Greg writes:

>  If I understand things correctly, there are
>  essentially no Darwinians (which is probably a good thing, if you look at
>  all that came with Darwin, especially racism and sexism). There are
>  neo-Darwinians aplenty.

Unfortunately, you seem to misunderstand much. Prior to Darwin, the various
races of mankind were often suggested to be separate species. In exact
contradistinction to any form of racism, Darwin's arguments, and the
explorations that they later fostered, obviated those notions. Nor is
neo-Darwinism a rejection of Darwin's theses. In fact, it's just the opposite
and is often called the "New Synthesis," a blending of Darwin's and Wallace's
hypotheses on the mechanisms of selection, natural and sexual, and the
then-newly emerging science of genetics of the 1940's.

If you wish to read more about the evolution of the neo-Darwinism in a very
few quotes, see:

     http://www.molevol.org/camel/projects/synthesis/new-synth-mut-quots.html

Wirt Atmar

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *