Evolution and Creation, are both wrong?

[CG Didymus]

[FONT=&quot]Methinks he might have a difficult time debating Hitchens, since he's been dead for almost a year....[/FONT]

I guess the show was recorded. In the show he did mention that Hitchens was sick.

 

[Debater Slayer]

***Staff Advisory***

Thread closed for Staff review.
​

 

[Debater Slayer]

***Staff Advisory***

Several posts have been deleted from this thread based on Staff consensus, and the thread has been reopened for posting.

Please keep all posts on topic and refrain from making off-topic posts. Further off-topic posts may be deleted and their authors may be given warnings or infractions.

4. Spam and Advertising/Off Topic Posts
Usually described as unsolicited or undesired electronic messages. There are many types of electronic spam:
1)Posting advertisements, unsolicited e-mail or private messaging, promoting other sites or items for sale. These will be deleted on sight and the poster may be banned.
2)Advertising of sites and forums that might appear to be in competition to RF requires the permission of an administrator.
3)Signatures are allowed to contain links, but not to commercial sites unless there is administrator approval. This applies to home page links as well.
4)Posting your own material copied from other forums or anywhere else on the web may also be considered a form of spam if not done in an engaging manner that is aimed at generating discussion or debate. Length of copied material should be limited, but a bit more allowance of length is given to the original posts of threads compared to response posts.
5)Posts that are judged to deviate significantly from the thread topic, or that do not conform to the tone or intent of the thread, may be edited or deleted.

 

[tumbleweed41]

LifeConscious: An Alternative Theory to Evolution and Creationism

Not a Scientific Theory.

Homeopathic pseudoscience.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

LifeConscious: An Alternative Theory to Evolution and Creationism

The author is not a scientist by any means. His is a "student of religions, philosophy, and life experiences. His book, on what he refers to as LifeConscious, is a result of his many years of observation and research." Although he does not identify what kind of research, I suspect it involves a bag of chips and a recliner.

Nevertheless, since his work is not scientific, I will approach the following summary according to MY life experiences.

It is a new way of looking at the way that life really works. First of all life can’t come from inanimate or non living matter or robotics. Life has to come from something that is already alive which means that life is a linear organism. You were born from your mother, who was born from her mother, who was born from her mother, etc. all the way back to the first spark of life. Whether you believe this initial spark came from the word of a deity (creationism) or from a tepid pool of water (evolution). It doesn’t matter, it is only important for you to realize that Life is a Linear Organism.

The claim that life can't come fron inanimate or non-living matter is not important here. Life is more like a branching tree, but I believe what he means is that one of the primary characteristics of life as we see it is heredity. I agree, however the claim that this is a new way of looking at how life "really works" seems some what naive. This is one of the 4 laws of evolution.

Since life is a linear organism then we know that other things besides the spark of life are transferred to the fetus during and after its formation and birth. Things that scientist call instinct, the collective subconscious, DNA induced traits, phobias, and even allergies. But how can all of these things be transferred to a fetus during its formation? Just as any person can contract a cold, flu or the measles from another person simply by being near them so can these traits be passed from mother’s to their young by using a carrier that all living beings cannot live without and that carrier is water.

If I can paraphrase the first part of this, "Since life is hereditary, traits are passed from one generation to the next." I do not disagree in the least. How can all these traits be transferred to a fetus during it's formation? Quite simply they are not. Most life, not even most animals, have fetuses. And the traits themselves are not transferred. It is information that is transferred. This information is 'expressed' during development. All of this is just bad usage and I wanted to try to clear that up. But in essence still no problem.

Then comes the claim that water is the carrier of the information of heredity, in so many words. And that the mere closeness of water with the fetus transfers that information. See below.

Water is essential for all living creatures for without it we would perish. We are all water creatures because we are mainly made up of water and because of this water has no taste to us. All mammals’ wombs and eggs are proof of the primordial seas that life once came from but water has another fascinating trait and that is that it can retain memory.

Absolulty!

Any search on the web for memory and water will come up with scientific proof of this special trait. Even now there are scientists who are trying to develop ways to use water molecules as miniature memory storage devices, devices so small that one the size of an iPod could contain enough music to play for years without repeating a tune.

Really now? Not sure what he means by proof?
https://www.google.com/search?q=wat...-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

In case you miss the overall theme, this is a tribute to the only scientist that has actually published papers on the subject.
The memory of water : Nature News

Now consider for yourselves, a molecule that contains information and transferrs all the information from father and mother to the young? Pretty complex? H2O, or DNA that has billions of atoms? The information must not only be transferred, it must be transferred in an orderly way, and it must include information from the father and the mother. Can you think of anything where the father and mother's information comes together in a way that could be transferred to the young? It must be 50% information from the father and 50% from the mother, according to the observations we see. It must account for dominant and recessive traits.

And this one is pretty important, it must not serve for a mechanism where information from a fish, or a monkey, would contaminate the young. You better not let mom go fishing while she's pregnant, just saying.

The book LifeConscious will show how your mother’s memories were transferred to you when you were still in her womb. It will show that water is the carrier of this memory and where this memory is stored. These memories that are transferred contain programmed instinctual reflexes, survival reflexes, sexual stimulations from odors, etc.

Now we get more specific. Maybe he's just talking about memories. Em, instinctual reflexes, survival reflexes, sexual stimulus from odors. Not really sure as he's not being specific. Sexual stimulation from 'phermones' is a common phenomena, not readliy proven but in a few species. I would need actual evidence regarding the mechanism of this. Survival reflexes however are controlled by what's called the fight or flight response, which is hormonally controlled through stress induction. Protien encoding (i.e. DNA expression) is in full control of this. Let me just get passed all this BS.

Since life is linear, and memory is passed from mother to child, is there any one out there that has the memory of the first human????????????????????????? How about the memory of their grandmother?

This isn’t all that LifeConscious does for it also controls your living bodily functions such as your heart rate, digestion, respiration, glandular and liver excretions but also procreation. All of these activities are done in the background so your own personal consciousness doesn’t even have to bother with these functions. Who among us can control their liver functions using their personal consciousness anyway and, by the way, what is you personal consciousness?
Your personal consciousness is that part of your brain that is storing all of your experiences (good or bad), education, faces, voices that have become your own unique personality; your psyche if you will. This is the consciousness that you have built your entire life and the consciousness that everyone around you communicates with.

This guy should have done a tiny tiny bit of research in the field of biology before he got up out that recliner. Digestion, resperiation, hormonal excretions? Really?

Oh, let me requote one thing

Whether you believe this initial spark came from the word of a deity (creationism) or from a tepid pool of water (evolution). It doesn’t matter

If I can paraphrase, EVERYONE, please buy my book!

 

[painted wolf]

LifeConscious: An Alternative Theory to Evolution and Creationism

You're kidding right... homeopathy as a replacement for evolution?

wa:do

 

[gnostic]

LifeConscious: An Alternative Theory to Evolution and Creationism

Looking at the book title itself, the only one (I know for sure) that is a "scientific theory" is Evolution.

Creationism is nothing more than the Christian literal interpretation of their Bible - namely Genesis 1 to 11. At best, it is theology; at worse, it is nothing more than pseudoscience. It is not scientific theory.

As to "LifeConscious", reading your quote about this LifeConscious, I see only more pseudoscience, not a scientific theory.

And since Adrian Harrison Arvin is not a scientist, I don't see how his book and his subject matter would be considered "scientific", let alone relevant as "alternative theory" to evolution.

 

[ecologist88]

As to "LifeConscious", reading your quote about this LifeConscious, I see only more pseudoscience, not a scientific theory.

And since Adrian Harrison Arvin is not a scientist, I don't see how his book and his subject matter would be considered "scientific", let alone relevant as "alternative theory" to evolution.

I agree the "lifeconscious" book will be deemed pseudoscience. As I said in an earlyier post I have a hobby in reading obscure and "wacky" books. I do not support everything in them, just have an interest in them.

FunctionalAthiest has already shot the book down, but what I will say is, is that the water memory thing is interesting and if proven (one day maybe?? who knows), that would not actually be anti-evolution & infact it might be considered a form of Lamarckism.

You do not need to be a scientist to write on science, Charles Darwin was a theology student with no degrees in science at all, yet Jonathon Wells an Intelligent designer has a phd in biology amongst other degrees. But out of the two, who is deemed the pseudoscientist?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

It is not scientific theory.

As to "LifeConscious", reading your quote about this LifeConscious, I see only more pseudoscience, not a scientific theory.

It's not even pseudoscience. Jacques Benveniste wrote two papers based on scientifice results that have never been repeated even though there have been numerous attempts.

The first paper said that he was able to use a solution of antigen, that was diluted so much that there were zero actual bio-molecules left, to stimulate the activation of antibodies by white blood cells placed in contact with the water.

As an example, take a common cold virus, dilute it in water, remove all the virus so that nothing but water remained, and use that to inoculate a person a give them immunity to that particular strain of cold virus. (This is not just what the experiment was, but this would be an implication of the study.) He called this water memory.

When asked How? His second study results said that he was able to actually record the electromagnetic wave frequency of the antigen, and when the antigen was separated from the water, the water still emitted the wave frequency.

This is what "water memory" meant in terms of this supposed science experiment. Water remembers electromagnetic wavelengths of other molecules it comes in contact with.

Electromagnetic wave frequencies are miles long. He said he wasn't responsible for the details. How could electromagnetic (digital) data contain enough information to stimulate the immune system? Don't know, don't care. Why would proteins already identified as the carrier of the data even bother with primary, secondary, tertiary, and extremely complex quaternary structure if they were not in fact the carrier of the data? Don't know, don't care. Why can no one repeat your results. Don't know, leave me alone!

Based on this and his 'study' of religions, philosophy, and life experiences, Arvin presents this trash. Bottom line, if someone will buy it, someone will write it.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I agree the "lifeconscious" book will be deemed pseudoscience. As I said in an earlyier post I have a hobby in reading obscure and "wacky" books. I do not support everything in them, just have an interest in them.

FunctionalAthiest has already shot the book down, but what I will say is, is that the water memory thing is interesting and if proven (one day maybe?? who knows), that would not actually be anti-evolution & infact it might be considered a form of Lamarckism.

You do not need to be a scientist to write on science, Charles Darwin was a theology student with no degrees in science at all, yet Jonathon Wells an Intelligent designer has a phd in biology amongst other degrees. But out of the two, who is deemed the pseudoscientist?

Yea, technically it would not disprove science. But it will not be proven. It has been thoroughly debunked in the scientific community to the point that any further experiments would automatically (perhaps unfairly) have one laughed out of the community. But there is NO EVIDENCE of it.

While you don't have to have a degree in science, you do need to understand the scientific method and apply it. In Darwin's time, education was quite a bit different than what we have. A person was not even considered 'literate' until they could read and write at least 3 languages.

 

[outhouse]

I agree the "lifeconscious" book will be deemed pseudoscience. As I said in an earlyier post I have a hobby in reading obscure and "wacky" books. I do not support everything in them, just have an interest in them.

FunctionalAthiest has already shot the book down, but what I will say is, is that the water memory thing is interesting and if proven (one day maybe?? who knows), that would not actually be anti-evolution & infact it might be considered a form of Lamarckism.

You do not need to be a scientist to write on science, Charles Darwin was a theology student with no degrees in science at all, yet Jonathon Wells an Intelligent designer has a phd in biology amongst other degrees. But out of the two, who is deemed the pseudoscientist?

It doesnt matter what one knows if ones direction follows a path within pseudoscience, and not valid science. Its all in the method taken.

 

[painted wolf]

I agree the "lifeconscious" book will be deemed pseudoscience. As I said in an earlyier post I have a hobby in reading obscure and "wacky" books. I do not support everything in them, just have an interest in them.

FunctionalAthiest has already shot the book down, but what I will say is, is that the water memory thing is interesting and if proven (one day maybe?? who knows), that would not actually be anti-evolution & infact it might be considered a form of Lamarckism.

If water remembers me... then it must remember every dinosaur turd ever dumped on the Mesozoic.

You do not need to be a scientist to write on science, Charles Darwin was a theology student with no degrees in science at all, yet Jonathon Wells an Intelligent designer has a phd in biology amongst other degrees. But out of the two, who is deemed the pseudoscientist?

Actually Darwin also attended U.Edinburgh Medical School, where he learned to be a physician (at least until he got to surgery which he found brutal and abhorrent) as well as taxidermy, geology and biology.

When he realized he couldn't abide the brutal nature of medicine he was sent to Christ's College to study theology, but he continued his studies in biology and geology.

He was hardly a rube with no background in biology or science.

Before "the origin" he had already been a respected published scientist on a number of subjects from the geology of coral atolls, the identification of barnacles as crustaceans and fossil mammals of South America among others.

Even before the Beagle voyage he had contributed work on entomology.

wa:do

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Ecologist88, since we are discussing alternatives to evolution by natural selection, I recommend you search for pre-Charles Darwinian alternatives. I'm sure you are somewhat familiar with Lamarck. But a lot of people do not know that Charles Darwin was hardly the first to consider evolution. There were numerous discussions regarding the subject. To many it seemed quite apparent that animals had changed over time. Charles was just the first to give a credible explanation of how.
I wasn't able to find any decent treatment of the hypothesis of Evolution by Oxygenation. I did a paper on the subject and its proponent, Erasmus Darwin, back in grad school. Quite a personality, and worthy of inquirey on many levels.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Erasmus_Darwin.aspx#1

In a nutshell, the idea was that animals evolved through volition. E.g. by reaching further and further, oxygenates the muscles etc., the next generation of giraffes have necks just a little bit longer.

 

[gnostic]

You do not need to be a scientist to write on science, Charles Darwin was a theology student with no degrees in science at all, yet Jonathon Wells an Intelligent designer has a phd in biology amongst other degrees. But out of the two, who is deemed the pseudoscientist?

Where in the hell did you get this?

He may have studied theology, but he had plenty of science backgrounds. He was well-versed in geology, botany, biology; he was also a naturalist. He even studied medicine, but at that time medicine, particularly surgery was still quite crude in the early 1800s. Heck, he even have skills in drawings.

He was well respected among the scientists of time, even before his voyage on HMS Beagle in the 30s.

I have never said, Darwin wasn't a theist or Christian. I have always pointed out to creationists on this forum that Darwin was never atheist. Some creationists, and other Christians believed that evolution is the same with being atheism, which is an utter nonsense. Anyone can accept and understand evolution, no matter what religious (or non-religious) background they come from.

Evolution, and all other fields of science, is supposed to religion-neutral; religion should be irrelevant in all science, not just evolution.

Have you study superconductor or thermodynamics? Do they mention any god or creator in either of those theories? Then why should god or creator be mentioned in evolution or any other biological fields?

The difference between Jonathon Wells and Charles Darwin is that Darwin managed to separate science from religion in his scientific research.

Although Scientific Method as we have it now didn't exist fully at the time of Darwin, he fulfilled all requirements of Scientific Method. Despite Wells' PhD in biology, Wells forgot this when he got involved in Intelligent Design; he forgot the importance of observation, evidences and testings in science.

What Darwin had studied, researched and wrote (about natural selection and evolution) were falsifiable; Wells' ID is not falsifiable.

And lastly, Darwin's works were read and reviewed by biologists and geologists of his time, and the majority that understood and accept his works, especially his theory, is sort of like "peer review" today, gaining consensus from scientific community. Wells didn't get this consensus from biologists with his ID.

These are what make Darwin a scientist and Wells a pseudo-scientist. It is matter of methodology, ecologist88, that make ones' works scientific or pseudo-scientific.

A real scientist would based their conclusion on the empirical and testable evidences, not on wishful thinking/faith or religious dogma. ID is nothing more than Christian creationism in guise.

Wells is well known for misrepresenting what other scientists say or wrote, demonstrated that he is deceitful and has agenda to promote their brand of creationism, a typical tactic used by all members of the Discovery Institute.

if you wish to read LifeConscious, that's your prerogative. If you believe in the claims made in such a book as LifeConscious, that's also your prerogative. But do not claim that LifeConscious being "scientific" or "alternative theory" to evolution, for which it isn't.

 

[ecologist88]

Ecologist88, since we are discussing alternatives to evolution by natural selection, I recommend you search for pre-Charles Darwinian alternatives. I'm sure you are somewhat familiar with Lamarck. But a lot of people do not know that Charles Darwin was hardly the first to consider evolution. There were numerous discussions regarding the subject. To many it seemed quite apparent that animals had changed over time. Charles was just the first to give a credible explanation of how.
I wasn't able to find any decent treatment of the hypothesis of Evolution by Oxygenation. I did a paper on the subject and its proponent, Erasmus Darwin, back in grad school. Quite a personality, and worthy of inquirey on many levels.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Erasmus_Darwin.aspx#1

In a nutshell, the idea was that animals evolved through volition. E.g. by reaching further and further, oxygenates the muscles etc., the next generation of giraffes have necks just a little bit longer.

I have read most of the pre-Darwinian evolutionary views and theories. There are quite a few books which cover it all.


Darwin's Ghosts: The Secret History of Evolution is a recent book written by Rebecca Stott which traces evolution back to Al-Jahiz, an Arab writer and european early thinkers such as Denis Diderot (Diderot suggested something very similar to natural selection). As you know evolution was not discovered single-handedly it developed over many centuries but most of these other scientists have been forgotten about sadly.


It is actually the truth that Darwin discovered nothing new, the concept of natural selection had already been suggested by several other naturalists and Darwin had read their works. Common descent had been suggested far before Darwin. And I just discovered sexual selection also has a history before Darwin. Darwin also admitted in his books that it was Lamarck to propose the first theory of evolution.


From the third edition (due to complaints from other scientists in letters to Darwin) Darwin added a preface to his book Origin titled the "Historical Sketch" and by the sixth and last edition there were 44 names in it. So 44 other scientists were writing on evolution before Darwin and Darwin had to acknowledge this.


I have looked through the 44 scientists and tried to dig out some of the publications. There is a whole conspiracy as well put forward by some scholars that Darwin stole his ideas from others and tried to hide this fact.


Apparently there are missing pages, which were torn out from Darwin's notebooks (3 pages if I can remember correctly)?, and it has been suggested he was copying the ideas of Edward Blythe and Patrick Matthew on natural selection which had been written much before him. The naturalist Loren Eiseley wrote an entire book on this but his claims have not been accepted by all scholars and I have not heard much about it.


Becuase Darwin was wealthy, he could read French and it has also been suggested he took some of ideas from Georges Louis Leclerc, Comte of Buffon. The list goes on and on. I have seen all kinds of claims that Darwin took his idea from others, some even going as far as saying a conspiracy was involved ( see the book by Roy Davies for example). But who is interested in this? Only really historians of science. Evolution is true, so it does not really matter what Darwin wrote.

 

[ecologist88]

You have made major mistakes gnostic but this is what happens when you don't read books on the history of evolution.

He may have studied theology, but he had plenty of science backgrounds. He was well-versed in geology, botany, biology; he was also a naturalist.

Darwin was a theology student, that is what most of his studies were on. I agree becuase Darwin was rich, he did have a large collection of books on geology and botany but he had no real education in these things. There is no evidence Darwin was a naturalist, he was an investigator that is all.


Prof Brian Ford, who I learnt many things about evolution from, has written an entire paper on this. You can read it here.

http://brianjford.com/CF7_Darwin.pdf

His conclusion:

"Charles Darwin didn't discover evolution. His book on worms outsold the volume on evolution. He had no science degree, he did not introduce the idea of "natural selection," and he wasn't the H.M.S. Beagle's naturalist. Rather than the "father of evolution," he should be known to us as an indefatigable investigator, an expert observer and a diligent microscopist."

Regarding your other comment:

He was well respected among the scientists of time, even before his voyage on HMS Beagle in the 30s.

There is no evidence he was well respected, not at first anyway. All the evidence points in the other direction.

I have never said, Darwin wasn't a theist or Christian. I have always pointed out to creationists on this forum that Darwin was never atheist. Some creationists, and other Christians believed that evolution is the same with being atheism, which is an utter nonsense. Anyone can accept and understand evolution, no matter what religious (or non-religious) background they come from.

This has nothing to do with this conversation, but I agree with you. Three days before his death and Darwin in a letter wrote God and evolution are compatible. He also admitted to being an agnostic; however creationist/religious comments appear in Darwin's books on occasion.

The difference between Jonathon Wells and Charles Darwin is that Darwin managed to separate science from religion in his scientific research.

Not true, Darwin invokes "the creator" throughout his works.


Let me just give you one example, In his book On Origin of the Species Darwin wrote:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved ." (XLIX, 243)

He never removed the above paragraph, which appears in the later editions of his book.

"The Creator" ? This does not sound scientific to me.

What Darwin had studied, researched and wrote (about natural selection and evolution) were falsifiable.

Natural selection is not falsifiable, it is a metaphysical concept, and based in tautological reasoning. (Let's not go into that here, see my other thread on that).

 

[ecologist88]

And lastly, Darwin's works were read and reviewed by biologists and geologists of his time, and the majority that understood and accept his works, especially his theory, is sort of like "peer review" today, gaining consensus from scientific community.

False!, sorry but what you have stated there is the complete opposite of the truth. If you actually did research about the history of evolution, you would not of written that.

Natural selection was rejected for a period of over 60 years, it wasn't until the 1940's when natural selection was actually started to be accepted by the majority of the scientific community. They even called this period the "eclipse of Darwinism". Whilst scientists were in agreement on the fact of evolution, they were not supportive of Darwin's theories about natural selection.

I would also point out sexual selection was not accepted by the scientific community until the 1970s... Your comment make it seem the scientific community instantaneously backed Darwin's ideas, as I stated the truth is the complete opposite. If you do not believe me read some books on the topic. I suggest the following:

Peter Vorzimmer Charles Darwin: The Years of Controversy: The Origin of Species and its critics, 1859-1882
Thomas Glick The Comparative Reception of Darwinism (1988)
Bowler, Peter J. (1983). The Eclipse of Darwinism: anti-Darwinian evolutionary theories in the decades around 1900

You can also read how sexual selection was rejected by the scientific community for over a 100 years in:
Mary Margaret Bartley A Century of Debate: the History of Sexual Selection Theory (1871-1971) Cornell University, 1994

Further reading:

The eclipse of Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The eclipse of Darwinism - RationalWiki

if you wish to read LifeConscious, that's your prerogative. If you believe in the claims made in such a book as LifeConscious, that's also your prerogative. But do not claim that LifeConscious being "scientific" or "alternative theory" to evolution, for which it isn't.

You obviously do not read peoples posts gnostic, nowhere did I say I supported that book, I enjoy reading such books for amusement value, which relate to the OPs question.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I have read most of the pre-Darwinian evolutionary views and theories. There are quite a few books which cover it all.


Darwin's Ghosts: The Secret History of Evolution is a recent book written by Rebecca Stott which traces evolution back to Al-Jahiz, an Arab writer and european early thinkers such as Denis Diderot (Diderot suggested something very similar to natural selection). As you know evolution was not discovered single-handedly it developed over many centuries but most of these other scientists have been forgotten about sadly.


It is actually the truth that Darwin discovered nothing new, the concept of natural selection had already been suggested by several other naturalists and Darwin had read their works. Common descent had been suggested far before Darwin. And I just discovered sexual selection also has a history before Darwin. Darwin also admitted in his books that it was Lamarck to propose the first theory of evolution.


From the third edition (due to complaints from other scientists in letters to Darwin) Darwin added a preface to his book Origin titled the "Historical Sketch" and by the sixth and last edition there were 44 names in it. So 44 other scientists were writing on evolution before Darwin and Darwin had to acknowledge this.


I have looked through the 44 scientists and tried to dig out some of the publications. There is a whole conspiracy as well put forward by some scholars that Darwin stole his ideas from others and tried to hide this fact.


Apparently there are missing pages, which were torn out from Darwin's notebooks (3 pages if I can remember correctly)?, and it has been suggested he was copying the ideas of Edward Blythe and Patrick Matthew on natural selection which had been written much before him. The naturalist Loren Eiseley wrote an entire book on this but his claims have not been accepted by all scholars and I have not heard much about it.


Becuase Darwin was wealthy, he could read French and it has also been suggested he took some of ideas from Georges Louis Leclerc, Comte of Buffon. The list goes on and on. I have seen all kinds of claims that Darwin took his idea from others, some even going as far as saying a conspiracy was involved ( see the book by Roy Davies for example). But who is interested in this? Only really historians of science. Evolution is true, so it does not really matter what Darwin wrote.

I agree it's unfortunante that this history is largely unknow. The perception seems to be that Darwin's theory was completly novel and new. It's important to understand every step of science is predacted by those that came before.

As far as stolen, I'm not sure I would succumb to this view without stong evidence. The works that were available, and he read, how is that stolen? One of the most important parts of science is the peer review process and making your claims convincing.

My graduate professor, lol Steven Darwin, no relation to Charles, once told me to forget all the philosophy of science. He said science is as simple as convincing your peers you are right. That is true to a very large part. If previous writings were not convincing, and Darwin saw the connection that made them convincing, then he gets the credit.

But as you say, it's not the man, but the theory that has to stand the test of time.

I assume you are familiar with Darwin's greatest protagonist, Louis Agassiz?

 

[painted wolf]

False!, sorry but what you have stated there is the complete opposite of the truth. If you actually did research about the history of evolution, you would not of written that.

Natural selection was rejected for a period of over 60 years, it wasn't until the 1940's when natural selection was actually started to be accepted by the majority of the scientific community. They even called this period the "eclipse of Darwinism". Whilst scientists were in agreement on the fact of evolution, they were not supportive of Darwin's theories about natural selection.

I would also point out sexual selection was not accepted by the scientific community until the 1970s... Your comment make it seem the scientific community instantaneously backed Darwin's ideas, as I stated the truth is the complete opposite. If you do not believe me read some books on the topic. I suggest the following:

Peter Vorzimmer Charles Darwin: The Years of Controversy: The Origin of Species and its critics, 1859-1882
Thomas Glick The Comparative Reception of Darwinism (1988)
Bowler, Peter J. (1983). The Eclipse of Darwinism: anti-Darwinian evolutionary theories in the decades around 1900

You can also read how sexual selection was rejected by the scientific community for over a 100 years in:
Mary Margaret Bartley A Century of Debate: the History of Sexual Selection Theory (1871-1971) Cornell University, 1994

Further reading:

The eclipse of Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The eclipse of Darwinism - RationalWiki



You obviously do not read peoples posts gnostic, nowhere did I say I supported that book, I enjoy reading such books for amusement value, which relate to the OPs question.

Actually, you are incorrect. Darwin's version of Evolution by Natural Selection was the mainstream theory by the 1870's (at least in English speaking countries). That doesn't mean that it wasn't debated or that alternative theories weren't presented... but that doesn't change the fact that it was still the top game in town. It's also the one that won.

Starting in the 1920's and continuing through the 1940's Evolution was merged with Genetics to produce "the New Synthesis" and the modern Theory of Evolution became the unifying theory of biology. (and unified biology with chemistry and so on)

wa:do

 

[gnostic]

Darwin was a theology student, that is what most of his studies were on. I agree becuase Darwin was rich, he did have a large collection of books on geology and botany but he had no real education in these things. There is no evidence Darwin was a naturalist, he was an investigator that is all.

It is not PhD or degree themselves that make a scientist, but the education combined with works that make a scientist. And Darwin had plenty of education as well as researches and works.

You ignoring the complete facts that Darwin went to medical school in University of Edinburgh, hence that doesn't mean was completely without scientific background.

Yes, Darwin read books. But he studied and learned from many before his voyage on the HMS Beagle.

And despite giving up the life of medicine, he was educated by Britain's finests of that time in the 1920s. He was pupil to professor John Stevens Henslow, who was botanist and geologist, and was Darwin's mentor. It was who Henslow who recommended Darwin (of all his students) to the captain of HMS Beagle; a voyage that Henslow had declined to go.

Why would Henslow recommended Darwin as a naturalist to the captain, if Darwin had no scientific background on natural science?

Henslow wasn't the only person Darwin assisted, worked or study under Robert Edmond Grant, Robert Jameson, William Darwin Fox, William Paley and many other leading naturalists before his voyage. And Darwin had worked in the university museum.

Darwin's voyage (on the HMS Beagle) was what him research why there were diversity of plants and wildlife over geographical regions.

It is work and research that make a scientist, as well as education. You seemed to think that all Darwin did was read books on geology and botany:

I agree becuase Darwin was rich, he did have a large collection of books on geology and botany but he had no real education in these things.

Why do you ignore Henslow?

Like I said before. It is work and education that make scientist, not some degrees. It is you who are wrong.