Selective breeding is literally Darwin tho…

Am I gonna have to be the one to say this? Apparently. Ugh.

It’s no more novel than dog ‘breeds’ aka races. They also have inbreeding depression from the admixture (why it’s called mixing) and mixed race (aka mongrel) fertility issues, like ligers.

Anyone who denies this fact about selective breeding literature is literally anti-Darwin (or just plain ignorant) and against the evolutionary paradigm itself, in biology.
It’s not just in Charles Darwin’s most famous work, it’s cited in chapter ONE, you brainlets!

Teach the book in biology or none of the subject makes sense. It’s the paradigm of brain development, we can see it in scans! It’s definitely at least somewhat real when it dictates how a precious foetus develops.

Proof or it didn’t happen:
“The 6th Edition is often considered the definitive edition.” so STFU.

pre-contents: “In 1843-44 Professor Haldeman (“Boston Journal of Nat. Hist. U. States”, vol. iv, page 468) has ably given the arguments for and against the hypothesis of the development and modification of species: he seems to lean toward the side of change.”


Literally the sodding chapter, and the first one!

Also, humans are a species, stop calling us a race. Homo Sapiens is a SPECIES.

It’s a quote gold mine!
and I don’t just mean the Sub-title:


Fitness is real, yo.

“When we look to the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants, and compare them with closely allied species, we generally perceive in each domestic race, as already remarked, less uniformity of character than in true species. Domestic races often have a somewhat monstrous character; by which I mean, that, although differing from each other and from other species of the same genus, in several trifling respects, they often differ in an extreme degree in some one part, both when compared one with another, and more especially when compared with the species under nature to which they are nearest allied. With these exceptions (and with that of the perfect fertility of varieties when crossed—a subject hereafter to be discussed), domestic races of the same species differ from each other in the same manner as do the closely allied species of the same genus in a state of nature, but the differences in most cases are less in degree. This must be admitted as true, for the domestic races of many animals and plants have been ranked by some competent judges as the descendants of aboriginally distinct species, and by other competent judges as mere varieties. If any well marked distinction existed between a domestic race and a species, this source of doubt would not so perpetually recur. It has often been stated that domestic races do not differ from each other in characters of generic value. It can be shown that this statement is not correct; but naturalists differ much in determining what characters are of generic value; all such valuations being at present empirical. When it is explained how genera originate under nature, it will be seen that we have no right to expect often to find a generic amount of difference in our domesticated races.”

For those who missed the obvious, mixed is not a race. They’re raceless. To argue otherwise is category error because a race is a mutually exclusive classification.

re de novo mutations:
“Some naturalists have maintained that all variations are connected with the act of sexual reproduction; but this is certainly an error; for I have given in another work a long list of “sporting plants;” as they are called by gardeners; that is, of plants which have suddenly produced a single bud with a new and sometimes widely different character from that of the other buds on the same plant. These bud variations, as they may be named, can be propagated by grafts, offsets, etc., and sometimes by seed. They occur rarely under nature, but are far from rare under culture. As a single bud out of many thousands produced year after year on the same tree under uniform conditions, has been known suddenly to assume a new character; and as buds on distinct trees, growing under different conditions, have sometimes yielded nearly the same variety—for instance, buds on peach-trees producing nectarines, and buds on common roses producing moss-roses—we clearly see that the nature of the conditions is of subordinate importance in comparison with the nature of the organism in determining each particular form of variation; perhaps of not more importance than the nature of the spark, by which a mass of combustible matter is ignited, has in determining the nature of the flames.”

This shit even applies to FLOWERS.

“The laws governing inheritance are for the most part unknown;


no one can say why the same peculiarity in different individuals of the same species, or in different species, is sometimes inherited and sometimes not so;

germline mutation or not e.g. parental age factor

why the child often reverts in certain characteristics to its grandfather or grandmother or more remote ancestor;


why a peculiarity is often transmitted from one sex to both sexes, or to one sex alone, more commonly but not exclusively to the like sex.

chromosomes and brain development

It is a fact of some importance to us, that peculiarities appearing in the males of our domestic breeds are often transmitted, either exclusively or in a much greater degree, to the males alone. A much more important rule, which I think may be trusted, is that, at whatever period of life a peculiarity first appears, it tends to reappear in the offspring at a corresponding age, though sometimes earlier. In many cases this could not be otherwise; thus the inherited peculiarities in the horns of cattle could appear only in the offspring when nearly mature; peculiarities in the silk-worm are known to appear at the corresponding caterpillar or cocoon stage. But hereditary diseases and some other facts make me believe that the rule has a wider extension, and that, when there is no apparent reason why a peculiarity should appear at any particular age, yet that it does tend to appear in the offspring at the same period at which it first appeared in the parent.

genetics are timed in expression, phenotype

he’s been proven correct ever since, it’s amazing

I believe this rule to be of the highest importance in explaining the laws of embryology. These remarks are of course confined to the first APPEARANCE of the peculiarity, and not to the primary cause which may have acted on the ovules or on the male element;

referring to gamete mutation, especially in sperm

predicting parental age factor over a century before it was mathematically confirmed

in nearly the same manner as the increased length of the horns in the offspring from a short-horned cow by a long-horned bull, though appearing late in life, is clearly due to the male element.

If Christians think humans are special as a species and foetuses while developing are too, they need evolutionary arguments for that. You’re dropping the ball by not using these facts.

Having alluded to the subject of reversion,

also regression to the mean, but Galton already covered that (legit polymath)

I may here refer to a statement often made by naturalists—namely, that our domestic varieties, when run wild, gradually but invariably revert in character to their aboriginal stocks. Hence it has been argued that no deductions can be drawn from domestic races to species in a state of nature.”

All quotes from early chapter 1.

When I use the word evolution, or related TECHNICAL words like race, my definition is correct because I read the literature which explains what these things mean.

Arm yourself with the truth.

Read the book.

Article: Was Hitler a Darwinian?

Was Hitler a Darwinian? No! No! No!

Richards’ essay on Hitler calls into question the entire enterprise of stigmatizing Darwin’s theory of evolution with the term “Social Darwinism”.  It’s not as if evolutionary theory has never been used to justify unethical practices. Any idea can be used for good or bad purposes. What’s wrong is the claim that evolutionary theory is somehow especially prone to misuse or was misused in specific cases such as Nazi war policy. We owe a debt of gratitude to careful scholars such as Robert J. Richards for setting the record straight.


Immediately, one of the biggest critiques of HBD and associated information, based on Godwin’s Law, is rendered null.

Kevin-Hart-Really-o rlly lies

Darwin on extinction (from Origin)

“The old notion of all the inhabitants of the earth having been swept away at successive periods by catastrophes, is now generally given up. On the contrary, we have every reason to believe that species and groups of species gradually disappear, one after another, first from one spot, then from another, and finally from the world.”

Reading material: The Descent of Man by Charles Darwin

In full.

From Part 1, Chapter 7;


… Geographical distribution is often brought into play unconsciously and sometimes consciously; so that forms living in two widely separated areas, in which most of the other inhabitants are specifically distinct, are themselves usually looked at as distinct; but in truth this affords no aid in distinguishing geographical races from so-called good or true species….

He covers his wider ideas on the evolution of Man in this one (not, as is commonly held, Origin).

oh damn wow ah