Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
97 online now:
Phat, xongsmith (2 members, 95 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,046 Year: 5,158/6,534 Month: 1/577 Week: 69/135 Day: 0/1 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwin- would he have changed his theory?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 32 of 195 (151550)
10-21-2004 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by SirPimpsalot
10-21-2004 8:44 AM


quote:

This is untrue, to my knowledge........before Pasteur (who post-dated Darwin's theory, by a bit), it wasn't even known that there WAS microscopic life...

Presumably you mean before Anton Van Leeuwenhoek who died before Darwin was even born ?

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blleeuwenhoek.htm


Anton Van Leeuwenhoek was the first to see and describe bacteria (1674), yeast plants, the teeming life in a drop of water, and the circulation of blood corpuscles in capillaries

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-21-2004 8:44 AM SirPimpsalot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-21-2004 9:02 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 37 of 195 (151557)
10-21-2004 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by SirPimpsalot
10-21-2004 9:02 AM


Well if you were taught that microscopic life was first discovered by Pasteur you were taught incorrectly. The material I quoted is not even obscure knowledge - we are after all talking about the man famous as the inventor of the microscope.

Pasteur's discovery was that microscopic life was the CAUSE of decay and not, as some believed, a product of it. I hope you can understand that the very existence of such a controversy requires the knowledge of microscopic life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-21-2004 9:02 AM SirPimpsalot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-21-2004 9:17 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 41 of 195 (151563)
10-21-2004 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by CK
10-21-2004 9:06 AM


Actually I recognise this, it's Graham Hancock's latest.
I am afraid that the best that can be said of it is that it is less nutty than the earlier ideas he has put forward.

That there were inhabited areas that were flooded by the end of the Ice Age is well known. That Hancock's civilisation existed there is almost certainly false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by CK, posted 10-21-2004 9:06 AM CK has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-21-2004 9:23 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 43 of 195 (151565)
10-21-2004 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by SirPimpsalot
10-21-2004 9:17 AM


Darwin's theory speaks against spontaneous generation. It is directly against the older versions which had even mice coming into existence, and even against insects (the latter was disproven by Redi in 1668). Even the idea finally laid to rest by Pasteur had been challenged by Spallanzani in 1799. Nor did Darwin rely on the ideas of spontaneous generation disproven by Pasteur.

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Spontaneous_Generation.html

Indeed, Pasteur's discovery did not hurt Darwin's ideas at all - it supported them. Common descent relies on life originating on no more than a few occasions - spontaneous generation strongly denies that. It is creationists who propose numerous seperate origins of life, not evolutionary scientists.

As for the complexity issue that, too does not hurt Darwin's theory significantly. After all, Darwin's theory deals with how life changes over time - not with how the first life came to be. Knowing the complexity of bacteria might have made the view that God created the first simple life appear more plausible at the time - but Darwin did not try to argue against that in On The Origin of Species


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-21-2004 9:17 AM SirPimpsalot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-21-2004 9:39 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 47 of 195 (151570)
10-21-2004 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by SirPimpsalot
10-21-2004 9:23 AM


It's just one guy. He's got more reasonable over the years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-21-2004 9:23 AM SirPimpsalot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-21-2004 9:40 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 54 of 195 (151578)
10-21-2004 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by SirPimpsalot
10-21-2004 9:39 AM


No, Darwin certainly did not rely on the idea that life regularly formed in soup and other foodstuff. I've already explained why that is against common descent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-21-2004 9:39 AM SirPimpsalot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-21-2004 9:49 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 57 of 195 (151583)
10-21-2004 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by SirPimpsalot
10-21-2004 9:40 AM


Hancock has definitely put forward Atlantis theories in the past - but a lot of other people have too.

So who is this "Atlantis" guy with "overwhelming" proof ? Where can we see his arguments ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-21-2004 9:40 AM SirPimpsalot has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by AdminNosy, posted 10-21-2004 11:08 AM PaulK has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 60 of 195 (151587)
10-21-2004 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by SirPimpsalot
10-21-2004 9:49 AM


I'm not sure of the meaning of your comment, except that it confirms that spontanteous generation is more in line with the views of the opponents of evolution as I have already stated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-21-2004 9:49 AM SirPimpsalot has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 63 of 195 (151593)
10-21-2004 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by SirPimpsalot
10-21-2004 9:59 AM


I searched on the Science Channel's website ( http://science.discovery.com/ ) for Atlantis. The search returned nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-21-2004 9:59 AM SirPimpsalot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-22-2004 7:32 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 85 of 195 (151901)
10-22-2004 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by SirPimpsalot
10-22-2004 7:32 AM


We've already had admins complaining that this is off-topic so I won't try to discuss the matter here.

I will just note that searching on Google for the combination of "Atlantis" and "Alto Plano" turned up postings on Graham Hancock's forum and no other relevant links. "Atlantis" and "orichalcon" turned up no relevant links. "Alto Plano" and "orichalcon" turned up no links at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-22-2004 7:32 AM SirPimpsalot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-22-2004 7:57 AM PaulK has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022