What's the point

What's the point

After reading Darwin, is it possible to believe that a single human person and/or all of humanity has any real purpose or teleological end?

Natural Selection

Natural Selection

"The early progenitors of man must also have tended, like all other animals, to have increased beyond their means of subsistence; they must, therefore, occasionally have been exposed to a struggle for existence, and consequently to the ridid law of natural selection. ...Man in the rudest state in which he now exists is the most dominant animal that has ever appeared on this earth." (645, like 16 pages into chapter 2)

Considering modern conveniences, modern weaponry, modern medicine, humanitarian laws, and general christian(-like) kindness, I would venture to say that natural selection no longer occurs in the human race. Is this a fair assessment? Would the lack of natural selection be a bad thing? Are we no longer the "most dominant animal" in our rudest state, is the human race weakening? Sure we have to deal with hardships in life, but even in the undeveloped third world it isn't as bad as it could be because aide etc. from developed countries like ours. I would like to say that perhaps we have simply stopped the physical track and have moved on to the mental, however it is impossible to ignore the giant supply of stupidity in our world. Have we reached our highpoint (...Germany?... haha)? Are we on the decline? IS THE WORLD GOING TO END IN 2012!?!?!?

Also, Brennan, well done with the comic link. That was ridiculous. On both sides.

Darwin on Race

Darwin on Race

In chapter 7, Darwin analyzes whether or not the different races constitute different human species. When he published The Descent of Man in the 1870s, this was a radical hypothesis. Do we think that the evidence he uses to support his conclusion would convince his readers that humankind is all one species (thus eliminating some of the grounds for racism)?

Darwin's Dog

Darwin's Dog

Darwin seems to mention dogs frequently as examples in support of the humanity of animals in the third chapter. He mentions the dog that licked the hand of the scientist vivisecting the poor thing (661), the dog with a sense of humor (662), dreaming dogs as evidence of imagination (664), and his own dog who has some concept of hunting (671).

He even suggests that the dog might have a concept of some invisible force:

As it was, every time that the parasol slightly moved [in the wind], tje dpg growled fiercely and barked. He must, I think, have reasoned to himself in a rapid and unconscious manner, that movement without apparent cause indicated the presence of some strange living agent, and that stranger has no right to be on his territory.
--679

He uses other animals as examples, but no other so frequently. Much of Darwin's argument on the nature of human beings requires that we accept that animals are close to us in reason and other faculties than we usually admit. But especially because much of Darwin's evidence seems to stem from such a personal source-- his own probably beloved dog-- could all this 'evidence' just be projection? Cesar Milan, the Dog Whisperer, bases the concept of his training on the idea that dogs are animals, and you have to treat them as such, not as though they were people (at least according to his cameo on South Park). Anyway, it really seems a strong possibility that when Darwin looks at these apparently convincing cases of animals acting with reason, imagination, playfulness, and so on, it could just be projection. Is his evidence really convincing? If so, what implications does this have for humans? Does it change anything?