Darwin's
Magnificent Omission
A DISCUSSION OF DARWIN'S FAILURE TO PERCEIVE
MAN'S CONCEPTUAL ABILITY
By: Doubting Thomas
rev. Apr. 7, 1998
PREFACE
In recent years there has been an increasing interest in the relationship of "our
closest relatives" - the other primates - to man. A number of articles and some books
have been written on the subject. Cell biologists have "discovered" that there
is only a 2% difference** between chimp and human DNA, often implying a similarity such as
perhaps, a 2% difference between automobiles. Some, scientists and lay alike, believe that
animals can think. Most ideas of this type have their origin in Darwin's theory of
evolution. Darwin's book "Origins"* attempts to show the mechanism by which
development of all living things occurred through a mechanism which he terms "natural
selection". His later book "Descent"* extrapolates this process to
the development of Homo sapiens from the primates.
This page looks at that conclusion plus some other
ideas of Darwin's and points out that he ignored some very evident phenomena in the
process, often using vague asssumptions. It is suggested that the nearly universal
credence given to this idea must be due to the nature of his conclusions, rather than to
the methodology of reaching same.
* see references below
SYNOPSIS
The Darwinian theory of
evolution, as expressed in Darwin's "Origins" book, has been faulted for many
shortcomings, not the least of which is the well recognized fact it is tautological. But
it is his failure to recognize the capability of conceptual thought as being distinct and
unique to mankind, which is discussed here. Because the idea is part of the aura of the
Darwinian mystique it is rarely questioned. The ideas of Alfred Wallace(a), who
published the theory of evolution jointly with Darwin, are also discussed. Wallace
disagreed with him, and clearly believed man to be unique in possessing a conceptual
ability, considering it to be part of a "spiritual" nature in man, yet this fact
is never mentioned. A portion of Wallace's rarely seen arguments are presented in a
quotation.
Because there seems to be increasing belief that
chimps and other primates have some ability of conceptual thought, a simple argument, one
of many available, is presented which shows the contrary. That Darwin did not understand
this concept is shown by his conclusions. Speculation is made about Darwin's failure to
understand this concept.
MAN THE ANIMAL -
The paradigm according to Darwin.
Darwin's theory, as well
as a multitude of other theories which discuss various aspects of life makes no essential
distinction between man and any other type of animal. Humans differ from animals such as
dogs, cats, and chimps in features such as size, shape, physical characteristics and
"intelligence", the latter difference which is usually explained by the larger
brain of the human. Virtually all who do not believe in a unique conceptual ability of man
express this belief.
For example, in an analysis of primate fossils, brain
case size is the major factor used to distinguish human from non-human species. Darwin
made much of brain case size in an effort to back his theory. In his book, Descent ,
he quotes Dr. J. Barnard Davis' careful measurements which show that the mean internal
capacity of the skull in Europeans is 92.3 cubic inches, in Americans 87.5, and in
Australians only 81.9 cubic inches. He further states that the mean capacity of the skull
of the ancient troglodytes of Lozere (cavemen) is greater than that of "modern"
Frenchmen. But then Darwin was British, and nobility at that. However, it should be
pointed out that this conclusion is typical of a Darwinian "scientific"
conslusion.
Throughout his book, The Descent of Man, he
discusses mainly the various physical similarities and dissimilarities between man and the
other animals, virtually omitting reference to the intellectual side of man. An absolutely
astounding statement, also contained in his book, was made by Darwin when comparing the
brain of man and the brain of an orang. He acknowledged that they don't agree (in certain
characteristics), but states "nor could perfect agreement be expected, for
otherwise their mental powers would have been the same". (emphasis added). This
assumption, stated as fact without supporting argument, gets the medal as the most
rash statement in all of his writings. In as much as even today, there is very little
agreement and understanding about how the brain really "works" it may one of the
most rash statements in science. But the statement proves conclusively, if more proof is
needed, that Darwin understands no fundamental difference between the mind of the human
and the "mind" of the remainder of the animal kingdom.
There is such a remarkable clue in the above
statement, which clearly points to Darwin's pattern of thought, that it should not be
overlooked. If this statement were true, then the remainder of the argument presented by
his Descent book is absolutely unnecessary. The facts which should point to the
truth of that (rash) statement would carry the day. All that is needed is the set of
premises together with some proof for the conclusion and it provides major, perhaps
conclusive evidence, that man has descended from the line of primates and further, that
evolution is a fact. All other arguments he uses would be, by comparison, superfluous. In
typical Darwinian fashion, he furnishes none.
Also in typical Darwinian fashion, THIS IS PRECISELY
WHAT HE IS TRYING TO PROVE in the book. Thus the statement is circular reasoning (b),
which is fatal to his argument, as it assumes what he is trying to prove. It is not
a new tactic, because he likewise "assumes" infinite variability in species in
his "Origins" book, as below, which assumption guarantees that there will
be "evolution".
Many arguments both by Darwin and others, are used to
prove similarity between man and the animals, one of the more important being that animals
use tools. Animals use tools of course, but more importantly, and to the point being
discussed here, they have no understanding of tools. Simple experiments have proven
over and over again, that animals develop the use of tools through trial and error or by
mimicry and example, and not by the cognitive process as does man. It seems highly
irregular that evolutionists can easily understand that trial and error will produce an
incredibly complex object such as a living cell, and yet be unable to understand that
during (an assumed) 20 M year period in the wild, chimps would not learn to use some
simple "tools" by that very same trial and error process. At best this belief in
tool use is wishful thinking; and the paucity of evidence supporting the idea creates the
inference that it is, at worst, an article of Faith.
But probably the best of Darwin's many arguments to
show similarity between man and the animals is the fact that animals (mainly dogs) quiver,
grimace, and move their feet and limbs while they sleep. He interprets this as being the
result of "imagination" at work, in dreaming. (This appallingly simplistic
conclusion is not worthy of the consideration of being "science", and it is easy
to see how even a 5th grade essay containing this conclusion might be returned to the
pupil with a note to that effect.) Yet many similar statements are accepted by scientists
as valid proof of the ability to "think". It makes one wonder whether Darwin had
ever seen a decapitated chicken run around the barnyard.
MAN THE HUMAN -A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT VISION
In fact one has, for all
practical purposes, to leave the field of biology, anthropology, evolution, etc. (science)
altogether, to find references which indicate a belief in an essential difference between
humans and the remainder of the animal kingdom. Virtually all religions, and many
governments (now) recognize that man is fundamentally different from all of the other
animals. (It should be noted that the system of government known as "Communism",
now almost defunct, did not recognize this feature of mankind).
This recognition takes the form of an acknowledgement
that man's mental abilities are not only different in quantity but also in kind
from the rest of the animals. The evidence of this recognition is a document such as the
U.S. Constitution, which clearly sets out this proposition and enumerates the reasons why
various rights thereby accrue to man.
Animals are not even mentioned in these documents, and
thus the inference is made that they are different "in kind". (To
say that "government" makes this determination, of course, is to use a figure of
speech. In a democracy, such as the U.S., citizen acceptance determines the existence of
such a document and it is obviously this will and understanding which produces this
recognition.)
With this understanding in mind, a more proper
conclusion about "Our closest relative" is that the chimp (and of course all the
other primates) are really and truly more kindred with their fleas than with any human
being. And while this statement may cause apoplexy among evolutionists, a very simple
argument will be presented which illustrates that animals completely lack a conceptual
ability, so characteristic of homo sapiens. While the evolutionists are saying, as
above, that the chimpanzee's genetic makeup is only 2% different from that of a human,
implying in this as meaning the sole difference between humans and the chimps, they
are speaking of a similarity only in the physical characteristics between the two,
ignoring the conceptual ability of man.
WHAT DARWIN MISSED: THE DUALITY OF MAN
Because man is required to engage in animal behavior as a
simple matter of existence, his animal nature is evident. In many respects this behavior
is little different than that of "our closest relatives", the other primates. If
an argument is made that man behaves, in this mode, with something like 98% similarly to
the other primates, it would not be worth anyone's time to refute the claim.
But what of the actions of man when he is behaving in
a manner unique to his species? Here we find an altogether different set of
characteristics not possessed by any other living thing. Man has the unique ability of
conceptual thought, whereby he can understand his surroundings, and create methods to
control many of the influences in the world to which animals can only react. Thus, he can
build a house to suit his individual liking, plant food, capture, and tame animals. He can
investigate and understand various relationships in the world around him and put to work
various effects which he discovers such as heat, electricity, physical properties etc. Man
can invent a specific method of communication both in writing, and speech which will allow
the transfer of conceptual thought from one being to another, from one generation to the
next.
Likewise he can create things for his own amusement
such as games, music, arts. He can appreciate the beauty of sights, sounds, taste, and
touch, and manipulate the world around him in such a way as to accumulate these features.
The list is endless of course.
Where however, is there any evidence that other
animals possess even the slightest of these abilities? If the most highly developed of the
primates is the chimpanzee, a most cursory look at it's environment shows it to be
incapable of any of the above actions. Animals are at the complete mercy of the
environment for their existence. No animal species has so much as invented the simplest of
competitive games to amuse themselves. This simple argument mentioned above is all that is
required to prove that animals possess none of these human capabilities whatsoever. It is
the result of common sense (deductive) logic, using the following facts which are
available to all:
1. The animal closest to humans is the chimpanzee. ( < 2%
difference genetically accepted for purpose of argument, but see ** below.)
2. Chimps have been around for supposedly 20M years.*
3. One of the highest, or perhaps the highest concern of any animal must be the
preservation of its own individual existence.
4.There is not a shred of evidence either in the past or today that any chimp has made any
improvement whatsoever in its surroundings or environment to further the above concern.
* with apologies to the new world creationists, as it would be more
proper to say that it appears to some that they have been around for 20M years.
In sharp contrast, the very earliest history of man,
regardless of which version you choose to believe, shows intimate involvement of humans in
modification of the environment in order to enhance their own and the collective well
being. If this one fact alone does not indicate a fundamental difference between humans
and all other animals, it once again requires explanation that has not yet been expressed
by those who hold a contrary view. And once again this is a very simple concept which
would be easily explainable to and understood by grade school children.
DARWIN AND WALLACE -- 2 OPPOSING VIEWS
Alfred Russel Wallace was
a compatriot of Darwin's who independently developed his own theory of evolution, and was
the first to publish the theory of evolution as it is known today. The theories are so
similar that they were published simultaneously in the same journal in 1859, and read
together at the same inaugural presentation. Wallace eventually wrote a book entitled
"Darwinism"* in which he explains and elaborates on Darwin's
theory. However his views differ sharply from Darwin's on the true origins of
living matter, as he was what today would be called a "creationist". He
was convinced that intervention was required at least three times in the change from
inanimate matter to the human being, and states that changes from non-living to living
matter are "beyond all possibility of explanation by matter, its laws and forces
". So clear are his ideas on the origin of all living things that it is
felt appropriate to quote a portion of his conclusions here, regarding the characteristics
of man, as follows:
"It will, no doubt, be urged that the admitted
continuity of man's progress from the brute does not admit of the introduction of new
causes, and that we have no evidence of the sudden change of nature which such
introduction would bring about. The fallacy as to new causes involving any breach of
continuity, or any sudden or abrupt change, in the effects, has already been shown; (in
preceding arguments - DT) but we will further point out that there are at least
three stages in the development of the organic world when some new cause or power must
necessarily have come into action.
He then develops arguments describing the
changes in stage one, from simple chemicals to living plants, the next stage the
development of living plants to living animals, and finally the third stage:
"The third stage is, as we have seen, the
existence in man of a number of his most characteristic and noblest faculties, those which
raise him furthest above the brutes and open up possibilities of almost indefinite
advancement. These faculties could not possibly have been developed by means of the same
laws which have determined the progressive development of the organic world in general,
and also of man's physical organism.
So it can be seen that Wallace agrees with Darwin on many
things but not his views on the origin of life or particularly the origin of mankind.
Wallace further presents compelling arguments that man's capabilities such as mathematics,
arts, and humor, could not have been caused by "natural selection". He
concludes:
"The special facilities we have been discussing
clearly point to the existence in man of something which he has not derived from his
animal progenitors------". He calls this a "spiritual nature".
("Darwinism" p.474)
Without naming it as such, he is discussing some of the features resulting from the
conceptual ability of man. Virtually all humans who have considered man's abilities
understand this proposition. Darwin and many scientists, along with those who are firm
believers in Darwin, do not.
AN INFINITY OF DIFFERENCE
The gulf of difference
between humans and animals is so wide that it is extremely difficult to describe it using
mere words. One reason for this is that no one really understands conceptual thought, much
less the workings of the mind. The current trend has been to compare a computer to a human
mind, but those who understand computers know this comparison is not correct. Computers
execute tasks by manipulating discrete bits of data; the human mind appears to be able to
manipulate huge amounts of information simultaneously. There is really no comparison
between the two methods of operation.
On the other hand those who maintain that
animals have the same mental ability as man but in some reduced form, would have the
obligation to explain the similarities by virtue of either a complete explanation of both
systems, or alternately by describing the effects of similar actions of both of the
systems. So far as the former is concerned, the information is not presently known; as
regards the latter, the simple argument stated above will have to be disproved.
Currently, millions of dollars have been and are being
spent in an attempt to do so, but to no avail. The chimp has never built a house, owns no
property or tools, does nothing to enhance the availability or taste of it's food, and has
no knowledge of, or the ability to, maintain it's own or any other chimps health. When the
weather is cold, the chimp is cold; when it is wet, the chimp is wet. When a grown chimp
falls from a tree and is injured so that it cannot climb, it is food for the hyenas. It
cannot communicate by a means other than grunts and shrieks, the same method as used by
any group of social animals. Even though it has been subject to predation from other
animals throughout it's existence, it has developed no method of defense, such as an army
or force of any kind with weapons, rather it lives in trees as it has done since the
beginning. This is a purely thoughtless animal existance, and the burden of proof of any
conceptual ability in the chimp is on those who maintain the idea.
But Darwin was not the only person who
"missed" the boat on this one. Virtually all of the prominent evolutionists,
psychologists, etc. as above, together with the mass Media, hold the belief that humans
differ only in degree from the remainder of the animal kingdom. The unfortunate aspect of
it all is that those who believe this way, ironically, shape our views on this subject.
Nowhere is this more clearly shown than in the taxonomic classification of man.
THE CLASSIFICATION OF MAN
Man is classed along with
the rest of the animals in the taxonomic hierarchy under the following: Order: Primates,
Family: Hominidae, Genus: Homo, Species:Homo, there being only one genus in the family,
hominidae. From this system comes the oft cited statement that man's "closest
relative" is one of the primates, the chimpanzee. There are good reasons for this
classification and it is doubtless correct when considering only the animal nature of
man. So far so good.
The problem arises of course, when this classification
is considered as the complete description of man; all biology books and most
biologists accept this description in this manner. Whether or not you agree that man has a
dual nature, you are bound to agree that man's conceptual ability is a far more
significant feature than his animal nature. A cursory look at the world shows clearly that
many individuals, nearly completely lacking in animal abilities, are held to be superb
members of the human race, Stephen Hawkings*, being but one current example.
Thus it must be concluded that the taxonomic
description of man is at best a partial, misleading truth. In every way it is comparable
to describing a geometric figure, say a "square", as a simple
"quadrilateral " (a four sided figure) and omitting the unique characteristic of
a square, that of the interior angles being equal, from the description. No responsible
teacher or text would use this tactic; yet it is done universally in the field of biology.
Darwin's writings as well as the writings many others, support this tactic explicitly as
well as by default in that no disclaimer to the classification system is ever made
regarding the characteristics or dual nature, of man. Is it any wonder that there are
serious objections to the teaching of Darwin's theory in school.
SOME SPECULATION ABOUT DARWIN
It is very hard to resist the temptation not to attempt an
explanation of his inability to understand conceptual ability. A reading of many of the
statements in his book Descent leaves one absolutely aghast at conclusions found
there. For example take the following quote :
"We must also admit that there is a much wider interval in mental power between
one of the lowest fishes, as a lamprey or lancelet, and one of the higher apes, than
between an ape and man; yet this interval is filled up by numberless gradations."
This example is only one of many that occur throughout his book in the same vein, with
similar conclusions lacking any sort of validity, or much less, any proof. With
conclusions of this type, it ought to be amazing that any credence whatsoever is given to
anything written by the man. And yet he is revered by many as the greatest man of his
century, and some say of all time. The reverance must certaintly be a result of the nature
of his conclusions, rather than to the methodology of reaching the same.
SOME CONSEQUENCES
At least one comment on the consequences of these beliefs of
Darwin and others, should be made even though the topic has been addressed at book length
elesewhere. So it should be said that the failure of science (and consequently our
culture) to distinguish a fundamental difference between man and the other animals has
established a set of beliefs which inevitably opens the path for many divisions which are
so evident in our society including, but not limited to, racial and ethnic stereotypes.
After all, according to latest scientific theories, the relationship between the various
races is somewhat similar to that between the human and (his cousin/brother) the
monkey/orang. Instead of all humans being united by the uniquely magnificent ability of
conceptual thought, they are as different as the rest of the animal species are from one
another. Some conclusion. Ideas do have consequences.
The fact that the scientific community is reluctant to
ascribe fundamental differences to mankind is puzzling to say the least. This is not to
say that the study of evolutionary biology, for example, should dwell on these fundamental
differences, but they should not be ignored and yet, in fact, they are not only ignored,
these differences are almost universally denied. Darwin and his followers have omitted
from consideration the most magnificent feature in the entire universe: the Mind of Man.
(a) Alfred Russel Wallace
(1823-1913). He was contemporary with Darwin, a self-taught biologist who spent most of
his life as a collector of biological species which he sold to museums. His theory of
evolution is virtually identical with Darwin's. He was the first to publish on the current
theory, and together they published what is known today as "Darwin's" theory.
There is some evidence that Darwin received major help from Wallace in development of the
theory. This brilliant man has essentially been lost to the history of biology.
(b) Circular Reasoning: an assumption made in an argument that contains
the acceptance as fact, of an element which needs to be proved for the argument to be
valid. Here he assumes that it is brain size (plus some other unspecified
characteristics) which account for the differences in mental ability. Thus, he can't be
wrong.
For another example, in his book "Origins" Darwin has assumed that a species (or
variety) possesses sufficient genetic variability such that it either has within itself,
or can develop, the characteristics of a new species. He spends one whole chapter in
discussion of problems with his theory and glosses over this assumption as if it were
fact; since it must be fact for his theory to be viable, and instead has been assumed, it
is circular reasoning. In this case, Darwin is asking you to believe that his assumption
is correct, simply because it is evident that species are different. (Also called
"Begging the Question")
**Since human DNA (the code for reproduction of cells) consists of about 2 billion
instructions, we are talking about a change of some 40,000,000 instructions. It is
important to know, that a change in just one instruction out of the 2 billion can
make the difference between a normal human, and one with say, Sickle Cell Anemia, a fatal
disease.
But there is a most important difference which is
always omitted from the 2% argument: the other primates have 48 chromosomes
as opposed to the 46 chromosomes in a human. This in itself is more than a 4% difference
in genetic makeup.
The real significance of this information however, is
that it could possibly mean a complete reorganization in all the chromosomes in
order for this to have happened; no one really knows. Those who use the 2% argument should
be aware that they are presenting a partial truth in an effort to suggest a similarity
between the 2 species; this tactic should be considered nothing other than pure
proselytization. Also, those who are familiar with "Haldane's Dilemma" would
realize that his objection is only the tip of the iceberg. (And also, according to
Darwinian theory, the primates are really a more highly developed species than the human;
it is therefore a requirement that they "evolved" later than humans).
Practically speaking, it should really be an
indication that there is no connection between the two species (really genera) and
furthermore that science has no creditable knowledge of their origin. The "2%
argument" should be considered more in the realm of hope than science.
As a note of interest to those unfamiliar with cell
biology, and as an indication of the complexity of the entire subject, each and every one
of the 100 trillion cells which makes up a human, contains the entire genetic code
of 2 billion instructions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*REFERENCES
The Origin of Species Charles Darwin, 1859
The Descent of Man Charles Darwin, 1871
Darwinism Alfred Russel Wallace, 1891
Stephen Hawkings, theoretical physicist, author of the best seller, A Brief History of
Time.
