This history of evolution is missing a lot in my opinion. Darwin's theory isn't even considered the direct precursor to modern evolutionary theories, though of course it isn't considered completely wrong. Modern evolution is something called the modern synthesis, which relies heavily on Darwin but is generally not considered to come from his, though I think that leaves the problem of who it did come from. I tend to consider the answer to that to be Friedrich Wilhelm Schelling, who is someone Darwin actually did give some credit to for his own theory of evolution, but I do think when you trace them all back Schelling is basically the ancestor of modern evolutionary theories to use a metaphor, and Darwin etc. made more minor contributions. It's definitely not Lamarck or God forbid Lysenko like you keep mentioning as being the tankie denial of evolution and which I enjoy your exposés on, though Darwinism actually includes Lamarckism, Darwin believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Linnaeus did nothing direct to help the belief in evolution either. Linneaus always thought species were immutable, he just thought new species were created out of old ones in the tree, but not that species themselves could ever change, just that new ones sort of branched off sometimes.
Saying there's a common ancestor is helpful for evolutionary theories, but the thing is, Linnaeus's particular form of taxonomy relies heavily on species being immutable. To this day there are a lot of different species concepts that are debated between. The fertile offspring one is probably an absolutely terrible species concept because it doesn't work for the vast majority of organisms which are asexual bacteria, and it doesn't also work for open species, which in prehistory would include hominins such as Homo sapiens. If there were more than one species of hominins alive today (aliens or mutants or something?) modern biology would have no way to describe it. There are hypothetical ways to describe these things, I've written about the cohesion definition of species before which I particularly like, especially since it seems to work in light of comparing organism development to species development (e.g., axolotls, extinct ginkgos, polar bears) but that's not accepted by most biologists in most contexts even if it's not really controversial so much as just not widely used.
I do enjoy these articles and I like the comments on Lysenko and all the Soviet garbage. I think that's right on-point. Just that Darwin isn't quite the same as modern evolutionary theory even if that does raise the question of who invented them. I think that's more of a British empire vs. German issue though at least in terms of what you say about occult religions organizing these things which I also agree with. I mean, at the end of the day I kind of think all the wars are religious wars after all no matter how much some people try to claim it's really about money or whatever. There doesn't really need to be much of a conspiracy, the people who've been taught one religion will join up and fight the people who were taught another and those are your "conspiracies."
I know it leaves a lot out, and were I better-known, I'm sure someone would be using this article as an example of cherry-picking. Here's the thing though: this is an unusually long article for me, and I'm responding to a video, which itself is a response to an entire book, and the thesis isn't really evolution, but the origin of the denialist arguments. I know that there doesn't need to be some deliberate collusion on Samaan's part, but there is definitely a grand conspiracy surrounding evolution denial, which I'm not sure when I'm going to finally get into, but it's been on my list of things to write about for a while.
In fact, to answer your second comment as well, Answers in Genesis is one organsation I'm intimately familiar with, and I'll definitely do a deep dive into its sketchy activities, particularly its political connections. This could easily turn into an entire series, but I'd have to consult my old college notebooks which are currently buried deep in storage lockers, not to mention that, regardless of how good my memory is, some of the stuff I learned might be wrong or just outdated. For example, some of the local wildlife has been reclassified and a third of the scientific names in my field guides are no longer correct, which is something that I like to point out in articles like this one: https://peakd.com/hive-127788/@steampunkkaja/serenaya-amerikanskaya-lesnaya-cherepaha-north-american-wood-turtle
And don't get me started on ring species, which I suspect is the case with my local green frog population. Amphibians are delightfully weird.
Anyway, if I don't find any mention of Schelling or Goethe in my old notes, I'll be sure to look them up before getting back into this subject. Thanks!
OK you’re welcome and thanks! But yeah I clicked on the spider one immediately, since rather than being arachnophobic I used to basically try to turn every adult spider (since there were too many babies for me to keep track of) into my pet and give it a name. I mean I mostly left them alone other than trying to give them stuff outside where they lived like some people do with stray cats and pick them up way too much, but yeah.
I can’t wait to read more about the evolution denial stuff regardless! That’s been a particular interest to me, both because I am interested enough in evolution to name my blog in reference to it as a replacement for the generic but alliterative “McKuen Musings,” and because certain people who don’t get along with me at all seem very keen to deny it, which is ironic seeing some of the sources those people claim to cite. We all know they haven’t actually read their sources though, they just think anyone who’s supported by more alternative people must not believe in evolution it seems.
OK, this site is pretty wacky about most topics but it does seem to have good sources for clearing up misunderstandings about Linnaeus.
On the other hand, you probably should look into what I said about Schelling and the fact I think Darwin basically ripped him off since that's where all the evidence points. You said you think Germany and Russia should've united and I found that an interesting perspective. I do think Darwin just ripped off Schelling as much as that's something you'll basically never ever hear. I also do kind of agree with the critique that Darwin is Malthusian even if communists gave it, but that's because if you look through Darwin's own journals he himself said he was Malthusian. I see the Malthusianism in Darwin as being the belief solely that random mutations occur and then natural selection chooses to pick them off. I think this is negated by the modern knowledge we have that mutations aren't random, though it also seems like Goethe contributed the same idea just without Mendel's genetics, because Mendel didn't do them until Goethe was long dead, through Goethe's idea of morphology which was actually how it was discovered humans descended from apes in the first place, the intermaxillary bone in humans is actually also called the Goethe bone, and these contributions are being ignored because the British don't like Germans or something. You've given me a lot to think about re: Lysenkoism and I hope you'll take my comments on what I know about the history of evolutionary theory well even if it wasn't in your class you took.
This history of evolution is missing a lot in my opinion. Darwin's theory isn't even considered the direct precursor to modern evolutionary theories, though of course it isn't considered completely wrong. Modern evolution is something called the modern synthesis, which relies heavily on Darwin but is generally not considered to come from his, though I think that leaves the problem of who it did come from. I tend to consider the answer to that to be Friedrich Wilhelm Schelling, who is someone Darwin actually did give some credit to for his own theory of evolution, but I do think when you trace them all back Schelling is basically the ancestor of modern evolutionary theories to use a metaphor, and Darwin etc. made more minor contributions. It's definitely not Lamarck or God forbid Lysenko like you keep mentioning as being the tankie denial of evolution and which I enjoy your exposés on, though Darwinism actually includes Lamarckism, Darwin believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Linnaeus did nothing direct to help the belief in evolution either. Linneaus always thought species were immutable, he just thought new species were created out of old ones in the tree, but not that species themselves could ever change, just that new ones sort of branched off sometimes.
Saying there's a common ancestor is helpful for evolutionary theories, but the thing is, Linnaeus's particular form of taxonomy relies heavily on species being immutable. To this day there are a lot of different species concepts that are debated between. The fertile offspring one is probably an absolutely terrible species concept because it doesn't work for the vast majority of organisms which are asexual bacteria, and it doesn't also work for open species, which in prehistory would include hominins such as Homo sapiens. If there were more than one species of hominins alive today (aliens or mutants or something?) modern biology would have no way to describe it. There are hypothetical ways to describe these things, I've written about the cohesion definition of species before which I particularly like, especially since it seems to work in light of comparing organism development to species development (e.g., axolotls, extinct ginkgos, polar bears) but that's not accepted by most biologists in most contexts even if it's not really controversial so much as just not widely used.
I do enjoy these articles and I like the comments on Lysenko and all the Soviet garbage. I think that's right on-point. Just that Darwin isn't quite the same as modern evolutionary theory even if that does raise the question of who invented them. I think that's more of a British empire vs. German issue though at least in terms of what you say about occult religions organizing these things which I also agree with. I mean, at the end of the day I kind of think all the wars are religious wars after all no matter how much some people try to claim it's really about money or whatever. There doesn't really need to be much of a conspiracy, the people who've been taught one religion will join up and fight the people who were taught another and those are your "conspiracies."
I know it leaves a lot out, and were I better-known, I'm sure someone would be using this article as an example of cherry-picking. Here's the thing though: this is an unusually long article for me, and I'm responding to a video, which itself is a response to an entire book, and the thesis isn't really evolution, but the origin of the denialist arguments. I know that there doesn't need to be some deliberate collusion on Samaan's part, but there is definitely a grand conspiracy surrounding evolution denial, which I'm not sure when I'm going to finally get into, but it's been on my list of things to write about for a while.
In fact, to answer your second comment as well, Answers in Genesis is one organsation I'm intimately familiar with, and I'll definitely do a deep dive into its sketchy activities, particularly its political connections. This could easily turn into an entire series, but I'd have to consult my old college notebooks which are currently buried deep in storage lockers, not to mention that, regardless of how good my memory is, some of the stuff I learned might be wrong or just outdated. For example, some of the local wildlife has been reclassified and a third of the scientific names in my field guides are no longer correct, which is something that I like to point out in articles like this one: https://peakd.com/hive-127788/@steampunkkaja/serenaya-amerikanskaya-lesnaya-cherepaha-north-american-wood-turtle
Or this one (don't click on it if you're arachnophobic): https://peakd.com/hive-100750/@steampunkkaja/pauk-volk-1-wolf-spider-1
And don't get me started on ring species, which I suspect is the case with my local green frog population. Amphibians are delightfully weird.
Anyway, if I don't find any mention of Schelling or Goethe in my old notes, I'll be sure to look them up before getting back into this subject. Thanks!
OK you’re welcome and thanks! But yeah I clicked on the spider one immediately, since rather than being arachnophobic I used to basically try to turn every adult spider (since there were too many babies for me to keep track of) into my pet and give it a name. I mean I mostly left them alone other than trying to give them stuff outside where they lived like some people do with stray cats and pick them up way too much, but yeah.
I can’t wait to read more about the evolution denial stuff regardless! That’s been a particular interest to me, both because I am interested enough in evolution to name my blog in reference to it as a replacement for the generic but alliterative “McKuen Musings,” and because certain people who don’t get along with me at all seem very keen to deny it, which is ironic seeing some of the sources those people claim to cite. We all know they haven’t actually read their sources though, they just think anyone who’s supported by more alternative people must not believe in evolution it seems.
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/carl-linnaeus-botanist-and-creationist/
OK, this site is pretty wacky about most topics but it does seem to have good sources for clearing up misunderstandings about Linnaeus.
On the other hand, you probably should look into what I said about Schelling and the fact I think Darwin basically ripped him off since that's where all the evidence points. You said you think Germany and Russia should've united and I found that an interesting perspective. I do think Darwin just ripped off Schelling as much as that's something you'll basically never ever hear. I also do kind of agree with the critique that Darwin is Malthusian even if communists gave it, but that's because if you look through Darwin's own journals he himself said he was Malthusian. I see the Malthusianism in Darwin as being the belief solely that random mutations occur and then natural selection chooses to pick them off. I think this is negated by the modern knowledge we have that mutations aren't random, though it also seems like Goethe contributed the same idea just without Mendel's genetics, because Mendel didn't do them until Goethe was long dead, through Goethe's idea of morphology which was actually how it was discovered humans descended from apes in the first place, the intermaxillary bone in humans is actually also called the Goethe bone, and these contributions are being ignored because the British don't like Germans or something. You've given me a lot to think about re: Lysenkoism and I hope you'll take my comments on what I know about the history of evolutionary theory well even if it wasn't in your class you took.