<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The modern Tree of Life</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.talkingsquid.net/archives/663/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.talkingsquid.net/archives/663</link>
	<description>Scientific Romances and Other Curiosities from the Antipodes</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 03:33:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Lawson</title>
		<link>http://www.talkingsquid.net/archives/663/comment-page-1#comment-56361</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Lawson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:31:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.talkingsquid.net/?p=663#comment-56361</guid>
		<description>Hey, oatmeal, what the hell is wrong with you? I did not mention Hitler, nationalism, religiosity, or war-mongering among Haeckel&#039;s legacy, so any defence of him on these points is irrelevant to the post. One can have a bad philosophy without being a Nazi, you know. Haeckel was a polygenist, a racist, and he believed eugenics should be implemented as a national policy.

Haeckel was most certainly not a card-carrying atheist. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/8mono10.txt&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here, for instance, is Haeckel in denial mode:&lt;/a&gt; &quot;The charge of atheism which still continues to be levelled against our pantheism, and against the monism which lies at its root, no longer finds a response among the really educated classes of the present day.&quot; And again, in the same book, &quot;...I conclude my monistic Confession of Faith with the words: &#039;May God, the Spirit of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True, be with us.&#039;&quot; 

While I have no direct quotes of Haeckel relating to his eugenic views, it is notable that everyone who quotes him on the subject says much the same thing: he was a racist who believed in implementing eugenic policies. If you have access to original sources that prove otherwise, I would be pleased to see them. In the meantime, I trust you will forgive me for siding with the near-universal opinion of other writers.

I&#039;d like to close by pointing out that the original post made it clear that horizontal gene transfer was more important in single-celled creatures, a fact you seem to ignore. You also seem to be unaware that horizontal gene transfer is still a factor in vertebrate evolution, if not as important. Around 8% of the human genome is made up of viral gene fragments, and although technically not horizontal transfer nearly 50% of our genome is made up of LINEs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey, oatmeal, what the hell is wrong with you? I did not mention Hitler, nationalism, religiosity, or war-mongering among Haeckel&#8217;s legacy, so any defence of him on these points is irrelevant to the post. One can have a bad philosophy without being a Nazi, you know. Haeckel was a polygenist, a racist, and he believed eugenics should be implemented as a national policy.</p>
<p>Haeckel was most certainly not a card-carrying atheist. <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/8mono10.txt" rel="nofollow">Here, for instance, is Haeckel in denial mode:</a> &#8220;The charge of atheism which still continues to be levelled against our pantheism, and against the monism which lies at its root, no longer finds a response among the really educated classes of the present day.&#8221; And again, in the same book, &#8220;&#8230;I conclude my monistic Confession of Faith with the words: &#8216;May God, the Spirit of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True, be with us.&#8217;&#8221; </p>
<p>While I have no direct quotes of Haeckel relating to his eugenic views, it is notable that everyone who quotes him on the subject says much the same thing: he was a racist who believed in implementing eugenic policies. If you have access to original sources that prove otherwise, I would be pleased to see them. In the meantime, I trust you will forgive me for siding with the near-universal opinion of other writers.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d like to close by pointing out that the original post made it clear that horizontal gene transfer was more important in single-celled creatures, a fact you seem to ignore. You also seem to be unaware that horizontal gene transfer is still a factor in vertebrate evolution, if not as important. Around 8% of the human genome is made up of viral gene fragments, and although technically not horizontal transfer nearly 50% of our genome is made up of LINEs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: oatmeal</title>
		<link>http://www.talkingsquid.net/archives/663/comment-page-1#comment-56349</link>
		<dc:creator>oatmeal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 01:36:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.talkingsquid.net/?p=663#comment-56349</guid>
		<description>Quit bad mouthing Haeckel unless you know what you are talking about.  In Haeckel´s &#039;History of Creation&#039; and &#039;Evolution of Man&#039; you will find a number of hypothetical phylogenetic trees in which extinct lines are reprsented out, as if this has any importance whatsoever to your point.  Also, the question of reticulate evolution by horizontal gene transfer has practically no importance to vertebrate evolution, and more particularly human evolution, the central point of &#039;what everything is all about&#039; for most of the anti-Haeckel stuff.  Yes, Haeckel thought peoples with complex cultures, like europeans, chinese and japanese (his opinion, not mine), were more advanced, but never (so far as I have been able to find) downgraded other groups with derrogatory opinions (other than citing published works which he seemed to trust).  We know that Haeckel was a nationalist, but he was a pacifist also, at least on the eve of WWI.  Things of the times.  Finally, yes, Haeckel postulated multiple origins of man, using as a basis language groups, and without suggesting that this in itself resulted in superiority for some groups.  In fact, the modern multiregional hypothesis of human origins, not well behind the &#039;out of Africa&#039; hypothesis, is based on the independent evolution of human races from Homo erectus ancestors.  Finally, PLEEZE check out Mein Kampf (I think James Murphy&#039;s English translation was Nazi-approved, so you can be relatively sure that no fakery is involved) and see what a loopy creationist Mendelist Hitler was -- doing away with defectives to make Germans as they were originally created.  Haeckel was a card-carrying atheist and his writings banned, and probably burned, in Fascist Germany.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Quit bad mouthing Haeckel unless you know what you are talking about.  In Haeckel´s &#8216;History of Creation&#8217; and &#8216;Evolution of Man&#8217; you will find a number of hypothetical phylogenetic trees in which extinct lines are reprsented out, as if this has any importance whatsoever to your point.  Also, the question of reticulate evolution by horizontal gene transfer has practically no importance to vertebrate evolution, and more particularly human evolution, the central point of &#8216;what everything is all about&#8217; for most of the anti-Haeckel stuff.  Yes, Haeckel thought peoples with complex cultures, like europeans, chinese and japanese (his opinion, not mine), were more advanced, but never (so far as I have been able to find) downgraded other groups with derrogatory opinions (other than citing published works which he seemed to trust).  We know that Haeckel was a nationalist, but he was a pacifist also, at least on the eve of WWI.  Things of the times.  Finally, yes, Haeckel postulated multiple origins of man, using as a basis language groups, and without suggesting that this in itself resulted in superiority for some groups.  In fact, the modern multiregional hypothesis of human origins, not well behind the &#8216;out of Africa&#8217; hypothesis, is based on the independent evolution of human races from Homo erectus ancestors.  Finally, PLEEZE check out Mein Kampf (I think James Murphy&#8217;s English translation was Nazi-approved, so you can be relatively sure that no fakery is involved) and see what a loopy creationist Mendelist Hitler was &#8212; doing away with defectives to make Germans as they were originally created.  Haeckel was a card-carrying atheist and his writings banned, and probably burned, in Fascist Germany.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neha Choksi</title>
		<link>http://www.talkingsquid.net/archives/663/comment-page-1#comment-53018</link>
		<dc:creator>Neha Choksi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:23:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.talkingsquid.net/?p=663#comment-53018</guid>
		<description>Darwin did mention the phrase &quot;tree of life,&quot; on page 25 of &#039;B&#039; diary.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Darwin did mention the phrase &#8220;tree of life,&#8221; on page 25 of &#8216;B&#8217; diary.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AcademicFreedomBlog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; The Tree of Life</title>
		<link>http://www.talkingsquid.net/archives/663/comment-page-1#comment-52217</link>
		<dc:creator>AcademicFreedomBlog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; The Tree of Life</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:45:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.talkingsquid.net/?p=663#comment-52217</guid>
		<description>[...] I cited the “tree of life” diagrams of Talking Squid in discussing assumptions of evolution. There they have done a good job of explaining past and [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I cited the “tree of life” diagrams of Talking Squid in discussing assumptions of evolution. There they have done a good job of explaining past and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AcademicFreedomBlog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; The Sequence of Evolution</title>
		<link>http://www.talkingsquid.net/archives/663/comment-page-1#comment-51855</link>
		<dc:creator>AcademicFreedomBlog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; The Sequence of Evolution</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:02:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.talkingsquid.net/?p=663#comment-51855</guid>
		<description>[...] animal. Science textbooks never bring this up, but it is why they tend no to longer picture a tree of life, with organisms at the junctures; but instead show a binary branching geometric, with know animals [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] animal. Science textbooks never bring this up, but it is why they tend no to longer picture a tree of life, with organisms at the junctures; but instead show a binary branching geometric, with know animals [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

