• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Darwin's Illusion

Neuropteron

Active Member
Darwin's Illusion

Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple.
He lived in a time when people believed a brood of mice could suddenly appear in a basket of dirty clothes. In other words Darwin was under the illusion that life could appear spontaneously under the right conditions.
Based on this ignorance, he crafted an explanation for variation within a species, and formulated a theory explaining the process whereby life could arise from nonliving matter and mutate to the variety of living entities we see today.

It is postulated that this narrative has been overwhelmingly accepted in educated circles for more than a century even though the basic mechanisms of organic life remained a mystery until several decades ago- as a convenient alternative to belief in a creator.

After 1950 biochemistry has come to understand that living matters is more complex than Darwin could ever have dreamed of.

So, in view of this, what happened to Darwin allegedly elegant and simple idea ?
Although not a single sector of Darwinic evolution can offer uncontested proof that it is nothing more than a imaginative theory it is acclaimed by mainstream scientists as a science.

Lynn Margulis a distinguished University Professor of Biology puts it this way:
"History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology"
She asks any molecular biologists to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge to date is still unmet.
She says " proponents of the standard theory [of evolution] wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin..."
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Darwin's Illusion

Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple.
He lived in a time when people believed a brood of mice could suddenly appear in a basket of dirty clothes. In other words Darwin was under the illusion that life could appear spontaneously under the right conditions.
Based on this ignorance, he crafted an explanation for variation within a species, and formulated a theory explaining the process whereby life could arise from nonliving matter and mutate to the variety of living entities we see today.

It is postulated that this narrative has been overwhelmingly accepted in educated circles for more than a century even though the basic mechanisms of organic life remained a mystery until several decades ago- as a convenient alternative to belief in a creator.

After 1950 biochemistry has come to understand that living matters is more complex than Darwin could ever have dreamed of.

So, in view of this, what happened to Darwin allegedly elegant and simple idea ?
Although not a single sector of Darwinic evolution can offer uncontested proof that it is nothing more than a imaginative theory it is acclaimed by mainstream scientists as a science.

Lynn Margulis a distinguished University Professor of Biology puts it this way:
"History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology"
She asks any molecular biologists to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge to date is still unmet.
She says " proponents of the standard theory [of evolution] wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin..."

You realize that Margulis was one of the leading biologists of the 20th century, right?

She was a critic of Neo-Darwinism, but proposed *other* mechanisms of evolution (such as symbiosis). In fact, her work showing that mitochondria and chloroplasts are derived from symbiotic bacteria was crucial to our understanding of those organelles. This mechanism of evolution of complex cells is now generally accepted.

In those quotes, she was saying that mutations *alone* are not enough for speciation. She was NOT claiming evolution didn't happen.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
Darwin's Illusion

Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple.
He lived in a time when people believed a brood of mice could suddenly appear in a basket of dirty clothes. In other words Darwin was under the illusion that life could appear spontaneously under the right conditions.
Based on this ignorance, he crafted an explanation for variation within a species, and formulated a theory explaining the process whereby life could arise from nonliving matter and mutate to the variety of living entities we see today.

Can you tell me where Darwin said "life could appear spontaneously"?
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
Darwin's Illusion

Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple.
He lived in a time when people believed a brood of mice could suddenly appear in a basket of dirty clothes. In other words Darwin was under the illusion that life could appear spontaneously under the right conditions.
Based on this ignorance, he crafted an explanation for variation within a species, and formulated a theory explaining the process whereby life could arise from nonliving matter and mutate to the variety of living entities we see today.

It is postulated that this narrative has been overwhelmingly accepted in educated circles for more than a century even though the basic mechanisms of organic life remained a mystery until several decades ago- as a convenient alternative to belief in a creator.

After 1950 biochemistry has come to understand that living matters is more complex than Darwin could ever have dreamed of.

So, in view of this, what happened to Darwin allegedly elegant and simple idea ?
Although not a single sector of Darwinic evolution can offer uncontested proof that it is nothing more than a imaginative theory it is acclaimed by mainstream scientists as a science.

Lynn Margulis a distinguished University Professor of Biology puts it this way:
"History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology"
She asks any molecular biologists to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge to date is still unmet.
She says " proponents of the standard theory [of evolution] wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin..."
Darwin provided a mechanism for the change in living things over time. That is not the origin of life.

Do you have a source that states that Darwin believed in the creationist idea of spontaneous generation?

Darwin's ideas about evolution and the mechanism driving evolution were based on his observations of living things, fossils, and animal and plant breeding. There is no evidence that the creationist notion of spontaneous generation had anything to do with the theory he formulated.

Nothing in science can offer uncontested proof of anything. The only thing that seems uncontested is the creationist pension for fallacious claims.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
But I do know why Daniel puts that in his posts, I got into trouble for proselytising by saying Satan doesn't exist and not adding in my opinion.
I was not keen on keeping up with subtleties of this in the past, but I am coming to more fully understand and respect the reasoning behind it.

As your average bunny on the street, I am pretty forgiving of many a turn of phrase, but on this new beat, I am learning new perspectives. I might even be improving on the bunny that you know and love.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
I don't remember reading that in Origin of Species.

Darwin studied a lot of different groups. I referenced some of his work on earthworms in a paper I wrote years ago. Nothing in there about spontaneous generation.

I don't remember it either but it has been a while since I read On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Darwin's Illusion

Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple.
No, he didn't. He discovered one of the mechanisms by which life changes over succeeding generations. I'm not aware that he ever attempted to explain life.
His expectation that organic life was simple? Please explain.
He lived in a time when people believed a brood of mice could suddenly appear in a basket of dirty clothes. In other words Darwin was under the illusion that life could appear spontaneously under the right conditions.
Source, please.
Based on this ignorance, he crafted an explanation for variation within a species, and formulated a theory explaining the process whereby life could arise from nonliving matter and mutate to the variety of living entities we see today.
Darwin's theory of evolution is not a theory of abiogenesis, or even spontaneous generation. It's a theory of change.
He did mention the possibility of life arising in a warm little pond, at one time, but this was never developed, and was simply a speculative whim. What details he mentioned did not involve life magically popping into existence. What he described resembled today's chemical evolution, of the components of life.
It is postulated that this narrative has been overwhelmingly accepted in educated circles for more than a century even though the basic mechanisms of organic life remained a mystery until several decades ago- as a convenient alternative to belief in a creator.
Not exactly an alternative to a creator. The creator myth is an assertion of who, and describes no mechanism. The scientific narrative is an exploration only of mechanism, and proposes no agent. It's who vs how, and never the twain meet.

After 1950 biochemistry has come to understand that living matters is more complex than Darwin could ever have dreamed of.

So, in view of this, what happened to Darwin allegedly elegant and simple idea ?
Natural selection? It's been confirmed. It's a major mechanism of change.
Although not a single sector of Darwinic evolution can offer uncontested proof that it is nothing more than a imaginative theory it is acclaimed by mainstream scientists as a science.

Lynn Margulis a distinguished University Professor of Biology puts it this way:
"History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology"
She asks any molecular biologists to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge to date is still unmet.
She says " proponents of the standard theory [of evolution] wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin..."
There is overwhelming, consilient evidence supporting evolution, by various mechanisms.
There are numerous examples of recent speciation, and, with short generation species, the process can be observed directly.

Margulis didn't deny Darwin or natural selection. She just added another mechanism to the mix.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
I was not keen on keeping up with subtleties of this in the past, but I am coming to more fully understand and respect the reasoning behind it.

As your average bunny on the street, I am pretty forgiving of many a turn of phrase, but on this new beat, I am learning new perspectives. I might even be improving on the bunny that you know and love.

I always imagined my encounter with a playboy bunny would be different.
 
Top