In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Dear Sir: Van Valen's "OnDiscussing Human Races" [i] is a study inthe art of setting up straw men and then knocking them down. One ofVan Valen's straw men is what he describes as "a fair summary" of the reverse of the racist view, namely, "that different races are known to be genetically equal in ability." Will Van Valen produce the evidence in support of his statement? Will he cite those, by name, chapter, and verse, whoever made such a statement? Upon various grounds, it has appeared to some students ofthe matter that the genetic differences in ability among various populations could not be very significant, but that is a very different thing from claiming "that different races are known to be genetically equal in ability." What we do know is that in spite ofmany attempts to prove that such differences do exist, not one ofthese attempts has withstood critical examination. Again> this is not the same thing as saying that such differences do not exist. They may or may not exist. It serves no useful purpose to misrepresent, as Van Valen does, the position which he dubs the reverse ofracism. The position of those who, like myself, are identified as "egalitarians," is not in the least what Van Valen says it is. That position is socially based, not biologically, in the right ofevery individual to political freedom and the fulfilment ofhis potentialities, regardless of "race," creed, or color. In defense ofCoon's view that Homo erectus evolved into Homo sapiens not once but five times, Van Valen states that it "is eminently plausible genetically." Is it? It is precisely its genetic implausibility which has rendered Coon's theory so unacceptable to most of its critics. What evidence does Van Valen provide in support ofits plausibility? He offers us a "model." Ingenious as his model may be, a model remains nonetheless a theory, and to offer a theory in support of a theory is, in the present situation, not what is required. Where in the whole of animated nature is there a parallel to the kind of evolution that Coon suggests for Homo sapiens? Is that an unfair question? The example ofthe Drosophila subobscura populations from Israel and Scotland to which Van Valen refers is scarcely relevant. Does Van Valen suggest that these Drosophila populations are on their way, as Coon puts it, for the subspecies which he theorizes developed into Homo sapiens, to "passing a criticalthreshold" to a new specific grade? Ifnot, what does he mean? Van Valen describes as a severe distortion, amounting to caricature, my statement of "Coon's clearly presented argument," namely, that "IfCoon's argument were sound, we should expect . . . the independent subspecies, as incipient species, to have become different species." 314 Letters to the Editor Perspectives in Biology and Medicine ยท Winter 1967 I cannot for the life ofme see how anyone could suppose that statement to represent anything but a criticism ofCoon's argument. It was in no way thought to be or represented as a statement ofthe argument itself. How, then, can it possibly be described as a distortion or caricature ofwhat it is not? Perhaps Van Valen will explain? It is very charitable ofVan Valen to "presume" that the alleged distortion and caricature were not deliberate. Judging by his own performances this way, it would be less than generous to conclude that his own distortions were equally undeliberate. Coon's theory has been "objectively" faced by many students ofman's evolution and been found unacceptable. They may be wrong and Coon may be right, but I fail to see why they must be accused oflack ofobjectivity. Van Valen's fondness for straw men leads him to the discovery of prejudice in the critics. "To condemn a scientific enquiry," he writes, "because of its possible political consequences is bigotry." Will Van Valen name those who have been guilty ofsuch conduct , producing chapter and verse? Or is that an unfair request? I believe I have read the major part of what has been written on Coon's views, and I find that they were not "condemned" but criticized on purely scientific grounds. The fact that some of Coon's...

pdf

Share