Evidence For And Against Evolution

[YoursTrue]

Once again? What does this have to do with your slanderous accusations of evolution, via dumping on Charles Darwin.

These, of course are other issues involving considerations of the science of evolution, which reflect your religious agenda and lack of education in science that can be addressed in a dialogue, and NOT your attempts to slander Charles Darwin, and by implication the science of evolution, to justify your religious agenda against evolution.

I am a geologist with over 50 years experience in the field and lab. What are your qualifications to make such ridiculous assumptions in the above, and by the way very poor use of terminology concerning science? By the way. again, again, and again science does not prove anything.

Also, may I say that studies do show some medications are effective in some people. OK? Studies also show that some humans have a genetic predisposition to certain diseases. And so looking into microscopes and trying to figure out how to fix certain things can be beneficial. Go back again to the point and accusation you make. Darwin's original title (there's more) for his book on he "origin" of species is:
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." So is this, or is this not the original title of his book?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Excuse me, but for one thing, it is Darwin's own writings you are talking about. Go back to the title of his book about the "origin" of species. Its full title was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Clearly, and most clearly, he as well as others, then and now, believed in superiority of particular "races" of the human kind. There's more, but I didn't make up the original title of his book. He did. Or maybe you have other knowledge that he didn't.

The meaning of words change over time. You should know this. His use of the word "races" was the same as "species". He was not talking about human races in that title.

 

[YoursTrue]

Once again? What does this have to do with your slanderous accusations of evolution, via dumping on Charles Darwin.

These, of course are other issues involving considerations of the science of evolution, which reflect your religious agenda and lack of education in science that can be addressed in a dialogue, and NOT your attempts to slander Charles Darwin, and by implication the science of evolution, to justify your religious agenda against evolution.

I am a geologist with over 50 years experience in the field and lab. What are your qualifications to make such ridiculous assumptions in the above, and by the way very poor use of terminology concerning science? By the way. again, again, and again science does not prove anything.

Further, please do explain how Darwin thought life was a "struggle for life." Doesn't evolution teach everything and everyone dies by nature, genes, or disposition? Except of course for the one jellyfish thing someone alluded to? Long live the jellyfish. (Anyway, the argument isn't true about the everlasting jellyfish. So be it.)
So science does or does not prove anything you say. It doesn't prove anything about life, how it started, or what happened before life on earth, is that right? No proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Also, may I say that studies do show some medications are effective in some people. OK? Studies also show that some humans have a genetic predisposition to certain diseases. And so looking into microscopes and trying to figure out how to fix certain things can be beneficial. Go back again to the point and accusation you make. Darwin's original title (there's more) for his book on he "origin" of species is:
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." So is this, or is this not the original title of his book?

Quite often when writing titles it can seem redundant to use the same term more than once. "species" and "races" were synonyms in that title. That is all. Nothing do with African people versus European people.

 

[SkepticThinker]

lol, ok. If it weren't funny, you guys would be funny. It is a planet (a dwarf) but maybe not really. OK...so now the solar system doesn't have nine planets as had been taught. It has, I believe, 8 planets and a dwarf planet. ok...

We're all trying to figure out why you think that is significant, given that re-classifying it doesn't change much about what we know about the planet and the fact that it exists. It still exists, it's still there, it still has all the properties we know about it - it's just being classified differently than it used to be.

 

[YoursTrue]

The meaning of words change over time. You should know this. His use of the word "races" was the same as "species". He was not talking about human races in that title.

OK, maybe that's true. And I'm not going to go over what he meant by that right now because he hasn't told me, or you. Maybe he said something about it in print. (hmmm.) We'll go over more about this. Meantime, are you sure he meant race means species?

 

[YoursTrue]

Quite often when writing titles it can seem redundant to use the same term more than once. "species" and "races" were synonyms in that title. That is all. Nothing do with African people versus European people.

You're sure, are you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Further, please do explain how Darwin thought life was a "struggle for life." Doesn't evolution teach everything and everyone dies by nature, genes, or disposition? Except of course for the one jellyfish thing someone alluded to? Long live the jellyfish. (Anyway, the argument isn't true about the everlasting jellyfish. So be it.)
So science does or does not prove anything you say. It doesn't prove anything about life, how it started, or what happened before life on earth, is that right? No proof.

Science is evidence based. A concept that you refuse to learn for some odd reason. How can you even try to discuss evidence when you do not understand the concept?

And as to the struggle for life, if you ever observe life in the wild you will see that most species produce far more offspring than needed to replace themselves. Most do not survive to adulthood. For example with lions the mortality rate is 86%:

Lion - Reproduction and life cycle

Do you think that there is not a struggle when roughly one out of seven reaches adulthood?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, maybe that's true. And I'm not going to go over what he meant by that right now because he hasn't told me, or you. Maybe he said something about it in print. (hmmm.) We'll go over more about this. Meantime, are you sure he meant race means species?

Yes, read his book. You can get copies online for free.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're sure, are you?

Yep.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1861_OriginNY_F382.pdf

 

[YoursTrue]

We're all trying to figure out why you think that is significant, given that re-classifying it doesn't change much about what we know about the planet and the fact that it exists. It still exists, it's still there, it still has all the properties we know about it - it's just being classified differently than it used to be.

As shunydragon said (I may paraphrase here), science proves nothing.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, read his book. You can get copies online for free.

All right, I'm reading certain things more about Darwin and his writings. So what do you say Darwin believed? Did he believe there are races of mankind or there are not races of mankind? I'm reading what he said and he was quite dismayed when certain slaves were released and they went back to their original ways, evidently not adopting the ways of their slave-owning masters.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yep.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1861_OriginNY_F382.pdf

Thanks for link, I truly doubt I'll have time to read through the whole thing, although may be interesting. Can you please point at least to the contention you're making -- that he believed races and species are the same thing? I mean, that's what you said above, didn't you, in another post?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Salad or meat doesn't matter. Evolution is not a fact. It's a theory. We have already covered it is not an observed event. Nothing to show genes changing to produce or form by themselves different forms, or kinds. Or for that matter, kinds. Not then and not now.

Evolution is a fact AND a scientific theory.

Sure. It is a fact. Facts change, is that it?

It's a demonstrable fact. We do, in fact, observe changes in inherited traits over successive generations in biological populations of organisms.

The scientific theory of evolution is the explanation used to describe how evolution operates.

 

[YoursTrue]

Also to SZ - just checking things out - it appears (and if you have any further info, please do give it) that the original title of Darwin's book, "Origin of Species," was changed in subsequent editions, and the "favored (or favoured) races" bit was left out. Hmm wonder why. So the question still remains. Did he believe that mankind could be classified in races? And now that is brought up, I notice how many MANY questionnaires ask this question: Are you Caucausian, Asian, Hispanic, etc. -- whatever -- or would you prefer not to answer. So while I always felt the question was skewed, upon studying what many scientists are saying about there being hardly any significant difference between lineage, I will now refuse to answer as much as possible. See? Another good thing that came from our discussions. Thanks!

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolution is a fact AND a scientific theory.


It's a demonstrable fact. We do, in fact, observe changes in inherited traits over successive generations in biological populations of organisms.

The scientific theory of evolution is the explanation used to describe how evolution operates.

Science, said shunyadragon, cannot be proved. I understand that evolution is a theory, and is used to describe how evolution works. OTOH, explanations change. As far as proof goes, however, if I put a blue dye in a clear bottle of water, the water may turn blue. To me, that's PROOF that the blue dye had an effect on the water. Scientific? I guess because it was based on a blue dye being placed in a bottle with clear water. And when I said 'may' turn blue, I meant that it is possible what is considered a blue dye may have a substance in it that does NOT turn the water blue. Yeah, experiments, experiments of the scientific kind. What "experiments" have been done in reference to evolution? Please do tell, if you will kindly. Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

@shunydragon and SZ (and whoever else may want to think about this):

This in reference to what Darwin believed about race. And now that I am thinking about it, and reading what more recent scientific EVIDENCE (genetically) is coming up about difference between people, I am moving back from answering questions about what race I am. If possible. Since I am changing my viewpoint about RACE. "I" didn't make it up about race. That's what I was taught, without question, and that's what is taught now in many respects, including questionnaires that seem innocent enough.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Further, please do explain how Darwin thought life was a "struggle for life." Doesn't evolution teach everything and everyone dies by nature, genes, or disposition? Except of course for the one jellyfish thing someone alluded to? Long live the jellyfish. (Anyway, the argument isn't true about the everlasting jellyfish. So be it.)
So science does or does not prove anything you say. It doesn't prove anything about life, how it started, or what happened before life on earth, is that right? No proof.

Sounds like maybe you should go and read some of Darwin's works, instead of just hypothesizing about the titles of his works.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As shunydragon said (I may paraphrase here), science proves nothing.

It demonstrates things.

But how does this answer my query?

 

[Subduction Zone]

All right, I'm reading certain things more about Darwin and his writings. So what do you say Darwin believed? Did he believe there are races of mankind or there are not races of mankind? I'm reading what he said and he was quite dismayed when certain slaves were released and they went back to their original ways, evidently not adopting the ways of their slave-owning masters.

He believed in different races, but his theory is rather general. It explains how new species arose but it does not go into details. That is why I state that he did not try to use evolution to justify his beliefs. And at that time almost everyone was a bit racist. He tended to be better than most since he ardently opposed slavery. You cannot expect a person to be too much better than the people of his time.