|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Evolution
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Here’s a fuller quote, with source… “Every criticism from a good man is of value to me. What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work will be grievously hypothetical, and large parts by no means worthy of being called induction, my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.” en.m.wikisource.org Even Darwin realized his so-called theory was a crock, which is why he never published the future promised book with evidence supporting it. <<What Ever Happened to Darwin’s Big Book? Charles Darwin (1809–1882) has become a mythical figure of gigantic proportions. His theory drives a surprising amount of popular discussion. I often hear pundits referring to “evolution” and by that, they always mean Darwinism. It’s as much science as they care to know, in most cases. That fact makes reading Robert F. Shedinger’s Darwin’s Bluff: The Mystery of the Book Darwin Never Finished (Discovery Institute Press 2024) an unusual experience. Meticulously analyzing Darwin’s and his associates’ massive correspondence, Shedinger, professor of religion at Luther College, quietly blows up the Darwin myth. He shows that — in actual history — Darwin never demonstrated to his colleagues’ satisfaction that natural selection acting on random mutation accounted for the history of life. Contrary to What You Might Hear… Darwin’s colleagues were not concerned about the effect of his theories on religion. Rather, they frequently complained that, “while he made arguments, he provided little evidence and essentially proved nothing.” (p. 159) Spurred by Alfred Russel Wallace’s famous letter outlining a very similar theory, Darwin — to avoid pre-emption — published On the Origin of Species (1859) as an abstract, promising a much longer book supplying the evidence for his thesis. But he never published that longer book, even though it was, Shedinger tells us, three-quarters written by that time. He went on to publish works on orchids and sexual selection instead.>> More at: evolutionnews.org |
|||||||
|
Yes, Letter to Asa Gray If we continue on right from your own cherry picked dismissal (thanks very much for the link), we read: I had not thought of your objection of my using the term 'natural selection' as an agent. I use it much as a geologist does the word denudation—for an agent, expressing the result of several combined actions. I will take care to explain, not merely by inference, what I mean by the term; for I must use it, otherwise I should incessantly have to expand it into some such (here miserably expressed) formula as the following: "The tendency to the preservation (owing to the severe struggle for life to which all organic beings at some time or generation are exposed) of any, the slightest, variation in any part, which is of the slightest use or favourable to the life of the individual which has thus varied; together with the tendency to its inheritance." Any variation, which was of no use whatever to the individual, would not be preserved by this process of 'natural selection.' But I will not weary you by going on, as I do not suppose I could make my meaning clearer without large expansion. I will only add one other sentence: several varieties of sheep have been turned out together on the Cumberland mountains, and one particular breed is found to succeed so much better than all the others that it fairly starves the others to death. I should here say that natural selection picks out this breed, and would tend to improve it, or aboriginally to have formed it. . . . So Darwin isn't admitting any fault in his theory, only of the (slightly inappropriate) use of a particular word, after which he provides yet more evidence for gradual natural selection. And you continue focusing on Darwin's brilliant initial effort, while ignoring the vast volumes of subsequent research. Darwin was just one guy, making observations over a period of almost thirty years (from 1831--the Beagle voyage to 1859 (publication). Scientists around the world have continued observations and experiments ever since. So Darwin: 30 man-years of research. Evolutionary biologists since 1860: 160*1000 = 160,000 man years of research. <<While there's no exact count, estimates suggest that there are likely several thousand evolutionary biologists worldwide, with a significant portion based in research institutions and universities across the globe; however, the precise number is difficult to pinpoint due to the broad range of fields within biology that could be considered "evolutionary biology.">> This is really understated, as many biologists well beyond direct evolutionary biology have contributed to the development of the theory. Paleontologists are almost exclusively evolutionists, geneticists, microbiologists, zoologists, botanists, taxonomists, and ecologists. Most of them have made contributions, both small and large. Your "wild guess" insult continues to fall so wide of the mark we spectators wonder at what you're shooting. Target is ahead--you seem to fling arrows far off into left field, well beyond the bleachers. |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Letter to Asa Gray This shall be such an extraordinary note as you have never received from me, for it shall not contain one single question or request. I thank you for your impression on my views. EVERY CRITICISM FROM A GOOD MAN IS OF VALUE TO ME. What you hint at generally is very, very true: that MY WORK WILL BE GRIEVOUSLY HYPOTHETICAL, AND LARGE PARTS BY NO MEANS WORTHY OF BEING CALLED INDUCTION, my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts. I had not thought of your objection of my using the term 'natural selection' as an agent. I use it much as a geologist does the word denudation—for an agent, expressing the result of several combined actions. I WILL TAKE CARE TO EXPLAIN, NOT MERELY BY INFERENCE, what I mean by the term; for I must use it, otherwise I should incessantly have to expand it into some such (here miserably expressed) formula as the following: "THE TENDENCY TO THE PRESERVATION (owing to the severe struggle for life to which all organic beings at some time or generation are exposed) of any, the slightest, variation in any part, WHICH IS OF THE SLIGHTEST USE OR FAVORABLE to the life of the individual WHICH HAS THE VARIED; together with the TENDENCY TO ITS INHERITANCE." Any variation, which was of no use whatever to the individual, would not be preserved by this process of 'natural selection.' But I will not weary you by going on, as I do not suppose I could make my meaning clearer without large expansion. I will only add one other sentence: several varieties of sheep have been turned out together on the Cumberland mountains, and one particular breed is found to succeed so much better than all the others that it fairly starves the others to death. I should here say that natural selection picks out this breed, and would tend to improve it, or aboriginally to have formed it. . . . Well, I can quote it to you but I can't understand it for you. Is this NOT the passage to which you were referring? Did he use the exact same sentence elsewhere in his letters? And does he NOT repeat the plain, simple facts of evolution he laid out in Origins and then repeated over and over until he was blue in the face? Your objection remains absolutely without merit. Who is the one wasting their time here? I think it's me. |
|||||||
| ||||||||
