I have a discussion coming up with my college. The topic is darwin and his work, it will basicaly be about who he was and what his views were. I dont want to base my argument on rumors, i have heard that part of his work suggested that after the apes when man started to stand, he continued to evovle. He said that evolution of man kind can be seen by the multitued of races. That it started in africa and man kind was perfect by the time it reached Europe. is this true? was this actually apart of his work? Did he honestly believe that Africans are/where superior to Europens.
I may not be able to reply stright away but any comments or ideas will be really helpful.
2007-10-07 23:15:12 · 9 answers · asked by Jama D 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
I've never heard that Darwin ever said that people in Europe were perfected. I don't even think he mentioned Homo Sapiens originating in the Africa Savannah (although that is what modern science has discovered).
Really, the best written material on Darwin is reading Origin of Species. It's well thought out and a great read.
2007-10-07 23:34:35 · answer #1 · answered by adphllps 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Whatever you decide about Darwin, PLEASE ensure you don't make the same mistake a lot of ignorant Christians do: Darwin NEVER claimed that humans were descended from apes. In fact, Darwin maintained that humans and apes have a COMMON ANCESTOR (ever heard of the phrase 'the missing link'?). Many Christians ignorantly proclaim, 'well, I've never seen a monkey turn into a human', thinking they've just struck one for common-sense. In fact, they are just misinformed or simply ignorant of the facts. Darwin claimed humans and apes have a common ancestor and at some point diverged on the evolutionary scale.
Whether you believe that or not (and there really is a lot of evidence supporting his claims) is up to you. But just make sure you get it right and don't misquote him.
2007-10-07 23:53:39 · answer #2 · answered by durulz2000 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think he would of ever used the word perfect. This sounds like some racist pseudo-Darwinism that became popular early in the twentieth century. Rather, he would of asserted that an organism had evolved to thrive in its environment. Of course environments change and evolution is an ongoing process.
I don't know how long you have to prepare for this discussion but I would suggest going to the original sources. Either "The Origin of the Species" or "The Descent of Man"
2007-10-08 01:39:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
He certainly wasn't a lunatic. he was a scientist who came to conclusions after long observation and experimentation. His Theory of the Evolution of Species by Natural Selection does suggest that man and the great apes share a common ancestor, millions of years ago. And, yes, when the first of those ancestors started to walk upright it didn't immediately evolve into Homo Sapiens. There were many hominids before that. I'm not sure that it was Darwin who suggested man evolved in Africa - that came later with archaeological discoveries, particularly by Prof. Richard Leakey.
2007-10-07 23:34:11 · answer #4 · answered by rdenig_male 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
Charles Darwin never claimed one race was superior over another. He argued that man adapted to his climate and living conditions, therefore evolving based on necessity, practicality and survivall of the fittest. He didn't claim that the inhabitants of Africa were perfect by the time they migrated to Europe, he never claimed any race was perfect. That would be against his own theory that all living things are constantly evolving to better suit their environment and living conditions..
Charles darwin, if anything, saw an equality among the races, as we were all from common ancestry.
2007-10-08 00:43:46 · answer #5 · answered by tmerion 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm really getting tired of this issue... really! Darwin was a scientist. He observed nature, proposed a hypothesis and made arguments about it, like every other scientist in the history of mankind. (note that i do not claim if he was right or not, it is really irrelevant) Now a bunch of loons 'cause his hypothesis happened to go against their naive superstitions try to make a lunatic out of him.... Who's next?? Newton maybe?
2016-05-18 22:34:46 · answer #6 · answered by rosie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't remember anything of the type like you stated: you must remember your speaking of Darwin and the 18th Century, not now and the twentieth Century. You have to address the situation. Your not.
A " lunatic" I think not and, I don't think your ready to address Darwin.
Charles Darwin was a thinker and, far beyond his years. Look at Einstein and, the thoughts he had. Even today, they cannot even try and accept his theories, he's so far advanced. So, would you call him a Lunatic, I think not.
2007-10-07 23:47:11 · answer #7 · answered by cowboydoc 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They say it is really true based on his scientific explanation and I know that he found some evidences in Africa that there really is the revolution of mankind but it is not completely proven because even up to now they still cannot find the missing link.
2007-10-07 23:22:52 · answer #8 · answered by 'nicez' 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He was a revolutionary thinker. If you bother to read his book you may find out the truth instead of the corrupted version from fundementalists.
2007-10-08 05:52:02 · answer #9 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋