Galton https://scienceblogs.com/ en Darwin's Connection to Nazi Eugenics Exposed https://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries/2009/07/14/darwins-connection-to-nazi-eug <span>Darwin&#039;s Connection to Nazi Eugenics Exposed</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><a href="http://researchblogging.org/blog/home/id/853"><img class="inset left" src="http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa144/Primate_bucket/rb2_large_gray.png" /></a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=422069"><img class="inset right" src="http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa144/Primate_bucket/nazi_poster2.jpg" width="200" /></a>On this day 76 years ago (July 14, 1933) a sterilization law was passed in Nazi Germany, known as <em>Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses</em> (Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring). Any German was a target if they were found to be suffering from a range of perceived hereditary ailments, such as congenital mental deficiency, schizophrenia, manic-depressive insanity, epilepsy, Huntington's chorea, blindness, deafness, any severe hereditary deformity or even severe alcoholism. Official pronouncements insisted that these individuals were a drain on the German people, both biologically and financially (see right). The law passed on this day ultimately led to an estimated 400,000 people being involuntarily sterilized in pursuit of this national goal of "racial hygiene," to eliminate handicapped descendants. </p> <p>Creationists are fond of laying the blame for Nazi eugenics on Charles Darwin. They insist that his materialist argument that humans evolved from animals and his conception of natural selection inspired the Nazis to implement a widespread policy of artificial selection within the Fatherland. However, these claims are as baseless as was the so-called "science" that the Nazis employed. </p> <!--more--><p>For example, William Dembski, intelligent design creationist and co-author of <em>Moral Darwinism</em>, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=n27AG9eyq3gC&amp;pg=PA251&amp;lpg=PA251&amp;dq=dembski+darwin+eugenics&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=i0qpdpyXwA&amp;sig=CMqBHQFcJAEaV8wMkV2NZ7U10O8&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=iQ9dSqT_OJGMMfHNta4C&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=4">claims</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>Darwin is the founder of the modern eugenics movement in all its later myriad forms, whether it is expressed through a call to weed out the unfit, breed more of the fit, abort the undesirable and deformed or manipulate our nature genetically through technology.</p></blockquote> <p>In nearly identical form Jonathan Wells, devotee of Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=R9oFIhfySqwC&amp;pg=PA164&amp;lpg=PA164&amp;dq=%22Darwinism%E2%80%99s+connection+with+eugenics,+abortion+and+racism+is+a+matter+of+historical+record.+And+the+record+is+not+pretty.%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xOqqUpWQa4&amp;sig=j7IDmvlJzQzu2PvECcMCH9KpySg&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=1hVdSuebI4jcNYuZsa4C&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=2">writes</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>Darwinism's connection with eugenics, abortion and racism is a matter of historical record. And the record is not pretty.</p></blockquote> <p>Islamic creationist Harun Yahya (whom I recently interviewed from his home in Istanbul) similarly <a href="http://www.darwinismssocialweapon.com/socialdarwinism_4.html">insists</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>The eugenics, euthanasia, forced sterilization, concentration camps, racial purity and gas chambers of the mid-20th century emerged as a result of the Darwin-Haeckel-Hitler coalition, representing the worst and most ruthless cruelty in the history of humanity.</p></blockquote> <p>Taken together this would be a damning indictment, if there were actually any truth to their claims. The main connections that all three authors make between Darwinism and eugenics is that Francis Galton, an early proponent of eugenics, was Darwin's cousin and that Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist who championed evolution and maintained a long correspondence with the English naturalist, was a primary source for Nazi eugenic policies. </p> <p>The strength of their arguments quickly fall apart, however, once they are given a few moments thought. The Galton connection is quite obviously baseless, for surely no one can be held responsible for something their cousin promotes (especially since Galton didn't even invent the term eugenics until a year after Darwin's death). Furthermore, not that it matters, but Galton was merely Darwin's half-cousin since they shared the same grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, but had different grandmothers. The second claim, about Haeckel's foundation for Nazi race biology, is simply wrong. However, for this they can only be faulted for shoddy research, since the connection they were exploiting came from a highly regarded scientific source: Stephen Jay Gould.</p> <p>In Gould's 1977 book <em>Ontology and Phylogeny</em> the esteemed Harvard paleontologist wrote:</p> <blockquote><p>[Haekel's] evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others . . . all contributed to the rise of Nazism.</p></blockquote> <p>While, in his book, Gould sought to separate Darwin from his German contemporary, his creationist quote-miners were looking to do the opposite. Unfortunately for both, the connection they were drawing doesn't actually exist. </p> <p>According to University of Chicago historian Robert J. Richards, in a <a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/NUMGAL.html">recent anthology</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>This charge, which attempts to link Haekel's convictions with the Nazi's particular brand of racism, suffers from the inconvenience of having absolutely no foundation. </p></blockquote> <p>Gould was drawing from the research of Daniel Gasman whose 1971 book <em>Scientific Origins of National Socialism</em> placed Haeckel at the center of the philosophical foundation of Nazi ideology. Richards has excoriated this research (see, for example, his paper <a href="http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/biot.2007.2.1.pdf">Ernst Haeckel's Alleged Anti-Semitism and Contributions to Nazi Biology</a> in the journal <em>Biological Theory</em>) and demonstrated that, not only was Haeckel not a proponent of a pre-Nazi racist biology, but the Nazi's rejected his work totally. </p> <p>The reality is that, while one German academic named Heinz Brücher did argue that Haeckel's Darwinism meshed with Hitler's racial attitudes, this view was immediately quashed by the guardians of party doctrine. Günther Hecht, official representative for the National Socialist Party's Department of Race-Politics (<em>Rassenpolitischen Amt der NSDAP</em>), insisted in the Reich's official scientific journal:</p> <blockquote><p>The party and its representatives must not only reject a part of the Haeckelian conception--other parts of it have occasionally been advanced--but, more generally, every internal party dispute that involves the particulars of research and the teachings of Haeckel must cease.</p></blockquote> <p>The reason for this rejection may have been the fact that Haeckel stood out among his contemporaries for his expression of <em>Judenfreundschaft</em> (friendliness toward Jews) or because of his criticisms of the military during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871. A more important reason is probably the fact that Nazi racial views had no connection with specific evolutionary concepts like transmutation of species or the animal origins of human beings. As Richards concludes:</p> <blockquote><p>The perceived materialism of Darwinian biology and Haeckelian monism deterred those who cultivated the mystical ideal of a transcendence of will. Pseudoscientific justifications for racism would be ubiquitous in the early twentieth century, and Hitler's own mad anti-Semitism hardly needed support from evolutionary theorists of the previous century.</p></blockquote> <p>The Nazi policies enacted three-quarters of a century ago today were certainly bad enough, we don't need to spread the blame onto those who had no connection with them. Given the long history of creationist scholarship based on principles rather than propaganda, I'm certain we will no longer see attempts to smear Darwin's legacy with the taint of Nazi ideology once these facts become more generally well-known. But, of course, I'm being sarcastic.</p> <p>Reference:</p> <p><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&amp;rft.jtitle=Biological+Theory&amp;rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1162%2Fbiot.2007.2.1.97&amp;rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&amp;rft.atitle=Ernst+Haeckel%27s+Alleged+Anti-Semitism+and+Contributions+to+Nazi+Biology&amp;rft.issn=1555-5542&amp;rft.date=2007&amp;rft.volume=2&amp;rft.issue=1&amp;rft.spage=97&amp;rft.epage=103&amp;rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mitpressjournals.org%2Fdoi%2Fabs%2F10.1162%2Fbiot.2007.2.1.97&amp;rft.au=Richards%2C+R.&amp;rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Biology%2CSocial+Science%2CEvolutionary+Biology%2C+History%2C+Political+Science%2C+Sociology%2C+Genetics">Richards, R. (2007). Ernst Haeckel's Alleged Anti-Semitism and Contributions to Nazi Biology <span style="font-style: italic;">Biological Theory, 2</span> (1), 97-103 DOI: <a rev="review" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/biot.2007.2.1.97">10.1162/biot.2007.2.1.97</a></span></p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/author/emjohnson" lang="" about="/author/emjohnson" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">emjohnson</a></span> <span>Tue, 07/14/2009 - 16:00</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/evolution" hreflang="en">evolution</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/history" hreflang="en">History</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/religion-0" hreflang="en">religion</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/creationism" hreflang="en">creationism</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/darwin" hreflang="en">darwin</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/eugenics" hreflang="en">Eugenics</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/galton" hreflang="en">Galton</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/haeckel" hreflang="en">Haeckel</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/harun-yahya" hreflang="en">Harun Yahya</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/intelligent-design-0" hreflang="en">Intelligent Design</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/jonathan-wells" hreflang="en">Jonathan Wells</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/nazi" hreflang="en">Nazi</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/stephen-jay-gould" hreflang="en">Stephen Jay Gould</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/william-dembski" hreflang="en">William Dembski</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/evolution" hreflang="en">evolution</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Categories</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/channel/technology" hreflang="en">Technology</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-2476277" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1247605437"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Besides, we all know that the artificial selection that became eugenics was all based on the Bible, specifically Genesis 30:31-43. Hitler just practiced it on humans instead of goats, culling the weak and keeping the strong just like Jacob. And really, if Adolf had used striped poplar branches instead of gas chambers, it would have been a lot less ugly.</p> <p>Less sarcastically, eugenics is little different from what farmers and goatherds had been doing for thousands of years before Haeckel <i>or</i> any of the famous Darwins were born. The idea that Hitler <i>must</i> have gotten his ideas from one of them is ludicrous even without any of the good scholarship above.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2476277&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="CSVi1fR8IR42t40rJq6WcJuWMgkxP6V0BjiYRXk4tVQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.skepticfriends.org/" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Dave W. (not verified)</a> on 14 Jul 2009 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/32081/feed#comment-2476277">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-2476278" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1247607173"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Those without a journal subscription can read the article on the author's faculty website <a href="http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/biot.2007.2.1.pdf">here</a>.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2476278&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="HCxNiApZ1l7chbjs6WWooLacctGfTtbk1GzYlW80X0Y"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://scienceblogs.com/sunclipse/" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Blake Stacey (not verified)</a> on 14 Jul 2009 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/32081/feed#comment-2476278">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-2476279" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1247615597"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>In fact, Darwin discusses eugenics as a possible misinterpretation of his work (I don't immediately recall in which book, but something post-<i>Origin</i>), and very specifically rejects it as inhumane.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2476279&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="uRNqVgladf1_5myK69VJHgnvvzw3SPVReeA8MDt2AP8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://denimandtweed.blogspot.com" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Yoder (not verified)</a> on 14 Jul 2009 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/32081/feed#comment-2476279">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-2476280" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1247619353"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>(I don't immediately recall in which book, but something post-Origin)</p></blockquote> <p>Descent of Man. Of course, he was talking about negative eugenics there, and specifically about not offering medical aid to the congenitally feeble. No vaccinations, that sort of thing.</p> <p>Galton mostly favored positive eugenics, IIRC--encouraging the "better classes" to breed with each other--and supported sterilization only of "undesirables." I don't recall Darwin being particularly horrified by that prospect, but he did observe that it would be impossible for anyone to be a fair judge of who should breed and who shouldn't--who wouldn't favor their own relatives?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2476280&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="DInH9dbIO8ft-3sFkfT1OSfrdG9KbgrFS5FwllNf75g"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Anton Mates (not verified)</span> on 14 Jul 2009 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/32081/feed#comment-2476280">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-2476281" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1247619474"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The weakness of Eric Johnson's article resides in the fact that he uncritically accepts what Richards states, i.e. that Haeckel was not an anti-Semite and that Haeckel was totally rejected by the Nazi regime. Both of these assertions are totally incorrect and inventions on the part of Richards. Richards' arguments are refuted in a series of papers by Daniel Gasman posted on ferris.edu/isar/gasman controversy and in an article that recently appeared in eskeptic.com, June 10, 2009. Johnson is correct to argue that Darwin had little if anything to do with Nazism. Haeckel, however, is not identical with Darwin as Richards believes, but rather can be shown to have many links with Nazism.</p> <p>Daniel Gasman, July 15, 2009</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2476281&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="RNzSj23I9nsOCDGietW5VrXFjTidq4DqnzxAhD2SoUw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">daniel gasman (not verified)</span> on 14 Jul 2009 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/32081/feed#comment-2476281">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-2476282" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1247630105"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Many of the creationists insist that they accept the reality of evolution within a "kind", what they call "micro"evolution.</p> <p>Eugenics is solely concerned with changes within "mankind". It has nothing to do with "macro"evolution.</p> <p>Rejecting macro-evolution does not produce any distance from eugenics.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2476282&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="iLp2j1ygKfGjOhbVquskw3UlLuEfot6TTAp_uz44FTY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">TomS (not verified)</span> on 14 Jul 2009 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/32081/feed#comment-2476282">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-2476283" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1247642702"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Very good article! By the way, Darwin specifically mentioned and then rejected Galton's views in Chapter 21 of <em>Descent of Man</em>. I did a post on that a while ago over at my place: <a href="http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/racism-eugenics-and-darwin/">Racism, Eugenics, and Darwin</a>.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2476283&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="1RZqhUVZp-HkTDiwe5-xUk9hOIOh3JTDwt08X7ba7FU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">The Curmudgeon (not verified)</a> on 15 Jul 2009 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/32081/feed#comment-2476283">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-2476284" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1247699281"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Great article!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2476284&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="7g747tVZkY8L2Gc96vUueC3usaAoyqwsL6JNtcOs8r8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Mike (not verified)</span> on 15 Jul 2009 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/32081/feed#comment-2476284">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-2476285" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1247699575"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Daniel Gasman: Thank you for your comment. Interested readers can find numerous responses to Richards <a href="http://www.ferris.edu/htmls/staff/webpages/site.cfm?LinkID=397&amp;eventID=34">here</a>.</p> <p>I have read through this voluminous material but haven't seen anything that substantially refutes Richards' position. I do think that Darwin and Haeckel's views on natural selection had important differences and it would be inappropriate to view them as identical. The two men also shared some racist, anti-Semitic and sexist views that were common for the nineteenth century, however they were nowhere near the extremes for their time (and were probably more tolerant than the majority of their contemporaries). I don't seek to excuse such attitudes, but I think it is a misrepresentation to place either of them in the same category as Nazi ideologues. </p> <p>Gasman also fails to provide any evidence that would refute Richards' argument that high-ranking officials in the Nazi Party wanted no part of Haeckel's work as part of their platform. The fact that some Nazi academics admired his work is a far cry from Gasman's claim that Haeckel "was instrumental in formulating the birth of Nazi and Fascist ideology and that he was committed to a virulent form of anti-Semitism." However, I will continue to research the issue and will follow up on this in the future if warranted.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2476285&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="4EK2rsjRUS57WN3bD8RiSXig5x8hHGw2IU90jupYXZI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">EMJ (not verified)</a> on 15 Jul 2009 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/32081/feed#comment-2476285">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-2476286" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1247699688"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Richards has also offered a summary of his position at eSkeptic which can be found <a href="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-07-01#feature">here</a>. Richards' book, <i>The Tragic Sense of Life: Ernst Haeckel and the Struggle over Evolutionary Thought</i>, was published last year by University of Chicago Press.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2476286&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="WNKqA2vylqTY6WEG2Es4cG3wQzImW3iSIpXbdsYjuR8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">EMJ (not verified)</a> on 15 Jul 2009 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/32081/feed#comment-2476286">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="268" id="comment-2476287" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1247700514"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Blake: Thanks for the open subscription link to <a href="http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/biot.2007.2.1.pdf">Richards' original paper</a>. I've updated the link in the body of my post.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2476287&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="0SEsXnpOn-cFdnl3qOOlVrA4GRsLuGdi62UNrHK3o2E"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/emjohnson" lang="" about="/author/emjohnson" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">emjohnson</a> on 15 Jul 2009 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/32081/feed#comment-2476287">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/emjohnson"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/emjohnson" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/Eric%20Michael%20Johnson.jpg?itok=Q0OVgd1a" width="75" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user emjohnson" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-2476288" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1248069818"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>It is commonly argued that there is a causal connection between scientific materialism and immorality. But I think it's pretty clear that moral behavior follows much more from cultural and ideological dispositions. Ironically, the party that most closely encompasses this attitude is also the party of those who would espouse cultural and economic beliefs that are ultimately a form of social Darwinism. That would be the republican party.</p> <p>This belief, at its core, places the blame for much of human suffering not in social constructs or unavoidable genetic constraints (mental illness, etc.) but at personal failure. It believes that the strong survive and succeed because of some innate fitness, while the weak suffer and perish because uf an inherent unfitness. </p> <p>The logical outgrowth of this is social policy that does not accept any moral responsibility for their distress, or even a more equitable view of why the successful are so to begin with. In other words, it is frankly, social Darwinism.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2476288&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="oJtwU3X015DOXaiRe3pdIhGP3wkZORi7Ag5lohdVW_o"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://supervidoqo.blogspot.com/" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Eli (not verified)</a> on 20 Jul 2009 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/32081/feed#comment-2476288">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-2476289" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1270749035"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Interested in the discussion about the potential for eugenic control in the Descent of Man. Wonder if Darwin had qualms about Galton's theories in part because of his own physical problems, as well as the fact that his youngest son is thought to have had Down syndrome or a similar form of intellectual disability.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2476289&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="uKJ7KIVsb3JvstTB94bB3xcl5_LfRqHm-ykY6VZBi2Q"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">JO&#039;Brien (not verified)</span> on 08 Apr 2010 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/32081/feed#comment-2476289">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/primatediaries/2009/07/14/darwins-connection-to-nazi-eug%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:00:03 +0000 emjohnson 143489 at https://scienceblogs.com Why didn't Darwin discover Mendelian genetics first? https://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/2009/03/01/why-didnt-darwin-discover-mend <span>Why didn&#039;t Darwin discover Mendelian genetics first?</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.mikero.com/blog/2009/02/20/more-darwin"><br /><form mt:asset-id="6539" class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><img src="http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/wp-content/blogs.dir/263/files/2012/04/i-e9c8c319e13bc13a2f2a350fbd9fd072-darwin-1-sm.gif" alt="i-e9c8c319e13bc13a2f2a350fbd9fd072-darwin-1-sm.gif" /></form> <p></p></a></div> <p>image by Mike Rosulek<br /> buy merchandise <a href="http://www.zazzle.com/darwin2009">here</a> to benefit NCSE</p> <p>It's a classic question: if Charles Darwin had known about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel">Gregor Mendel</a>'s genetic research, would Darwin have realized it was the missing piece he needed to explain how individual variation was inherited and selected? Was it simply bad luck that Darwin never stumbled on the right experiments? Or was Darwin so constrained by his own perspective on inheritance that he couldn't have seen the importance of Mendel's work, even if he had known about it?</p> <!--more--><p>Jonathan Howard has written <a href="http://jbiol.com/content/8/2/15/abstract">an intriguing overview of this question</a>. He argues that Darwin was on the brink of discovering Mendel's Laws several times - if he had only been looking for them. Darwin, it turns out, did have data much like Mendel's, from Darwin's own plant breeding experiments:</p> <blockquote><p>In one especially poignant case [1], working with the recessive character of radially symmetrical (peloric) flowers of Antirrhinum (Figure 4), Darwin came close to the kind of result that might have ended with a law of segregation. He crossed pure-breeding peloric plants with pure breeding wld types, noting the dominance of the wild type in the F1 progeny. He then established the F2 generation and obtained wild-type and peloric plants in a ratio (88:37) that Mendel (and now we) would effortlessly accept as representing 3:1. However, Darwin had other priorities and was in no way programmed to see the critical meaning in these numbers. He cites them within a sentence and they receive no further comment. </p></blockquote> <p>According to Howard, Darwin didn't see the <em>Antirrhinum</em> results as particularly relevant to natural selection. He was more concerned with continuous, quantitative variable traits - height, skin color, intelligence, strength, etc. He saw subtle differences in those quantitative traits as the fodder for natural selection, as attested by one of his most famous passages from <em>The Origin of Species</em>:</p> <blockquote><p> There is a simple grandeur in this view of life . . . that from so simple an origin, through the process of <em>gradual selection of infinitesimal changes,</em> endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been evolved. (emphasis added).</p></blockquote> <p>"But wait," you might say, "that's not the quote I know!" You're right - this is the <em>1842</em> version of the passage. The better-known 1859 version is simpler, more elegant, and more rhythmic (I always sense echoes of the King James Bible in Darwin's work):</p> <blockquote><p>There is a grandeur in this view of life. . . that. . . from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.</p></blockquote> <p>Although the passage evolved (heh heh), it's worth remembering that when Darwin wrote it, he was thinking of "infinitesimal changes" in continuously variable traits as the basis for those "endless forms most beautiful." It was quantitative traits he saw as the key to natural selection - not discontinuous, qualitative traits like flower shape or pea color. As Howard puts it, "although artificial selection of such anomalous variants could provide an analogy to evolution by natural selection, this was not the real thing."</p> <p>Darwin had a point. The traits geneticists struggle to understand today - intelligence, personality traits, risk for diseases like hypertension - are not simple dominant/recessive characters, but complex traits, to which many alleles make small individual contributions in conjunction with environmental factors (and gene x environment interactions). Complex traits are not the exception, but the rule. </p> <p>But these traits are also the most refractive to genetic analysis - so challenging that genome-wide association studies on thousands of individuals may be required to tease out the tiny contributions of different loci. Complex traits made terrible subjects for experiments to understand the basic mechanisms of inheritance: it would be like trying to learn the principles of electrical circuitry by taking your laptop apart. </p> <p>The argument Howard makes - that Darwin's personal philosophical bias prevented him from recognizing the genetic principles to which he was so tantalizingly close - is plausible but hard to sew up. After all, it wasn't just Darwin who failed to make that leap. His peers didn't either. Mendel's work languished in obscurity for years, until the genetic paradigm shifted around the turn of the century. As Howard points out, Darwin's brilliant cousin Francis Galton (another pea-breeder) was at one point practically on top of Mendel's Laws:</p> <blockquote><p> While Darwin was wrestling with pangenesis Galton was pioneering the analysis of the inheritance of quantitative characters and he documented with extraordinary insight the properties of such inheritance. In particular, he documented the phenomenon of regression to the mean in the context of the inheritance of quantitative characters such as height or intelligence. Regression to the mean records the interaction between control of the character by multiple polymorphic loci of small effect and, of course, multiple environmental effects. Galton approached a correct genetic interpretation of this phenomenon while Darwin confused it with blending inheritance. He also took a lively interest in pangenesis (which he eventually rejected, to Darwin's chagrin) and corresponded extensively with Darwin about it. In a somewhat gnomic response to a query from Darwin, Galton replied "If there were two gemmules only, each of which might be white or black, then in a large number of cases one-quarter would always be quite white, one-quarter quite black, and one half would be grey".</p></blockquote> <p>(Getting warmer! Warmer! You are SO CLOSE RIGHT NOW!!!)</p> <p>Were both Galton and Darwin so set on quantitative traits that they couldn't see the laws revealed by qualitative traits? It's hard to imagine that such brilliant men, thinking so hard about the mechanisms of inheritance, could both miss something so simple. But perhaps it's hard to imagine because, for modern geneticists, Mendel's Laws are child's play (I always wanted to decorate a nursery in Punnett Squares - they'd lend themselves quite nicely to quilts). Mendel was intelligent, a sharp observer, and, given what we now know of molecular genetics, extremely <em>lucky</em> to select well-defined single-gene traits that sorted independently (so lucky, some people have accused him of massaging his data). We almost can't help underestimating how revolutionary Mendel's observations were, and how even the most subtle bias could have thrown another researcher off the track. Who knows what fundamental observations are out there right now, obscured by a researcher's preconceptions?</p> <form mt:asset-id="6565" class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><img src="http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/wp-content/blogs.dir/263/files/2012/04/i-98b4606b53c1a90235ba2dc4a415e294-Picture 1.png" alt="i-98b4606b53c1a90235ba2dc4a415e294-Picture 1.png" /></form> <p>Figure 4: Wild-type and peloric flowers of <em>Antirrhinum majus</em><br /> (photo by Enrico Cohen)</p> <p>Reference: Jonathan C. Howard. <em><a href="http://jbiol.com/content/8/2/15/abstract">Why didn't Darwin discover Mendel's Laws?</a></em> Journal of Biology 2009; 8:15. (free registration required)</p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/author/bioephemera" lang="" about="/author/bioephemera" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">bioephemera</a></span> <span>Sun, 03/01/2009 - 06:46</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/biology" hreflang="en">biology</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/conspicuous-consumption" hreflang="en">Conspicuous consumption</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/history-science-0" hreflang="en">history of science</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/science" hreflang="en">Science</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/antirrhinum" hreflang="en">Antirrhinum</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/darwin" hreflang="en">darwin</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/galton" hreflang="en">Galton</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/genetics" hreflang="en">genetics</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/jonathan-howard" hreflang="en">Jonathan Howard</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/mendel" hreflang="en">Mendel</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/biology" hreflang="en">biology</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/history-science-0" hreflang="en">history of science</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/science" hreflang="en">Science</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-2402906" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1235912048"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>This does all sound like 20/20 hindsight. Even if Darwin had <a href="http://www.mendelweb.org/Mendel.html">read Mendel</a>, would he have seen that it was relevant to more than hybridisation? And if he did, would he have been able to extrapolate to continuous traits (something which took a high level of mathematical sophistication)? If not, I suspect he would have dismissed Mendel's work as not so relevant.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2402906&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="70LMncIbFKP7NW44tKeijrNsXTOaFYr75pVRMVNrvLI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://network.nature.com/people/boboh/blog" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Bob O&#039;H (not verified)</a> on 01 Mar 2009 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/32081/feed#comment-2402906">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-2402907" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1235920963"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>So interesting, and that's a great Darwin illustration. Thanks, you find the coolest stuff!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2402907&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="mjIq9SW756XfO21gpvZKeR4TIDiYGBiFbvImnjD8DZc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://physaria.blogspot.com" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">LindaCO (not verified)</a> on 01 Mar 2009 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/32081/feed#comment-2402907">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-2402908" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1235940409"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>Who knows what fundamental observations are out there right now, obscured by a researcher's preconceptions?</i></p> <p>Just goes to show that a proper interpretation of the data is no small part of the scientific process.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2402908&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="_ZnMvlEucwpTibIdhNHUX72rkUMOfO0Cc9yW0AdiFn0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://bioenergyrus.blogspot.com" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">TomJoe (not verified)</a> on 01 Mar 2009 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/32081/feed#comment-2402908">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-2402909" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1235999342"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Fascinating reading, and I really enjoyed the inclusion of quotations. Mendel was a mathematician and recognized the patterns in many of the traits he studied. He chose to look at markedly different versions of a trait, while Darwin was a collector and looked for variation. Perhaps the key is all in what you're looking at. </p> <p>A further question: are Mendel and Darwin still pertinent in today's genetics education? How do teachers relate genome-wide-associations (GWAS) to two-factor inheritance? I once started a high school Advanced Placement class with molecular genetics, while having the students perform Drosophila crosses. They then had to write a response to Mendel's paper based on their results--and no classroom time on Punnett Squares or the like. (Of course, they had had such training earlier in school.) Perhaps we can start with "modern" genetics and place Mendel and Darwin in the "historical" aspect, explaining how scientists work.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2402909&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="DLGogoFAJDPVI48LmVSHHZ6elzZFEFphtyePD-nUDhA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.geneforum.org" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Marie Godfrey (not verified)</a> on 02 Mar 2009 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/32081/feed#comment-2402909">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="215" id="comment-2402910" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1236002364"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Interesting question, Marie. I found when teaching basic genetics in various college courses that Punnett squares helped students grasp the very basics - like how an XX female and an XY male produce 50% daughters and 50% sons, and why a colorblind female can have colorblind sons but not colorblind daughters. But I also found that students were quite reasonably frustrated when they realized they could not then use a Punnett Square to figure out how tall, smart, or dark-skinned a couple's kids would be - that, in fact, the list of traits they could use this strategy on were quite short. (They didn't really care about peas). I do love Drosophila breeding for a real immersion into the concept of linkage disequlibrium, the difficulty of phenoytping, and the practical challenges of labwork, but realistically, Drosophila linkage analysis is beyond the capabilities of most HS science labs. . . good for you for making it happen at your school.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2402910&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="cEojqwKuhXY3JPM2dTeGSpTYN8CzlFH4kgEwPT4dsOQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/bioephemera" lang="" about="/author/bioephemera" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">bioephemera</a> on 02 Mar 2009 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/32081/feed#comment-2402910">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/bioephemera"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/bioephemera" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-2402911" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1236002741"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Darwin didn't even discover 'darwinism', that is, 'wallaceism'.<br /> Worth checking out The Darwin Conspiracy, by Roy Davies, to see how Darwin ripped off all of his majore thinking from Wallace. </p> <p><a href="http://darwiniana.com/2009/03/02/three-posts-on-the-darwin-conspiracy/">http://darwiniana.com/2009/03/02/three-posts-on-the-darwin-conspiracy/</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2402911&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="WrIA5cW6ypjhoy59sIBZSQlJjA_JNHB3QQ7k7RzrSpw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://darwiniana.com" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Landon (not verified)</a> on 02 Mar 2009 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/32081/feed#comment-2402911">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="215" id="comment-2402912" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1236009914"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Darwin didn't "rip off" Wallace. They independently developed the same themes. Darwin was indeed motivated to get off his chair and publish by Wallace's imminent publication, and as the senior scientist (who had been working on these issues much longer) he had the advantage. But using the word "conspiracy" is too much for me.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2402912&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ev0S4YUq40DfeVotzFRFlSRq4MuAHcrTSyx48TwkmCk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/bioephemera" lang="" about="/author/bioephemera" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">bioephemera</a> on 02 Mar 2009 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/32081/feed#comment-2402912">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/bioephemera"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/bioephemera" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-2402913" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1236021884"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I wonder if Darwin ever had to prepare a meal by following a recipe. Small variations in the instructions of how to assemble a dish - particularly baked goods - often lead to some interestingly different outcomes, with the obvious analogy. Darwin may have been prevented from discovering Mendelian genetics by gender roles..... (Although, maybe, if he had talked to some brewers about their art he might have got around that obstacle.)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2402913&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="XSosCywOHZ5HXv46XPOtqxLidlXTvOp5sIUYAudConU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">christopher gwyn (not verified)</span> on 02 Mar 2009 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/32081/feed#comment-2402913">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-2402914" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1236072219"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>There are (apocryphal) stories that a copy of Mendel's paper, with the pages uncut, was found in Down House after Darwin's death.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2402914&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="6N0FrkSddiE580THmsMauivFjkK6F66-MVh1FR17Kqw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">owen (not verified)</span> on 03 Mar 2009 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/32081/feed#comment-2402914">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="215" id="comment-2402915" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1236079309"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Heh heh. I've heard that. I think Howard might argue it wouldn't have mattered if the pages were cut or uncut. . .</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2402915&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="i6E4KKplDL9slRTaXAALZKaYIWytyLI3lnrcYclj3yo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/author/bioephemera" lang="" about="/author/bioephemera" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">bioephemera</a> on 03 Mar 2009 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/32081/feed#comment-2402915">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/author/bioephemera"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/author/bioephemera" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-2402916" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1236149712"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>re the rumours on Darwin´s having the Mendel paper: according to Cambridge Library, where most of Darwins original papers etc. are kept, Darwin owned a German book on plant breeding with a section on Mendel. It was these pages that were uncut. And Darwin was notoriously bad at foreign languages.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2402916&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="vOaFpZpfEz6jcdXdaYALCapSqyHz0vMk3RRV8bABAJg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">marcus werner (not verified)</span> on 04 Mar 2009 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/32081/feed#comment-2402916">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-2402917" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1240639703"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Wow, I never knew that Why didn't Darwin discover Mendelian genetics first?. That's pretty interesting...</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2402917&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="OEtqshPUeRZRaBgTMkIkBBR0gQWfEBPCSr3A-dBsHQY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.yachtcharter-griechenland.de" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="yachtcharter griechenland">yachtcharter g… (not verified)</a> on 25 Apr 2009 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/32081/feed#comment-2402917">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/bioephemera/2009/03/01/why-didnt-darwin-discover-mend%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:46:15 +0000 bioephemera 129367 at https://scienceblogs.com