Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Finches named for Darwin are evolving
MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 1097 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 16 of 48 (335315)
07-25-2006 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by deerbreh
07-25-2006 3:02 PM


Re: This is wonderful evidence for CREATION!
Don’t get me wrong. Darwin’s work has been the most popularized primarily due to the work of his “bulldog” TH Huxley. However, I’m almost certain that you’ve heard of Edward Blyth. Blyth was a creationist who, according to the article below, “wrote three major articles on natural selection that were published in The Magazine of Natural History from 1835 to 1837”. Note that Darwin’s work wasn’t published until 1859. “The leading tenets of Darwin’s work”the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection and sexual selection”are all fully expressed in Blyth’s paper of 1835”. In fact, Darwin was strongly criticized at the time for not including acknowledgments for prior work (which he eventually did, although in “fine print”) and has even been accused of plagiarism.
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
The concept of natural selection is not at odds with Creation, and as I’ve mentioned previously is required to account for the diversity in the “kinds” of life that has occurred since the flood. We now typically use the term Neo-Darwinism since mutations have been added as a new mechanism in an attempt to explain evolution since natural selection alone did not cut it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by deerbreh, posted 07-25-2006 3:02 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by MangyTiger, posted 07-25-2006 10:08 PM MurkyWaters has not replied
 Message 22 by deerbreh, posted 07-25-2006 11:57 PM MurkyWaters has not replied
 Message 23 by deerbreh, posted 07-26-2006 12:50 AM MurkyWaters has not replied

  
MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 1097 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 17 of 48 (335317)
07-25-2006 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by deerbreh
07-25-2006 3:06 PM


Re: This is wonderful evidence for CREATION!
I have documented my "extraodinary claim" in the previous reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by deerbreh, posted 07-25-2006 3:06 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by deerbreh, posted 07-25-2006 11:42 PM MurkyWaters has not replied

  
MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 1097 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 18 of 48 (335319)
07-25-2006 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
07-22-2006 7:09 PM


Re: This is wonderful evidence for CREATION!
Thank you Faith. Glad to be here. I'm having fun, but this does take some time, doesn't it? I'd like to get more familiar with the creationist positions on the forum so I don't repeat things too much. Do you have any suggestions as to what might be the best place to start. Or perhaps links to some specific posts that you think are "typical" of creationists positions. Also, I'm concerned that there is not a foundation of understanding among participants. Is there a place where things are defined, like evolution and creation? Perhaps this was done early on in a discussion. It might be impossible to do because of all the diversity of thought. However, I think it would be good to have a "READ THIS FIRST" defining some terms and postions before participating in the forums to lay some groundwork for newcomers. What do you think?
p.s. Should I not have replied with this message here since this thread is about finches? If so, what's the appropriate procedure. If I email you than other's wouldn't see it to potentially add their thoughts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 07-22-2006 7:09 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Coragyps, posted 07-25-2006 9:23 PM MurkyWaters has not replied
 Message 24 by deerbreh, posted 07-26-2006 12:55 AM MurkyWaters has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 19 of 48 (335320)
07-25-2006 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by MurkyWaters
07-25-2006 9:16 PM


Re: This is wonderful evidence for CREATION!
You might look at the forum glossary:
http:///WebPages/Glossary.html
There's also a "suggestions" forum here for procedural sort of stuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-25-2006 9:16 PM MurkyWaters has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 20 of 48 (335330)
07-25-2006 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by MurkyWaters
07-25-2006 9:00 PM


Re: This is wonderful evidence for CREATION!
According to this talk origins article the concept of natural selection was well established before Darwin. The accepted view of the function of natural selection was to keep types the same.
What Darwin did which was different to his predecessors was to stand this view on its head and realise that natural selection was the primary cause of evolutionary change.
From the link:
Darwin's theory therefore cannot be equated with the simple claim that natural selection operates. Nearly all his colleagues and predecessors accepted this postulate. Darwin, in his characteristic and radical way, grasped that this standard mechanism for preserving the type could be inverted, and then converted into the primary cause of evolutionary change. Natural selection obviously lies at the center of Darwin's theory, but we must recognize, as Darwin's second key postulate, the claim that natural selection acts as the creative force of evolutionary change. The essence of Darwinism cannot reside in the mere observation that natural selection operates - for everyone had long accepted a negative role for natural selection in eliminating the unfit and preserving the type

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-25-2006 9:00 PM MurkyWaters has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 21 of 48 (335334)
07-25-2006 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by MurkyWaters
07-25-2006 9:07 PM


Re: This is wonderful evidence for CREATION!
I have documented my "extraodinary claim" in the previous reply.
No you didn't. Darwin's theory of natural selection encompasses a lot more then mere "survival of the fittest" and a lot more then evolution. Darwin's contribution was to show how natural selection serves as a mechanism for evolution. No one else except maybe Wallace gets the credit for that, and even Wallace did not develop the concept with example after example from direct observation of nature the way that Darwin did. In particular, Darwin developed the concept of "sexual selection" and noted that it was not enough to "survive", one also had to reproduce. So Darwin's concept of the "fittest" included differential reproduction. In other words, Darwin put all of the pieces together. There is a good reason why we don't talk about "Blythism" or "Wellsism" or "Matthewsism" or "Huttonism" or even "Wallaceism." Darwin rightly gets the credit, as much as AIG would like to deny it. What you are saying would be like saying that Watson and Crick don't deserve the credit for describing the structure of DNA because others came up with all of the the structures of nucleic acids. But only Watson and Crick showed how the nucleic acids went together and could replicate themselves. The same is true for Darwin and natural selection. AIG is not a reliable source for describing how Darwin's ideas were developed because they have a vested interest in discrediting Darwin and promoting creationists. AIG is also notorious for the use of selective out of context quotes from evolutionists to buttress their claims. If you are going to rely on them you will not have a happy time here. Besides, this issue has been hashed over by modern evolutionary biologists, including Stephen J. Gould. They have no vested interest in protecting Darwin. It is the IDEA, not the man that they are interested in promoting, so they would want the credit to be rightly placed. And Gould and the others (except Loren Eisley, whose research on the issue Gould decisively discredits) come down soundly on the side of Darwin. No offence but I trust the research abilities of Gould over AIG any day. Gould's take on the whole issue here: (thanks to MangyTiger for the link) Darwin's precursors and influences: 4. Natural selection

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-25-2006 9:07 PM MurkyWaters has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2006 9:50 PM deerbreh has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 22 of 48 (335336)
07-25-2006 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by MurkyWaters
07-25-2006 9:00 PM


Re: This is wonderful evidence for CREATION!
Darwin’s work has been the most popularized primarily due to the work of his “bulldog” TH Huxley.
This is another historical non fact from AIG. Huxley defended Darwin, sure, but Darwin's work stood the test of time long after Huxley and Darwin were gone. It is ludicrous to suggest that the popularity of Darwin into the 21st century is a result of his friendship with Huxley in the nineteenth century. Scientific ideas stand or fall on their own. They don't need publicists. Wegener's IDEA of Continental Drift was originally derided and rightly so because he proposed a ludicrous mechanism. However, a plausible mechanism (plate tectonics) was discovered later on and the IDEA of Continental Drift was revived. And no one would suggest that the credit for plate tectonics should go to Wegener. That would be the equivalent of giving Blythe the credit for Darwinism.
Edited by deerbreh, : posted prematurely

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-25-2006 9:00 PM MurkyWaters has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 23 of 48 (335343)
07-26-2006 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by MurkyWaters
07-25-2006 9:00 PM


Re: This is wonderful evidence for CREATION!
We now typically use the term Neo-Darwinism since mutations have been added as a new mechanism in an attempt to explain evolution since natural selection alone did not cut it.
This is not quite correct. The term Neo-Darwinism usually refers to the syynthesis of Darwinism with the genetic insights of Mendel and the heredity understanding of Wallace. "Neo" actually refers to the insight that Wallace had about heredity being the basis of transferring traits to the next generation which was confirmed by Mendalian genetics. So the addition of a heredity mechanism is new in terms of what Darwin understood. Mutation is of course necessary to generate genetic variation but Mendalian genetics did not initially include the concept of mutation and Wallace certainly knew nothing about mutation so it is kind of a stretch to say that the Neo of NeoDarwinism is mutation. http://www.biocrawler.com/encyclopedia/Neodarwinism

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-25-2006 9:00 PM MurkyWaters has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 24 of 48 (335346)
07-26-2006 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by MurkyWaters
07-25-2006 9:16 PM


Re: This is wonderful evidence for CREATION!
Staying away from Answers in Genesis would be a good place to start because that will get you nothing but trouble here, as it is like shooting fish in a barrel for the evolutionists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-25-2006 9:16 PM MurkyWaters has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 25 of 48 (335580)
07-26-2006 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by deerbreh
07-25-2006 11:42 PM


Re: This is wonderful evidence for CREATION!
AIG is not a reliable source for describing how Darwin's ideas were developed because they have a vested interest in discrediting Darwin and promoting creationists.
I am no AiG fan for religious reasons, but it is obvious that you have an axe to grind for Darwin, therefore, however logical your observation may be, it is logical that the same criticism must apply to yourself. IOW, one could characterize your bias towards Darwin as the bias of a sweetheart.
Besides, this issue has been hashed over by modern evolutionary biologists, including Stephen J. Gould. They have no vested interest in protecting Darwin.
My previous point well supported.
Gould was the quintessential Darwinist, having wrote Structure of Evolutionary Theory (1000+ pages) and many others defending Darwin tooth and nail.
Since many educated persons deny the Holocaust - your opinion about Gould having no vested interest in protecting Darwin is a yawner.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by deerbreh, posted 07-25-2006 11:42 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Coragyps, posted 07-26-2006 10:19 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 27 by lfen, posted 07-26-2006 10:27 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 28 by deerbreh, posted 07-27-2006 12:25 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 29 by deerbreh, posted 07-27-2006 12:30 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 31 by deerbreh, posted 07-27-2006 1:46 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 26 of 48 (335584)
07-26-2006 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object
07-26-2006 9:50 PM


Re: This is wonderful evidence for CREATION!
Since many educated persons deny the Holocaust - your opinion about Gould having no vested interest in protecting Darwin is a yawner.
Can we nominate "non sequitur of the year" candidates here?
Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2006 9:50 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 27 of 48 (335585)
07-26-2006 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object
07-26-2006 9:50 PM


Re: This is wonderful evidence for CREATION!
Since many educated persons deny the Holocaust
How many is many?
Who are they?
Where were they educated and what is their level of education in what fields.
This sounds like a SPOOYA but maybe you have documentation for this?
lfen
Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2006 9:50 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 28 of 48 (335726)
07-27-2006 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object
07-26-2006 9:50 PM


Re: This is wonderful evidence for CREATION!
Gould was the quintessential Darwinist, having wrote Structure of Evolutionary Theory (1000+ pages) and many others defending Darwin tooth and nail.
Uh, you left out the rest of my argument. No one denies that Gould is an evolutionary biologist. But it is the IDEA he is going to defend, not the man. He has no vested interest in defending Darwin from the charge of plagiarism, why would he? And note that even on the IDEA, he broke with Darwin somewhat by promoting the "puctuated equilibrium" theory, which deviated from Darwin's notion of gradual, incremental evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2006 9:50 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Modulous, posted 07-27-2006 12:35 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 29 of 48 (335728)
07-27-2006 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object
07-26-2006 9:50 PM


Re: This is wonderful evidence for CREATION!
My previous point well supported.
Huh? I responded to a post by MurkyWaters. I have no idea what your point was so how could I be responding to it?
Edited by deerbreh, : left off quote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-26-2006 9:50 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 30 of 48 (335732)
07-27-2006 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by deerbreh
07-27-2006 12:25 PM


Re: This is wonderful evidence for CREATION!
he broke with Darwin somewhat by promoting the "puctuated equilibrium" theory, which deviated from Darwin's notion of gradual, incremental evolution.
Darwin believed that evolution was likely to happen in fits and bursts - it just got mostly ignored.
Herepton writes:
Gould was the quintessential Darwinist, having wrote Structure of Evolutionary Theory (1000+ pages) and many others defending Darwin tooth and nail.
Amusingly the entire point behind the Structure was summed up in the introduction. Darwin said that many elements of his ideas would be falsified in time, but that the structure of his theory would remain. So it was hardly a book championing Darwin's ideas. Then he spent several pages talking about the difference between 'structures' and 'frameworks' and architecture in general. Its not like all of the book is defending Darwin - its mostly saying he was wrong, but the structure/framework/archway/tree was right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by deerbreh, posted 07-27-2006 12:25 PM deerbreh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-28-2006 11:57 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024