Evolutionary study by necessity requires "going back" to study and accumulate proof.
As was shown us in "The voyage of the Beagle" Darwin, when he collected all those bird specimens from the Galapogos, had no idea that they were all finches, since they appeared quite different. Darwin hadnt committed to an analysis of his data for almost 3 to 5 years after his return. Then he started experimenting in beekeeping and pigeon fancying to evaluate "hybridization and selective breeding" before he started putting it all together. To state that he glommed off his grandfather shows a deep misunderstanding of Darwins work.
RL, Id suggest some reading of at least 2 editions of
"The origin...' (the first and the 6th editions , just to see how science and thinking moves on. Also Id read the "Voyage of the Beagle" to understand the predetermined points of study and survey that Capt Fitzroy was commisioned to complete.
Darwin, in the throes of his youthful "what do I wanna do whenI grow up" phase, took on the job (after some string pulling by Wedgewood side of his family) as the surveys Naturalist.
He had no idea that hed revolutionize biology or natural science indeed. He looked forward to a life as a country clergyman, but somewhere in the time between his learning about his finches , and 1859, he had some ideas, and evidence.
Quote:he had some ideas, and evidence.
A common malady for those who approach a cosmology via critical reasoning.
farmerman wrote:As was shown us in "The voyage of the Beagle" Darwin, when he collected all those bird specimens from the Galapogos, had no idea that they were all finches, since they appeared quite different. Darwin hadnt committed to an analysis of his data for almost 3 to 5 years after his return. Then he started experimenting in beekeeping and pigeon fancying to evaluate "hybridization and selective breeding" before he started putting it all together. To state that he glommed off his grandfather shows a deep misunderstanding of Darwins work.
RL, Id suggest some reading of at least 2 editions of
"The origin...' (the first and the 6th editions , just to see how science and thinking moves on. Also Id read the "Voyage of the Beagle" to understand the predetermined points of study and survey that Capt Fitzroy was commisioned to complete.
Darwin, in the throes of his youthful "what do I wanna do whenI grow up" phase, took on the job (after some string pulling by Wedgewood side of his family) as the surveys Naturalist.
He had no idea that hed revolutionize biology or natural science indeed. He looked forward to a life as a country clergyman, but somewhere in the time between his learning about his finches , and 1859, he had some ideas, and evidence.
To suppose that two Darwins, in the same family 50 years apart, BOTH just came up with the idea of evolution independently of one another just by looking at evidence from the world around them is just a little (ok a lot) far fetched.
The obvious state of affairs is that Charles WAS aware of, and apparently greatly influenced by, his grandfather's published work on his pet theory. To try to deny it is simply wilful blindness.
The fact that it took Charles a number of years to put his words into print has no bearing on this one way or the other.
To say that he had no idea he would revolutionize biology, well of course , no one has accused him of being a fortune teller.
real life, So, what's your point? What if Charles followed in his grandfather's lead on evolution? Charles is the one that made it popular and accepted by the scientific community. Up till then, most of the people studying evolution did not have complete thiesis on evolution.
That Charles followed his grandfather's lead on evoution has more support than the bible's "creationism." So, what's your point?
real life wrote:To suppose that two Darwins, in the same family 50 years apart, BOTH just came up with the idea of evolution independently of one another just by looking at evidence from the world around them is just a little (ok a lot) far fetched.
Don't be ridiculous RL, the fact that things evolved is obvious, anyone can see it, and a lot were working on it. The question has always been, "what makes it happen?". Dariwin's discovery (which his father never made) was Natural Selection. Darwin didn't discover evolution, he discovered evolution by means of natural selection.
Farmerman said the same thing a few posts back, but maybe you didn't see it...
farmerman wrote:real lifeQuote:Darwin started with his grandfather's view of evolution and 'worked his way backwards'.
How did you arrive at this conclusion? because Erasmus felt that species were not immutable?
The fact that Erasmus was correct but lacked a mechanism means nothing, yet heres an example of an idea that was formulated by a handful of individuals over nearly 100 years
username wrote:There are something over 300,000 known species of beetles, and that's just a small percentage of all the kinds of beetles out there. And that's just beetles. So Noah and the kids and wife spent their time off from ark-building on hands and knees gathering two of each? Was there a beetle room on the ark to keep those couple million beetles in? What about the similar numbers of ants? And arachnids from microscopic on up? And bees and butterflies and moths and..... And what possessed them to save mosquitos? But the bible alleges they found two of each of those millions and millions. Yeah, sure.
Where does the Bible say this?
real, Read the bible. LOL
rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote:To suppose that two Darwins, in the same family 50 years apart, BOTH just came up with the idea of evolution independently of one another just by looking at evidence from the world around them is just a little (ok a lot) far fetched.
Don't be ridiculous RL, the fact that things evolved is obvious, anyone can see it, and a lot were working on it. The question has always been, "what makes it happen?". Dariwin's discovery (which his father never made) was Natural Selection. Darwin didn't discover evolution, he discovered evolution by means of natural selection.
Farmerman said the same thing a few posts back, but maybe you didn't see it...
farmerman wrote:real lifeQuote:Darwin started with his grandfather's view of evolution and 'worked his way backwards'.
How did you arrive at this conclusion? because Erasmus felt that species were not immutable?
The fact that Erasmus was correct but lacked a mechanism means nothing, yet heres an example of an idea that was formulated by a handful of individuals over nearly 100 years
Ros,
Darwin started with the theory, AND THEN looked for evidence to back it up. Why is that so hard to admit?
And why aren't students taught that today? They are given the impression that evidence ALONE led Darwin to his conclusions, instead of acknowleding that he started with the conclusion before ever stepping aboard the Beagle.
It is because evolutionists won't (can't) admit that Darwin interpreted circumstantial evidence to support his theory. This is something that only creationists do, right?
Creationists can't prove anything. "Creation" is an unfounded statement only believed by christians as detailed in Genesis of the bible. .
cicerone imposter wrote:real, Read the bible. LOL
Yup, I've read it. It's not there. Can you cite it?
From Genesis, chapter 6:
[19] And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
real life wrote:
Ros,
Darwin started with the theory, AND THEN looked for evidence to back it up. Why is that so hard to admit?
And why aren't students taught that today? They are given the impression that evidence ALONE led Darwin to his conclusions, instead of acknowleding that he started with the conclusion before ever stepping aboard the Beagle.
It is because evolutionists won't (can't) admit that Darwin interpreted circumstantial evidence to support his theory. This is something that only creationists do, right?
Then it ought to be easy to point to the science that disputes Darwin. Please do so.
Provide us the alternate theory that fits the evidence BETTER than evolution does. With the peer reviewed science that backs it up.
Oh, by the way. .you can't start with the theory then try to match the evidence..
ros-thank you, I often get a feeling that RL is purposely obtuse
RL, In the matter of your point that Charles merely "Pirated" his grandads works is of course quite ridiculous. Erasmus was, himself guilty of derivative thought from Adam Smith 's
"The motive power of human development was free competition" and also Hume who concluded that all things social, evolved
"All things started with small beginnings"
Buffon, Goethe, Herder, and Kant had all considered the same doctrine.
It was not yet a workable synthesis, nor really a theory since Erasmus lacked any evidence. To say that Erasmus was much published is kind of disengenuous also. Heres an example of his "Temple of Nature"
"Each new descendant with superior powers
Of sense and motion speeds the transient hours:
Braves every season, tenants every clime,
And Nature rises on the wings of time. (cantoII)
He was a POET in his publications. From his lair at Breadwall hall, his arguably clever reasoning, so ponderous to read, was available to Charles (since Charles father handed the work to him). Charles father, Robert, also a physician, was all that was left of the three sons of Erasmus. Erasmus Jr was quite mad, and Charles died of a hemmorhagic fever, thus leaving only Robert who, was not schooled in the sublety of what Erasmus was saying (Most other people also just put his Zoonomia up on a shelf with Shakespeare , not Newton). Robert then, handed Erasmus work to Charles and, without much coaching Charles waded through the trove of many good and some really bad ideas.
Some authors ascribe the seminal connection of evolution to the childhood reading of Erasmus's poetry by young Charles to be the reason that Charles always had a fondness for the natural sciences. Of course the familial relationship and source materials provided by Erasmus included poems of heredity and artifical hybridization. We're also sure that Charles was keenly aware of his grandfathers thoughts and scientific and social ideas.However, I feel that you should get more familiarized with the actual "grunt' work that Charles had to do that had never ever crossed Erasmus mind. (Not to mention that Erasmus was flat wrong in his almost Lamarkian and Buffon views).
Most theories are evidenced by Circumstantial evidence in their formative years and for long periods thereafter so thats really no big discolsure. We still generate equations of LAws that work and we dont know why.
I cant think of a single theory or Law that doesnt support evolution. Hard wall to bust when you think about it carefully. Unlike Creation which has no evidence at all, circumstantial or not.
I'm always sceptical of anyone that "knows" something(especially the existence/non-existence of God) for sure. None of us know the truth, and anyone who says they do is full of it.
JC, The bible and everything in it is a myth. The truth is there are too many contradictions, errors, and omissions in the bible for it to be true. The bible god is the creation of men - like any comic book that shows miracles and superpowers (like Superman).
All humans are capable of is to use what intelligence we have to decipher what is right and wrong. Belief in superstitious gods goes beyond good sense and logic. Man created gods long before the bible god came into existence.
cicerone imposter wrote:JC, The bible and everything in it is a myth. The truth is there are too many contradictions, errors, and omissions in the bible for it to be true. The bible god is the creation of men - like any comic book that shows miracles and superpowers (like Superman).
All humans are capable of is to use what intelligence we have to decipher what is right and wrong. Belief in superstitious gods goes beyond good sense and logic. Man created gods long before the bible god came into existence.
Thanks for your opinion, I'll take it into consideration. Oh by the way, a myth is a story that may or may not be true. It doesn't mean false story like how so many people use it. Thanks for playing.
Being as we know from the bible the exact size of the ark, I think it's safe to say that it would not, no way no how, have held every species on the planet.
Actually, the real proof is there is no evidence of a world flood that buried everything under 20 feet of water in 2304 BC.
