evolution, Darwin, religion, other musings

[Ophiolite]

Well...i dont know what to say. The main point is that his wife was smart enough for him to marry and have 10 kids with AND her opinion did not change. BUT there is the possibility he did. At the very least he did not think she was deluded.

This may be significant, what about the quote i posted?

i'm just saying...?

What in all that is Holy, and all that is unholy does the religious persuasion of Darwin's wife have to do with the fact of evolution. Many, many scientists are Christian's. Many, many Christian's fully accept the fact and character of evolution. Only those who wish to bury their heads in the sands of ignorance find anything remotely difficult about that. Lift your head to God and you might notice reality, as your eyes swing skywards.

[Ophiolite]

The whole macro/ micro evolution thing is long gone. Evolutionary biologists used to use the distinction, but it has faded out of use as more fossils have turned up and genetic technqies allow probing of the ancestry of living things. I've come across the distinction in a 1970's article, but have not seen any modern biologists use it online, and I've been hanging about reading their stuff for a while.

Gould makes extensive use of the term in his remarkable The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, which was published this century.

[John99]

John99:



Conflicted about what?



Innumerable biographies have been written.



From memory, I think he was buried in Westminster Abbey, along with Isaac Newton and that mob.

I am trying to build a psychological profile, he had to know that the most profound question's were still unanswered, the question is do people believe that much has changed.

My intent is not to question research and a defensive position (not you of course, generally speaking) is not conducive to progress. We can never do enough research.

What in all that is Holy, and all that is unholy does the religious persuasion of Darwin's wife have to do with the fact of evolution. Many, many scientists are Christian's. Many, many Christian's fully accept the fact and character of evolution. Only those who wish to bury their heads in the sands of ignorance find anything remotely difficult about that. Lift your head to God and you might notice reality, as your eyes swing skywards.

Well i guess you cant see it then. Just to clarify what keeps getting ignored he was initially buried in St. Mary's, this was what his family wanted, but also probably him. Now i know you will gloss over anything that does not fit you ideal, look through less subjectively and consider all the evidence.

There is, regarding the visitors he had during his last days, the chance of a conversion. This is a fact AND if he did convert to Christianity as one of those visitors claimed THEN Darwin himself would have harbored some lingering doubt.

Furthermore, his wife who was (i have read) very involved with his work, he worked out of his house so it can be assumed she played a part more than moral support. This leads us to the final point, she remained a Christian. Even though many modern clergy believe in evolution during Darwin's times this was not the case.

We can then assume that 50% of the Darwin unit did not buy it completely. This has nothing to do with winning points because a persons beliefs mean nothing to me personally.

[James R]

John99:

I get the impression you think Darwin's theory of evolution is incompatible with a belief in God. It isn't. You don't have to drop God to "buy" evolution. Even the Vatican says evolution is compatible with Catholicism.

[John99]

....This argument would be a valid one, if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God; but we know this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists....

-from the autobiography of Charles Darwin

"of any weight as evidence of what really exists"

Look at the top image from the link below:

http://www.terrestrialextras.com/

You know what the question is!

With out even considering creation what possibility is there that these were mostly separate species? You can 'see' similarities but what about before primates? That introduces the chance of less probability.

Darwin's own words make these questions logical.

[Ophiolite]

Well i guess you cant see it then. .........There is, regarding the visitors he had during his last days, the chance of a conversion. This is a fact AND if he did convert to Christianity as one of those visitors claimed THEN Darwin himself would have harbored some lingering doubt.

Harboured some lingering doubt about what? His theory? Don't be so foolish. There is absolutely no incompatability between his belief in his theory and any decision he may have taken to embrace Christianity. What don't you understand about that.
Respond directly to that point, or to the same point by James R , but please respond.

[sniffy]

holy mary mother of god I can feel a rant coming on which is not like me at all. I'd love to be able to read a conversation on this forum about physics, biology or chemistry without having to wade through what take the various religions have. If I want to read about religion and its perspective on the origins of life or anything else for that matter I know where to look thanks. Would the time wasters f off to the religion and philosophy sections. I want to know what the scientists think!

In Indonesia there is a species of moth that feeds on the tears of sleeping birds. If that single fact alone is not enough to convert anyone to evolution I don't know what is......

[iceaura]

I am trying to build a psychological profile, he had to know that the most profound question's were still unanswered, the question is do people believe that much has changed.

The psychological profile you seek is essentially irrelevant to the theory. Darwin was raised in Christianity and educated to the clergy - it would be strange if he had no unanswered questions. He also had a wife who believed, and feared his absence from heaven - and he was a kind man, who loved her and might easily accede to whatever comforted her at the end.

Among the possibilities a psychological profile must consider.

And yes, much has changed in the relevant knowledge. Among the many profound differences: We now have both a long-extended timeline (from 60,000 years, in Darwin's day, to 3 billion), and a logically adequate inheritence mechanism firmly established (genetic reproduction and recombination)), for the execution of the events Darwin's theory required.

[guthrie]

Guess what John! Darwin was wrong!

[river-wind]

John99: "converted" to Christianity?

Darwin was a devout orthodox Christian that was mocked at times by his shipmates aboard the HMS Beagle due to his habit of quoting scripture as the highest authority on moral issues.

Now during that time, he did have some serious doubts about his religious beliefs, namely in the false representations of the natural world and its history given in the Old Testament, but to say that he "converted" to Christianity is kinda silly. Re-affirmed maybe?

He sure as heck never denounced the theory of Evolution By Natural/Sexual Selection, though.

[sniffy]

A I've got this scientific theory.
B How exciting! Let's hear it.
A There is a God and she created all living things.
B Wow sounds fantastic! How have you formed this theory?
A Well I found this book called the Bible which was written by God. It's all in there.
B Yeah...?
A I found out that millions of other people have read it too (or at least they say they have) and they think it's all true too.
B OK. So it's not really your own theory?
A Well no but I'm happy to develop the idea.
B Anything else? Anything I can test for myself apart from reading this Bible, that is?
A Well no you just gotta believe.
B Right. Got any other theories?
A Nope. You gotta admit this one theory is pretty big?
B Yes that's true. It's big alright.

[Saquist]

John99:

I get the impression you think Darwin's theory of evolution is incompatible with a belief in God. It isn't. You don't have to drop God to "buy" evolution. Even the Vatican says evolution is compatible with Catholicism.

We might save an enormous amount of time by just listing that in the Encyclopedia of Everythings the Catholic Church has got wrong...Vol III

[Saquist]

Saquist please explain exactly what YOU mean by macro evolution, and why (if) you don't believe in evolution.
Cheers.

Perhaps that should be endeavored by those who believe in it?

[(Q)]

Perhaps that should be endeavored by those who believe in it?

Are you therefore admitting to denying a subject's validity you know nothing about?

[S.A.M.]

Lets stick to Biology and Genetics in this forum; all further off topic posts, pissing contests and trolling will be deleted.

[Saquist]

Isn't macro evolution the change of one species into another? Or was that only before speciation had been seen in the wild? Now that speciation has been seen, is macro evolution referring to the creation of new genera?



Why does evolution mean that a person can't believe in god? Many modern clergy see evolution as the method with which god created and continues to create living things.

But these are beside the point. Why does the authority of the author (or his wife) lend any credence to the argument itself?

From top to bottom....the scientific classifications of life.

Life
Domain
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species.

Now you're asking, "Isn't evolution animals and Life changing speicies?"

My answer is no. Evolution is the assumption that Life crosses all these boundaries. We focus on onlly the last category. That category....species, is a change which can and does occur over short distances of time...generations. Evolution postulates changes across large spans of time across the entire spectrum.

Yet to prove evolution we only focuse on the last category? does that strike you as logical.

[river-wind]

I suggest we stop calling it micro/macro evolution, and instead call this the Xeno/Saquist Paradox.


1) humans create classifications system to categorize life.
2) Evolution creates new species within that system.
3) Evolution cannot create larger change because as you move from a to b in infinitly small steps, you will never actually reach b.
4) therefor, while we can get from species a to species b within Genus A, we cannot go from a to b when a and b are classified by mankind as being Genus A and Genus B respectively.

Therefor Darwin (read: 'common descent') is wrong.

[Saquist]

I was mistaken John99
Patten doesn't go into to much depth....that is if I wasn't reading the right passage....he says only this.

Darwin seemed to have close ties with Charles Lyell, who set up the geologic time scale by supplying time in the multiplied millions of years. Lyell was also opposed to the catastrophic doctrine of Earth history.

He studied botany and zoology.( Darwin)
His third book, The Origin of the Species by means of Natural Selection was published 1859. The first day it was on the market, Oct 1, 1859 the entire edition of 1500 was sold out.

[Saquist]

I suggest we stop calling it micro/macro evolution, and instead call this the Xeno/Saquist Paradox.

I'm honorred...err...that's Say-'kwist not Sak 'wist

I actually would prefer to simplify these terms and get down to the knitty gritty. it's about change and that's what we're talking about.

[guthrie]

Evolution is the assumption that Life crosses all these boundaries.

No, evolution is the process by which living things change form and shape and genetics etc, over time.