Those who fuss about it inappropriately demonstrate that they did not read Darwin.

I fussed over it appropriately, as Constant seemed to have kept forgetting that natural selection, being blind deaf and stupid, isn't obliged to result in our intuitions of harm coincide with direct influence on reproductive capacity.

And also, indeed I've not read Darwin (Other significant scientists I've not read: Galileo, Copernicus, Newton). Why does it matter for the purposes of this argument whether I've read Darwin or not? You seem to be playing status games (i.e. "haha, I've read Darwin and you have not") instead of focusing on the merits or demerits of the argument itself.