “facts” are examples of adaptation and not speciation. And that brings us to the question at hand which is the evolution and descent of man.

We are assured that the Leakey family – who have made a cottage industry out of early hominids have identified the root of humanity and that man evolved out of these hominids. These early hominids are given wonderful sounding scientific names and we are told they evolved into primitive men and migrated north. This migration is necessary because outside of a few bone fragments and some rather primitive tools there is no real evidence that primitive men lived and evolved in Africa. There is some small evidence of “Rhodesia Man” but that is a pretty small reed on which to rest the evolution of man in Africa.

The interesting thing is that modern apes are black skinned with black hair although the Orangutan has orange hair but black skin. Depictions of hominids and early primitive men are shown as black skinned with black hair. The hair is always shown as straight and not wooly which is a characteristic of modern Negroes. Neanderthals are found in Europe and not in Africa or on any other continent. Cro-Magnon men seem to be indigenous to Europe as well. These early men are always shown as white skinned with black hair. There is some evidence of primitive men living in China but once again there is scant evidence and the modern Orientals all have black hair and sallow skin. So some questions seem to be in order.

Where did Negroes come from? Did they migrate from Europe to Africa? If they developed in Africa why isn’t there any evidence of that development outside of a few bone fragments, none of which are from Homo sapiens? Where are the art, the tools, the campfires, and the bones that would indicate that primitive men originated in Africa? When precisely did the black skin and woolly hair develop? If these early primitive men did in fact evolve from these ape like hominids where did the white skin come from? If we assume that this lack of evidence is irrelevant and that man did develop in Africa ( a huge leap in logic) and migrated to Europe then what happened to the black skin and woolly hair? There is no contemporary evidence that while Neanderthals were merrily hunting mammoths in Europe they had any relatives in Africa. Furthermore the Neanderthals and later Cro-Magnons’ are always viewed as white with straight black hair, so where did the blonde hair come from or the red hair or the brown? Of the five races only Caucasians have hair that is some color other than black? Why is that?

We are assured by scientists that the five races developed out of a common ancestor who originally lived in Africa about three million years ago. The fact that there is virtually no evidence of this evolution from ape to man is blithely ignored because it is common knowledge that this is true. However, from that three million mark established by the Leakey’s there is a large amount of time elapsed before Neanderthals appear so this evolution from ape to Neanderthal to modern man must have happened in the blink of the evolutionary eye. But we are still left with the question of where did the Negroes come from? Where did other races come from and why only the whites have different colored hair?

Science assures us that Homo sapiens migrated from Asia to Alaska and drifted down to South America. Unfortunately the Eskimo’s appear to be Asiatic and with brown skin but not related to the Red race or even the Brown race. The South American Indians do not appear to be related to the North American ones and even if they all indeed are related they clearly are not indigenous and certainly not blonde and all are Homo sapiens. There is no evidence that primitive man ever existed outside of Europe and parts of Asia. We are shown bone fragments of hominids, which in fact are simply early ape-like creatures and indeed might actually be apes for all we know. Given this sketchy evidence scientists state that these are really the root stock of the human race and man developed in Africa, migrated to Europe and Asia and eventually to North and South America.

All of these theories and suppositions may be true – or not – but the questions remain – if Negroes came first where is the evidence? If cavemen were white where did the other races come from? While the evolution of man from apes (hominids) is pretty thin the evolution of the races is non-existent. So why are cavemen white? Why is the Caucasian the only race with blonde, brown, and red hair? When did the woolly hair of Negroes develop? In fact – since primitive men seemed to be consistent and successful why did the races evolve at all?