15
   

CHARLES DARWIN: CHARLATAN OR SNAKE OIL SALESMAN

 
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2012 05:39 am
@raprap,
Talkin about snake oil, Owen was the father of "Ordained Continuous Becoming" A hypothesis that Creation of totally new entire groups of organisms is continuing. SO his disdain of evolution and nat selection made him propose a hypothesis that was , in effect, acceptance that new forms appear through time. He just involved some creative force in their appearances.

Wallace was a good influence on Darwin , for when Darwin was being pummelled by the Grays, Owens, His friend Lyell, and Rev Wilberforce and Oxon for "Missing the creative force behind it all", and his implication of a divine intervener by his use of the word'SELECTION""
Wallace then took a copy of "The Origin..." and crossed out every word "Selection" and substituted "Survival" and sent the book to Darwin.

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2012 05:44 am
@gungasnake,
Glutton for punishment, huh?

In the Russo-Turkish War of 1853, commonly known as the Crimean War: there were 300,000-375,000 Allied dead and the Russian Empire suffered 220,000 dead (source at Wikipedia--one can quibble about Wikipedia, but one can go elsewhere and find very similar figures). Allied dead are estimates because there are not reliable figures for the Turks.

In 1859, NaPoleon III invaded Italy, fighting two major battles, facing the Austrian Emperor in the final battle at Solferino. This is Wikipedia's opening comment on that battle:

Quote:
The Battle of Solferino (referred to in Italy as the Battle of Solferino and San Martino) on 24 June 1859 resulted in the victory of the allied French Army under Napoleon III and Sardinian Army under Victor Emmanuel II (together known as the Franco-Sardinian Alliance) against the Austrian Army under Emperor Franz Joseph I. It was the last major battle in world history where all the armies were under the personal command of their monarchs. Perhaps 300,000 soldiers fought in this important battle, the largest since the Battle of Leipzig in 1813. There were about 130,000 Austrian troops and a combined total of 140,000 French and allied Piedmontese troops. After this battle, the Austrian Emperor refrained from further direct command of the army.


At not time during the Thiry Years War did a battle take place in which both sides combined equal either of these armies at Solferino. Wikipedia lists 22,310 casualties on the Austrian side and 17,191 casualties on the Franco-Sarinian side.

In the seven year perior from 1864 to 1871, Prussia invaded Denmark (about 1700 Prussian casualties, more than 5800 Danish casualties), fought the Austrian Empire in 1866 (about 37,000 Prussian and Italian casualties, more than 71,000 Austian casualties), and finally invaded France (138,871 dead on the French side, along with 143,000 wounded; on the Prussian side 28,208 dead, 88,488 wounded).

In the entire period of 1815-1914, there was a sixty year civil war in Spain, the Greek war of independence, the 1830-31 uprisings in Poland (brually crushed by Prussia, Austria and Russia), in Holland (resulting in the creation of Belgium) and in France, which ended the Bourbon monarchy. In 1848 there were socialist uprisings all over central Europe, brutally crushed by the Austrians and Prussians, after open warfare across Germany. I've mentioned the Russo-Turkish War of 1853 (Crimean War), the 1859 invasion of Italy by France, and the three wars Prussia fought from 1864 to 1871. Additionally, there were two Balkan wars before the outbreak of war in 1914.

You don't know ****-all about history, Gunga Dim. You only specified "major wars" after you got slammed for saying there had been no wars. You have no case, and that's because youré peddling right-wing, lunatic fringe, christian polemic with no relationship to reality.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2012 05:52 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
youré peddling right-wing, lunatic fringe, christian polemic with no relationship to reality.


Ive noticed a disturbing pattern that gungas worldviews ALL seem to be evidence-free.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2012 05:59 am
@farmerman,
How unfair of us to expect the boy to provide evidence . . .
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2012 06:06 am
@Setanta,
It's rare enough that I ever complain about anything or report a post on A2K that somebody might notice it when it happens; last time prior to now was over a year ago. . You claiming that I ever claimed there had been no wars in Europe from 1813 to 1913 amounts to arguing by falsehood and false claims and I have reported it. Argument by falsehood defeats the purpose of any discussion forum.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2012 06:10 am
@gungasnake,
Ooo . . . i'm scared. You post bullshit, somebody's going to call bullshit. I suspect that the survivors of the more than one half million dead in the Crimean War considered that a major war. I'll bet the survivor's of the more than 100,000 Frenchmen killed in the Franco-Prussian War considered that a major war. The Thirty Years War only qualifies because of the completely unreliable estimates of civilian casualties. None of the figures i've used refer to the civilian deaths in the wars i've mentioned. You have no case.
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2012 06:27 am
@farmerman,
I'm making the assumption that you're talking about Robert Owen the European Social Utopian and not his son Robert 'Dale' Owen, as the son died in Indiana in 1860 as a relatively young man (in his 50's).

Many of the New Harmony researchers. after the failure of the Utopian society in the early 1840's became an important core of science and research. Consequently they were instrumental in establishing many of the Colleges, Libraries, and Universities in the area (UofEvans, UofIll, IndU, UofKy, Vincinnes, Purdue) after the Civil War. As many of these universities were created as A&E schools they were on the cutting edge of Biology and Agriculture of the time, religious polemics aside.

Rap
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2012 06:41 am
@gungasnake,
Ganja you're a hoot!---

Rap
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2012 06:42 am
@farmerman,
oops, I was talking about RICHARD OWEN, the anatomist who came out against Darwin as one of his major opponents. I see the word OWEN in this discussion, I think of the guy who coined the word "dinosaur"
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2012 02:42 am
@farmerman,
Wow! I'm learning stuff in this thread. Thank you.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  3  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2012 02:43 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

You decide. Some profound thinkers here, such as Gunga Dim are not fooled. Whaddayathink?


You're all wrong. Darwin is a city in Australia.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2012 02:45 am
@raprap,
raprap wrote:

Hey Ganja, How do you use Darwin to explain the Spanish Inquisition?

[Youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Icmi-3ikH3E&feature=fvst[/Youtube]

This is one I'd really like to hear.

Rap


Prequel.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2012 02:47 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

He started a thread once in which he claimed that there had been no wars in Europe from the fall of Napoleon to the outbreak of the First World War, claiming that was a by-product of Darwin's theory. I tore him a new asshole on that one, and restricted myself to the period before 1860, so as not to exceed Darwin's publication date. He's been careful to be far less explicit in his claims since that time. Of course, he's still full of ****.



Awwwww....two arseholes and neither of them work. Poor guy.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2012 04:24 am
@dlowan,
Morning rabbit. Hows the warren?

Have you been out culling cane toads with everybody else?
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2012 05:07 am
@farmerman,
No cane toads in south australia.....yet.
0 Replies
 
puzzledperson
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2015 07:22 pm
@Setanta,
Darwin expounded his theory in a book entitled On The Origin Of Species; but he was never able to give a coherent definition of the concept of species.

If two animals mate and produce an offspring which can mate with already existing specimens of the old species, how can it be considered to be a different species? And if it can't mate with members of the old species, how can the new species perpetuate itself, since it is the first ever member of the new species?

When does trait variation become species variation? If a random mutation causes a calf to be born with three legs instead of four, and this trait is heritable, does it constitute a new species? Are albinos a new species?

The other problematic concept is that of natural selection, sometimes referred to as survival of the fittest.

If some members of a species can outrun predators faster than others of the same species, they're more likely to pass on this trait. Meanwhile, a mutation in some bacteria in their environment is particularly virulent among members possessing a gene set that includes the speed trait, whereas members of the slow subset are less vulnerable. The fast ones die out while the slow ones, while feeding more predators, remain fecund enough to survive nonetheless.

So what does "survival of the fittest" boil down to? The tautological observation that the survivors survive. There is no predictive power in the existence of a specific trait since environments change, and with them the definition of "fitness".

Furthermore, most traits do not directly contribute either to survivability or to reproductive fecundity. This is exactly what one would expect from random mutation. Most genes simply get carried along because the organisms survive and reproduce for entirely unrelated reasons.

Additionally, many heritable traits are perpetuated simply because the organisms exist within a stable environmental niche; they may have no predators, or may have access to stable food supplies, and this rather than the natural selection for certain developed traits may be responsible for their perpetuation.

McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2015 07:48 pm
I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out how Darwin got his dog to evolve into a boat.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2015 08:38 pm
@puzzledperson,
Quote:
So what does "survival of the fittest" boil down to? The tautological observation that the survivors survive. There is no predictive power in the existence of a specific trait since environments change, and with them the definition of "fitness"


It wasnt a tautology at all (even though thats become the popular representation of Spencer's statement).
His response was to a question of what is evolution, and was merely a statement taken full out of context .

The fact that environments change, the mechanism of natural selection is what makes Darwin's theory so elegant. That , along with Darwin's assertion that evolution does not strive to attain some kind of perfection.

Quote:
Furthermore, most traits do not directly contribute either to survivability or to reproductive fecundity.
Could it be that the other way around. As Gould said, "genes may just be the bookkeeping of evolution, not its cause."
Mutation may be random but natural selection is not.

Quote:
Additionally, many heritable traits are perpetuated simply because the organisms exist within a stable environmental niche;
Agreed, but think about it, having more species in a genera makes it possible for the genera to evovle should the environment suddenly change (as our planets geologic history so abundantly demonstrates).
Could it be that ring species or the products of genetic drift or gene flow best serve as a "pool" of species that can successfully evolve?

back When primates had dozens of species they were better able "make it through" environmental bottlenecks than when they wound up with one species representing a genus. (Think about gorillas and Orangs and then think about rats)
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2015 09:00 pm
@McGentrix,
The Beagle was part of a class of boats (The Cherokee class of brigs) that had the unhappy feature of rolling over and sinking in heavy water. SO Fitzroy redesigned her into a barque and raised the decks which massed up the ballastways allowing more ballast so that feature was not part of the specs.
I dont think Darwin ever owned a Beagle. His dogs (and he had a bunch) that he wrote about in his life were these

Quote:
Shelah, Spark, Czar, Sappho, Dash, Pincher, Nina, Bob, Tartar, Quiz, Bran, Tony, and Polly.


There may have been others but, in the Darwin archives, these were the only ones that I found and none were a beagle.

SO, in answer to your question, it was some damn INTELLIGENT DESIGN on the part of Capt Fitzroy
0 Replies
 
puzzledperson
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2015 11:38 pm
@farmerman,
Presumably evolution not only "doesn't strive for perfection" but doesn't strive for anything, since it eschews eschatology.

In the extinction event of 65 million years ago "everything that lived on land and weighed more than one kilogram perished".

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/baby-boom-dinosaurs-retained-juvenile-traits/

If some man-made or natural event extinguished all life on earth except for sulfur eating bacteria living on ocean bottom volcanic vents, that too would demonstrate "natural selection" (n.b. man's activities are considered by science to be part of the natural order); and it would also be a triumph of "evolutionary" theory, despite the fact that the change is from more complex and sophisticated creatures to considerably simpler organisms.

The theory of natural selection can't be disproven and I question whether it makes verifiable empirical predictions. You can call this infinite flexibility "elegant" but it might make more sense to characterize it as a philosophical dogma.

You write about "species in a genera" but haven't given a coherent definition of the concept of species which logically allows for the emergence of new species.

The usual explanation is that an existing species becomes separated by geographic barriers (e.g. rivers, mountain ranges) and in isolation genetic drift eventually renders them incapable of sexual reproduction with the other separated groups. This merely multiplies the problem rather than solving it.

If a species becomes separated into two groups when one migrates over the mountains and the other doesn't, each remains part of the same species until a pair of animals mates and produces an offspring whose random genetic mutation makes it the first member of a new species. If that offspring can still mate with members of the old species, how can it be considered a new species? If it can't mate with them, how can the new species perpetuate itself?

 

Related Topics

Oddities and Humor - Discussion by edgarblythe
Let's play "Caption the Photo" II - Discussion by gustavratzenhofer
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Funny Pictures ***Slow Loading*** - Discussion by JerryR
Caption The Cartoon - Discussion by panzade
Geek and Nerd Humor - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Caption The Cartoon Part Deux - Discussion by panzade
IS IT OK FOR ME TO CHEAT? - Question by Setanta
2008 Election: Political Humor - Discussion by Robert Gentel
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/18/2021 at 02:01:46