Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 6:14 PM
31 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, Coragyps, dwise1, JonF, kjsimons, ooh-child (6 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,836 Year: 9,872/19,786 Month: 2,294/2,119 Week: 330/724 Day: 55/114 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
12Next
Author Topic:   DarkStar's Collection of Quotations - Number 1
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 173 (133234)
08-12-2004 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by DarkStar
08-11-2004 10:40 PM


quote:
Now when I speak so negatively about the theory of evolution, it must be understood that I am only referring to the myth of macroevolution and not the well established fact of microevolution.

Why do you consider macroevolution a myth? It is a theory based on objective evidence such as:

1. Endogenous retroviral insertions.

2. Pseudogenes

3. The correlation of cladistics and stratigraphy

4. Nested hierarchies

5. Atavisms

etc.

It is not a myth. For evolution to be a myth it would be solely supported by faith. The fact that it is instead supported by fossils and DNA, both of which are real and measurable, falsifies your claim.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by DarkStar, posted 08-11-2004 10:40 PM DarkStar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by DarkStar, posted 08-15-2004 11:11 PM Loudmouth has responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3883
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 62 of 173 (133327)
08-12-2004 4:48 PM


Topic drift? - The theme quotation is...
"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." as quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].

This topic is defined very specificly to be about the above.

If your message does not directly relate to the above quote, you are off-topic.

Adminnemooseus


Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests
  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 173 (133359)
08-12-2004 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by DarkStar
08-11-2004 10:54 PM


quote:
My intention is to discover why so many scientists make condemnatory statements about the theory of evolution, meaning of course the myth of macroevolution.

Darkstar,

Perhaps you could list one quotation at a time and we could (as a group) find the context of the quote, the qualifications of the scientists being quoted, and the time frame in which the quote was made.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by DarkStar, posted 08-11-2004 10:54 PM DarkStar has not yet responded

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 173 (134154)
08-15-2004 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Loudmouth
08-09-2004 4:53 PM


LM writes:

.....the statement should be ammended to "how do they reconcile their position with the thousands of misconstrued and out of context quotes by scientists".....

The easiest rebuttal to what is viewed as an out of context quote is to counter it with the same quote in it's full context, otherwise your argument against the quote is baseless and you are merely stating your own personal opinion.


The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Loudmouth, posted 08-09-2004 4:53 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 173 (134157)
08-15-2004 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Percy
08-09-2004 2:40 PM


percy writes:

My first reaction upon seeing your Darwin quote was, "I bet Darwin wasn't talking about evolution." Turns out I was right, and then Crash uncovers that he wasn't measuring his "speculations" against modern scientific practice, but against Baconian standards.

This gives the impression that both you and crash have read the full text of the letter in question. If so, would one of you please provide a link to the site where said letter may be found. Until I have had the opportunity to read the letter in full, I must accept that Darwin was indeed referring to his own ideas concerning evolution as being beyond the bounds of true science.


The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 08-09-2004 2:40 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 08-15-2004 8:15 PM DarkStar has not yet responded

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 173 (134158)
08-15-2004 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Asgara
08-11-2004 11:10 PM


asgara writes:

It wasn't difficult to find an online copy of the Darwin/Gray letter of Sept 5, 1857.

I will bet it wasn't difficult.....too bad it is not the letter containing the quote in question. Nice try but perhaps you should have actually read the letter before posting. If you do locate the correct letter, please provide a link so all can read it in it's entirety. Thanks in advance!


The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Asgara, posted 08-11-2004 11:10 PM Asgara has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Asgara, posted 08-15-2004 10:37 PM DarkStar has responded

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 173 (134160)
08-15-2004 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by crashfrog
08-12-2004 12:18 AM


If you can not provide a link to the letter in question, then I will continue to accept the fact that the quote supports the idea that Darwin himself admitted to the unscientific nature of his theory. Thanks for your input anyway, I will overlook the fact that you can not refute the quote and so the quote must stand until verifiable refutation is provided.


The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 08-12-2004 12:18 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18498
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 68 of 173 (134161)
08-15-2004 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by DarkStar
08-15-2004 7:40 PM


I hope there's a good reason for backing up the discussion to reply to posts from page 1 of this thread.

DarkStar writes:

This gives the impression that both you and crash have read the full text of the letter in question. If so, would one of you please provide a link to the site where said letter may be found. Until I have had the opportunity to read the letter in full, I must accept that Darwin was indeed referring to his own ideas concerning evolution as being beyond the bounds of true science.

Asgara posted this link in Message 57, but it doesn't seem to be the right letter as it doesn't contain your quote:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/darwin_gray.html

I poked around a bit on the Internet and found numerous site's with the quote, mostly Creationist, but not a single link to the orginal letter. Maybe Asgara can dig it out.

But just what are you trying to prove? That Darwin didn't think his ideas were scientific? Darwin's comments in that letter are in the context of Baconian science, a limited definition which emphasizes experimentation. By the standard's of Darwin's day and of today, his work was excellent science. Do you really think Darwin disparaged his own life's work?

I remain intensely curious about the Creationist credulity when it comes to evolutionary scientists disavowing evolution. If even scientists don't accept evolution and say so publicly in their writings, then why is evolution as firmly ensconced in the halls of science as ever? For some reason I don't understand, it is very rare to see a Creationist say to himself, "Hmmm, this webpage quotes evolutionists saying evolution is wrong or flawed. Does it make really sense that evolutionary scientists would be saying these things?"

But what does it matter what Darwin thought of his work. Today we consider his work scientific, and we've built upon his initial ideas of natural selection and descent with modification, combining them with genetic theory to form the modern synthetic theory of evolution. Even if it were a known fact that Darwin believed evolution unscientific, today we would simply say he was wrong to think so.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by DarkStar, posted 08-15-2004 7:40 PM DarkStar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by jar, posted 08-15-2004 8:18 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30997
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 69 of 173 (134162)
08-15-2004 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Percy
08-15-2004 8:15 PM


If the quote is alleged to come from a particular correspondence, and when that correspondence is produced but the quote is not found within it...?

Is there a possibility that someone might have lied, or misquoted Darwin?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 08-15-2004 8:15 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by DarkStar, posted 08-15-2004 9:44 PM jar has responded

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 173 (134165)
08-15-2004 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by pink sasquatch
08-10-2004 12:06 AM


Re: Quotations - Number 2
PS writes:

We have witnessed random mutation give rise to changes in size, shape, and form - therefore "strictly...purposeful" is incorrect.

Exactly who are the "we" and by what method did they "witness" this random mutation? Please explain how "random mutation" differs from adaptation, with regards to any species that is merely adapting to it's current environment which may cause said species to change slightly, only to reverse those changes as it's environment returns to it's previous state.


The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-10-2004 12:06 AM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 173 (134176)
08-15-2004 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Percy
08-12-2004 10:56 AM


percy writes:

There are at least a couple major problems with this argument. First, the Medieval period didn't begin until at least 500 AD. One of the reasons this period is also referred to as the Dark Ages is because it wasn't informed by ancient Greek learning. There was no theory of evolution in the Medieval period. It wasn't until the Enlightenment, around 1500 AD, that Greek learning was rediscovered.

There are at least a couple of major problems with your argument. You offer no support for your contention that there was no theory of evolution in the Medieval period and you seem to have concluded that only the Greeks would have a recorded history of evolutionary thinking. Neither of your contentions is true, at least not according to recorded history. Though the theory of evolution was not as widely taught as it is today, many tribes and cultures continued to hold to a belief in evolution before, during, and after the Medieval period.

Ancient Theories of Evolution

It is frequently implied that the theory of biological evolution is a modern idea—a product of our advanced scientific age. Conversely, a creationist worldview is often criticized as being a product of our less informed ancestors, and that this view is now a disproven relic of the past.

The Mayan culture began about 600 BC, and its religion incorporated a ‘streamlined evolution’ that taught that the rain-god constructed humans by adding to (and thereby modifying) his previous creations. This rain-god first made rivers, then fish, next serpents and, last, humans. The members of a totem clan believed:

‘themselves to be of one blood, descendants of a common ancestor. … Thus, the Turtle clan of the Iroquois are descended from a fat turtle, which, burdened by the weight of its shell in walking … gradually developed into a man. The Cray-Fish clan of the Choctaws were originally cray-fish and lived underground, coming up occasionally through the mud to the surface.

Once a party of Choctaws smoked them out, and, treating them kindly … taught them to walk on two legs, made them cut off their toe nails and pluck the hair from their bodies, after which they adopted them into the tribe. But the rest of their kindred, the cray-fish, are still living underground. The Osages are descended from a male snail and a female beaver.’

The relationship of totemism to evolution is described in more detail in the following quote:

‘The luck attributed to a rabbit’s foot stems from a belief rooted in ancient totemism, the claim, predating Darwinism by thousands of years, that humankind descended from animals. Differing from Darwinism, however, totemism held that every tribe of people evolved from a separate species of animal. A tribe worshiped and refrained from killing its ancestral animal and employed parts of that animal as amulets, called totems.’

Personally, I do not think your argument that theory of evolution being an ancient belief is a valid one. The reality is, evolutionary thinking as an ancient concept is unquestionable. It is an historically undeniable fact. The theory of evolution, though experiencing many changes & adaptations, in essence evolving differently in different cultures, can still be traced back to the beginning of recorded history.

One of the first evolutionary theories was proposed by Thales of Miletus (640–546 BC) in the province of Ionia on the coast near Greece. He was also evidently the first person to advance the idea that life first originated in water. Birdsell notes that Thales’ view of biological evolution ‘was not too far from modern truth’. One of Thales’ students, Anaximander (611–547 BC), developed these ideas further, concluding that humans evolved from fish or fishlike forms. These fish-men eventually cast off their scaly skin and moved to dry land where they have been ever since.

The Greek philosopher Empedocles (493–435 BC), often called the father of evolutionary naturalism, argued that chance alone ‘was responsible for the entire process’ of the evolution of simple matter into modern humankind. Empedocles concluded that spontaneous generation fully explained the origin of life, and he also taught that all living organism types gradually evolved by the process of trial-and-error recombinations of animal parts. He also believed that natural selection was the primary mechanism of evolution, the fittest being more likely to survive to pass their traits on to their offspring.

In short, Empedocles’ pre-Darwin ‘survival–of-the-fittest’ theory taught that life evolved by pruning the less-fit life forms—i.e. the merciless destruction of the weaker animals and plants. Unfortunately, many early Greek manuscripts have been lost, but the texts that survive provide enough details to determine with some accuracy what the ancient Greeks believed. This evidence motivated Osborn to conclude that ‘Darwin owes more even to the Greeks than we have ever recognized.’

While the ancients ideas regarding evolution differed from that which is taught today, the basic concept remains the same with lower forms continually evolving into higher forms. That this belief is such an ancient one should be of no surprise. What is surprising is that in a day such as ours, with the scientific advances that have been made, that men continue to believe in such ancient concepts, many of them originating as religious beliefs, morphing into what we know today as secular naturalism, which consists of random mutations, natural selections, & survival of the fittest.

Evidence also exists that the Greek philosophers gleaned their evolution-of-life ideas from the Hindus, who believed that souls transformed from one animal to another until they reached a level of perfection called nirvana. Both the Greeks and Hindus also could have obtained their evolution-of-life ideas from even more ancient peoples. Aristotle (384–322 BC) claimed that humans are the highest point of one long, continuous ‘ascent with modification’ of life.

Modern scientific research, though, has found that that natural selection often does not eliminate weak individuals in a species. Evidence now points to the conclusion that nearly all extinctions are the result of chance and/or human mismanagement. Natural selection cannot create, but can only prune the less-perfect organisms, serving primarily to slow the rate of biological degeneration.

Nor is the paleontological record, as a putative evidence of evolution, a recent conclusion. The first person ‘known to have explicitly recognized fossils as memorials of geological change and the succession of life’ was evidently Xenophanes of Colophon. Some speculate that Thales and Anaximander also may have concluded that the fossil evidence supported biological and geological evolution.

Why anyone bothers to continue to argue that the idea of evolution is new and not an offshoot of ancient religious beliefs is astounding. Ancient historical records confirm they are either in denial or they are, wittingly or unwittingly, ignorant of the facts of history. This is not to suggest that those who adhere to the myth of macroevolution are religionists, but their predecessors surely were.

Summary

Although Charles Darwin was highly successful in popularizing the idea of organic evolution by natural selection, he was by no means the originator of the theory as commonly supposed. Nor was Darwin the originator of even those aspects of the evolution theory for which he is most often given credit today—natural selection and sexual selection.

Organic evolution is part of the past and present culture of many nations, and is not a modern (or even an exclusively scientific) idea as is often claimed. This claim often is an attempt to give the theory credibility. This fact was expressed well by one evolutionist when he wrote that the ‘idea of miraculous change, which is supposed to be an exclusive prerogative of fairy-tales, is a common phenomenon of evolution.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/naturalism.asp

Sometimes even an open minded evolutionist, such as myself, must willingly rely on the honesty provided at a creationist website due to the openly deceitful nature of so many of the neo-evolutionist web sites that exist only to perpetuate the myth of macroevolution.


The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 08-12-2004 10:56 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 08-15-2004 10:49 PM DarkStar has responded

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 173 (134177)
08-15-2004 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by jar
08-15-2004 8:18 PM


jar writes:

If the quote is alleged to come from a particular correspondence, and when that correspondence is produced but the quote is not found within it...?
Is there a possibility that someone might have lied, or misquoted Darwin?

I think the more likely possibility is that the neo-evolutionists whose main desire is to perpetuate the myth of macroevolution have purposely posted links to the wrong letter. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.


The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by jar, posted 08-15-2004 8:18 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by jar, posted 08-15-2004 10:02 PM DarkStar has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30997
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 73 of 173 (134178)
08-15-2004 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by DarkStar
08-15-2004 9:44 PM


I think the more likely possibility is that the neo-evolutionists whose main desire is to perpetuate the myth of macroevolution have purposely posted links to the wrong letter. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

That really doesn't matter. You were the one who introduced the quotation. It is up to you to either support it, or withdraw it.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by DarkStar, posted 08-15-2004 9:44 PM DarkStar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by DarkStar, posted 08-15-2004 11:22 PM jar has not yet responded

Asgara
Member (Idle past 475 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 74 of 173 (134189)
08-15-2004 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by DarkStar
08-15-2004 8:00 PM


Well considering that none of the creationist sources that cite that quote have any information on WHEN that letter was written, I gave you one of his letters. I also posted a link to the Darwin Correspondence Project that is working on a database of all Darwin's known correspondence.
This link is to the page that lists the letters to and from Gray.

If you want to give me a better citation of the letter in question, I will have no problem finding it.


Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by DarkStar, posted 08-15-2004 8:00 PM DarkStar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by DarkStar, posted 08-15-2004 11:38 PM Asgara has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18498
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 75 of 173 (134192)
08-15-2004 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by DarkStar
08-15-2004 9:40 PM


DarkStar writes:

There are at least a couple of major problems with your argument. You offer no support for your contention that there was no theory of evolution in the Medieval period...

I don't think you'll find any theories of evolution in Europe during the Dark Ages. The church, so dominant in Medieval life, was resistant to anything that contradicted accepted church doctrine. I don't know why you're pushing this point, because it was originally Nasa who made this "Medieval belief" claim in Message 22:

Nasa writes:

Evolution is a Medieval belief!
It was once believed flies arose from rotting flesh. Frogs from wet mud. Mice from wheat.

As Pink Sasquatch pointed out in his reply in Message 28, what Nasa is describing is spontaneous generation, not evolution. Spontaneous generation definitely *was* a Medieval belief.

...and you seem to have concluded that only the Greeks would have a recorded history of evolutionary thinking.

I mentioned only the Greeks because your Answers In Genesis quote mentioned only the Greeks. I definitely don't believe as you describe me here that the Greeks recorded a "history of evolutionary thinking." I don't think the speculations of the Greek philosophers mentioned by Answers In Genesis come close to approximating Darwin's theory, and none enter into the realm of evidence-based argument.

Though the theory of evolution was not as widely taught as it is today, many tribes and cultures continued to hold to a belief in evolution before, during, and after the Medieval period.

You follow this with lengthy excerpts from Answers In Genesis to support the claim that the concept of evolution preexisted Darwin, but it wasn't necessary to do this because I already know the concept of evolution didn't originate with Darwin, and I told you that in my previous message. I cited Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck as examples of prominent scientists who accepted evolution before Darwin.

What *did* originate with Darwin were the combining of the concepts of natural selection and descent with modification into a theoretical explanation for the origin of new species, and his book provided a wealth of support in the form of evidence gathered during his years of research as a naturalist.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by DarkStar, posted 08-15-2004 9:40 PM DarkStar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 08-15-2004 11:05 PM Percy has responded
 Message 83 by DarkStar, posted 08-15-2004 11:49 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
12Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019