@Quehoniaomath,
Now I see where Quahogs crap comes from. Ian Taylor. the complete idiot who , in the very paper Quahog presents, Taylor gets a number of facts incorrect
1Wallace, in an agreement stated that Darwin should maintain "first authorship" because he had worked and completed the definition of the systematics of the way volution works . Wallace stated that he never toyed with the idea. His paper being only about 28 pages and mostly all descriptive.
Lyell isn't the "father of Uniformitarianism" Any 1st year geology student can tell him that. Lyell just included it in his book but credits Hutton completely. (At least Taylor should respect scholarship over bullshit)
As far as Erasmus and
Zoonomia,.
heres a quote from the segment in the volume about "generation"
Quote:
From thus meditating on the great similarity of the structure of the warm-blooded animals, and at the same time of the great changes they undergo both before and after their nativity; and by considering in how minute a proportion of time many of the changes of animals above described have been produced; would it be too bold to imagine, that in the great length of time, since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of years...that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which THE GREAT FIRST CAUSE endued with animality...and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements by generation to its posterity, world without end?...
Shall we then say that the vegetable living filament was originally different from that of each tribe of animals above described? And that the productive living filament of each of those tribes was different originally from the other? Or, as the earth and ocean were probably peopled with vegetable productions long before the existence of animals...shall we conjecture that one and the same kind of living filament is and has been the cause of all organic life?[2]
Anything wrong with that? Its simple and is probably much responsible for Charles getting his lines of "credit" strait for his second edition that included a significant segment of acknowledgements for those that had originated the idea of "Descent with Modification" (Darwin's name for evolution). Nowhere in the "origin, does the word "EVOLUTION" occur. It was not yet a noun. Darwin used the verb "to evolve" at the very end of the Origin...
Quahogs view of Racist comments by Darwin have never been denied by anyone. HOWEVER, the lines Quahog uses, NEVER appeared in the "origin...
Quahog uses the title segment Of the "ORIGIN of SPECIES'... (that being the second title line, "The PRESERVATION OF FAVORED RACES), and he does so as an assertion that Darwin was being somehow racist. That is also bullshit
Darwin explains what a "race" in Victorian biology actually mean74 od the 2nd edition.
. , from Peckhams 1959
The Origin of Species... a "variorum text",
When we look to the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants and compre them with species closely allied together, we generally perceive in each domestic race, as already remarked, less uniformity of character than in true species (p74)
We hd this very discussion with gungasnake several yers ago (nothing is new except to the new Creationist debators.)
Darwin includes several other pragrphs where he discusses what is meant by "race" in terms of his book that deals not a jot with humans.
Justlike Einstein missed out on Quantum chemistry and physics, Darwin also is guilty of dropping a turd on us with his "Descent of Man"\
To Darwins credit, h did state that all these differences among races of humans were not speciation or raised from separate common ancestors. He stated that the differences among humans (which he clearly stated are monogenist (Single common ancetstor), and are due to culture (or lack thereof) rather than being "lower life forms " s the polygenists felt (Many of whom were clergymen of the "civilized lands" )
