“It was no accident that nineteenth-century naturalist Charles Darwin strove to connect the mentality and emotionality of people with that of dogs, rather than, say, line doves or horses. Neither his theory of evolution nor any general understanding of biology demanded that he preferentially underline our similarity to dogs over other species. But politically and emotionally, the choice was inevitable for an English gentleman who had set himself palatable.”
Hi,
I understand this , that it was no rule,no common knowledge,no evidence etc …
In biology that has forced Darwin
to ignore a similarity of dogs to poeple over other species.
It was only his personal attitude over sientistic truth.
There was nothing in Darwin’s theory or in science (biology) in general that made it necessary to compare people only or mainly with dogs. Darwin apparently had other “non-scientific” reasons.
Is it possible to say that he “perferentially underlined our similarity to dogs” which neither his theory nor any general understanding of biology demanded him to do so?
Hi,
I could use the word “demand” same way myself.
It is probably the good example, about the sentence structure… .
Well, dodgy buggers like me shouldn’t teach others.
For me it is fine but who knows if it is really correct?
Regards
Jan
The question -who knows is purely retorical some people certainly know it.