[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

ping

[Sparta]

I'm undecided on Darwin's theory, so I'll be interested in the comments.

[elbucko]

Ridiculous !

[Aric2000]

Ping?

[Aric2000]

This has got to be one of the most ridiculous and reaching thesis against Darwin that I have ever seen.

It is called intelligence, maker of tools, killer of animals for their fur etc.

We were able, mostly, to get out of the evolutionary necessity of fighting for survival. The last millenium or so has sped this up as our medicine has gotten better, our technology has gotten better etc.

This does NOTHING to disprove Darwins Theory of Evolution, and whoever says it is, is a noncritical thinking fool.

[Voice in your head]

I believe that the article is working off of an incorrect assumption:

"IF DARWIN'S THEORY of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive: a competition in which only a few in any generation can be winners."

Does he mean organisms within a species or organisms of different species? Each organism is in a constant competition with its peers for fitness, not survival. The competition of fitness is not winner-take-all. The functional unit of evolution is the population, not the individual.

[AndrewC]

Thanks for the ping. In our time Richard Dawkins is fair image of Huxley as "shill/snake oil salesman".

[AndrewC]

"the reign of Elizabeth..., the stuggle for existence between man and man has been so largely restrained among the great mass of the population (except for one or two short intervals of civil war), that it can have little, or no selective operation."[4]

It seems as if some people here are denying that Huxley made the above statement. Otherwise, they are implying that Darwin's bulldog is wrong about Darwin's theory.

[jennyp]

If this is an article in the "Avebury Series in Philosophy", it doesn't bode well for the rest of the series! (Unless the series includes a rebuttal, but better would have been for it to die in editorial review.)