RedOne77
Active Member
It might, I never heard of Alfred Wallace.
-
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!
Here ya' go creationists...everything you wanted
- Thread starter Jose Fly
- Start date
It might, I never heard of Alfred Wallace.
RedOne77
Active Member
All that is is micro evolution and biochemistry. Besides, most doctors don't know squat about evolution anyways.
And none of that has to do with evolution, it is like saying if we don't understand that a fish can become a human we can't build a spaceship and go to the moon. They are completely different topics and knowledge.
IMO
(but we should make an exception for condoms and other birth control if they want)
How inspiring.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
False.
Charles Darwin grew up along the banks of the Severn River in Shropshire, England. His father was a doctor, and became wealthy enough to build his family a house (the “Mount”
overlooking the Severn.Charles had an older brother named Erasmus. As teenagers they built a laboratory at the Mount where they would play with chemicals and crystals. When Charles was 16, Erasmus went to Edinburgh to study medicine and their father sent Charles along to keep Erasmus company, and to eventually attend medical school as well.
Charles quickly realized that he hated medicine. Dissected corpses, amputations without anesthesia, and other such things terrified Charles. So while at school, he busied himself with natural history. But he feared his father and didn’t tell him that he had no intention of becoming a doctor. So over the ensuing summer at home, Charles spent his time collecting and stuffing birds, and most importantly, avoiding his father.
The next year their father sent Erasmus to London to continue his studies. Charles stayed in Edinburgh and since he showed a strong interest in natural history, he quickly befriended the resident naturalists. One naturalist, Robert Grant, took the young Charles under his wing. Grant had also been trained as a doctor, but had given up his practice and became one of England’s great zoologists. Charles turned out to be a bright apprentice; he was the first to ever see the male and female sex cells of seaweed interact.
In 1828, at the end of the second school year, Charles returned home. He could no longer avoid his father and finally confessed the truth. Robert Darwin was enraged. He wanted his sons to be wealthy, so if Charles wouldn’t be a doctor then Robert decided that Charles must enter the clergy. Oddly enough, Robert Darwin was not particularly religious, and even at times doubted the existence of God. But in those times, religion brought security and respectability. Charles reluctantly agreed and the following year he went to Cambridge to study theology.
But at Cambridge at that time, a student of theology spent a great deal of time studying natural history. It was seen as a means of understanding God’s creation. While at Cambridge, Charles spent most of his time collecting beetles. He also began to read about the travels of naturalists (e.g. Alexander von Humbolt) and he developed a strong desire to embark on his own adventures. Charles began scheming to get on an expedition by falling under the tutelage of Marmaduke Ramsay, who was willing to travel to the Canaries with him. Charles sharpened his skills at geology by working as an assistant to Cambridge geologist Adam Sedgewick. But just as the plans for the expedition to the Canaries were coming together, Ramsay died.
Charles went home to the Mount devastated. But upon his arrival, he found a letter from another of his professors, John Stevens Henslow, asking Charles if he would be interested in taking a trip around the world. The H.M.S. Beagle was embarking on a round-the-world voyage to test a new type of clock and to map the coastlines of South America. The captain and the organizer of the trip agreed that taking along a naturalist to document the animals and plants they would encounter would be a good idea.
The first choice for this position was a recent Cambridge graduate, Leonard Jenyns. But Jenyns had just been appointed to a parish (again the link between theological studies and natural history), and declined. Henslow then recommended Charles Darwin, who jumped at the chance. “Woe unto ye beetles of South America” Darwin proclaimed.
Charles arrived at the docks with the understanding of his day about the Earth and the life that inhabits it. British geologists (most of whom were Christian) had long ago concluded that the world was very ancient, and that a global flood had not occurred.
Throughout the voyage, Charles would send samples of fossils and carcasses back to England. There, Henslow used these specimens and extracts from Darwin’s letters to develop a scientific paper and a pamphlet. By the time the Beagle returned to England, the whole of the British scientific community (even his idol, Lyell) was very eager to meet him. His writings and observations had earned Charles the reputation as one of England’s most promising geologists. When Charles arrived home, he knew he could never return to theology school. He had become a practicing naturalist, and a famous one at that.
In London, Charles found that his brother had also become a dedicated naturalist. And in 1839, Charles Darwin published Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the Countries Visited During the Voyage of HMS Beagle Round the World, Under the Command of Captn. Fitzroy, R.N. It was a huge success and cemented Charles’s reputation and fame as a naturalist. Origin of Species was a full twenty years away.
So we can see the argument that Darwin had a lack of training in natural history is completely false (yet I’ll be willing to bet we’ll see the creationists continue to post such).
As an interesting side note, not only did Darwin later come up with the idea of evolution via natural selection (as did another traveling naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace), but also during this voyage he successfully explained (and negated the previous explanation by Charles Lyell) why corral reefs are often found in perfect circles. The whole story is extremely fascinating, and I would recommend everyone who is interested to read more about it.
Moving the goalposts. This data is not about the origins of life or universal common ancestry. This data shows that the fossil record contains abundant transitional specimens and provides evidence of gradual Darwinian evolution.
As I said, I never expect creationists to do anything but excuse this data away; such is the nature of denialism. Of course, you could surprise us all and incorporate this new data into your thinking and adjust your position accordingly.
Given that "kind" is an undefined term, all statements relying on the term are equally meaningless.
Again, moving the goalposts. This data is not about human evolution. This data shows that the fossil record contains abundant transitional specimens and provides evidence of gradual Darwinian evolution.
Last edited:
MSizer
MSizer
Wallace was a field biologist who came up with the same theory. However, Darwin had huge amounts of notes and experiments to back up his theory, while Wallace had far less data collected, so he came to the theory more by speculation that Darwin did. When Darwin found out that Wallace had come up with the same theory, Darwin published a paper on natural selection and credited Wallace as a co-publisher, even though Wallace hadn't even been told about the paper. Of course The Origin of Species came soon after and clearly showed that Darwin had collected enormous amounts of data over the previous decades.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Given that you have not defined "types" (a euphemism for "kind"), all statements relying on the term are equally meaningless.
This data shows that the fossil record contains abundant transitional specimens and provides evidence of gradual Darwinian evolution. Do you deny this?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
"Microevolution" is evolution. That's why it has the term "evolution" in it.
LittleNipper
Well-Known Member
The data shows that there are lots of different and unique organisms. Whether or not they are transitional is clearly an opinion of individuals who need a way to prove there is not need of a CREATER for life to be diversified.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
First of all, that is not a fact. It is a belief based on faith that God designed and created everything.
Secondly, evolutionary evidence is based on findings in biology, anthropology, genetics, geology, cosmology, geophysics, etc, etc....
All of which rely on mathematics as a part of their methodology.
But if you really think you know more than these scientific studies, go right ahead and present your evidence FOR creationism and a young earth.
Again, you spurious attack on on Darwin does absolutely nothing to either bolster your stance, or eradicate the overwhelming evidence gathered in the last 150 years.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
So your opinion of these specimens is that they are not examples of transitional fossils? If so, how did you arrive at this conclusion? How much time did you spend studying these specimens? And perhaps most importantly, what exactly is your definition of "transitional specimen"?
EDIT: And are you going to retract your assertions about Charles Darwin? Or were you hoping we would ignore that?
LittleNipper
Well-Known Member
How long did they study the fossil in order to come to the conclusion it was several million years old and yet is so detailed? Charles Darwin was a lost soul who had personal reasons for hating GOD, and most involved his father...
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
Seeing how Darwinian evolution is common descent of all life forms, then no that record does not contain that.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Evolutionary biology has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not there is a God.
Whether or not they are transitional depends on the verified hypothesis and consistent observations of various biologists and their peers.
Do you have biological research indicating they are not?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
You're avoiding the questions.
Is it your opinion that these specimens are "transitional fossils"? If not, how did you arrive at this conclusion? How much time did you spend studying these specimens? And perhaps most importantly, what exactly is your definition of "transitional specimen"?
EDIT: And are you going to retract your assertions about Charles Darwin? Or were you hoping we would ignore that?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
You obviously didn't read the article. In evolutionary biology, especially paleontology, the subject here, "Darwinian evolution" typically refers to gradual speciation (in basic terms).
Do you deny that the fossil record of these specimens shows multiple examples of gradual speciation? Do you deny that the fossil record of these specimens includes many examples of "transitional fossils"?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Please present your evidence to the contrary.
Baseless suppositions....
And totally irrelevant to the insurmountable evidence in favor of evolution.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Wouldn't it be interesting if you posted something that was true once in a while, just for interest? I wonder whether the scientific community views Darwin as a scientist?
In recognition of Darwin's pre-eminence as a scientist, he was one of only five 19th-century UK non-royal personages to be honoured by a state funeral,[13] and was buried in Westminster Abbey, close to John Herschel and Isaac Newton.
[wiki]
PERHAPS no one has influenced our knowledge of life on Earth as much as the English naturalist Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882). His theory of evolution by natural selection, now the unifying theory of the life sciences, explained where all of the astonishingly diverse kinds of living things came from and how they became exquisitely adapted to their particular environments. His theory reconciled a host of diverse kinds of evidence such as the progressive nature of fossil forms in the geological record, the geographical distribution of species, recapitulative appearances in embryology, homologous structures, vestigial organs and nesting taxonomic relationships. No other explanation before or since has made sense of these facts.
from here.
The theory of evolution is no longer just a theory; an overwhelming amount evidence has accumulated since Darwin. Darwin's theory has never been successfully refuted. Darwin discovered a law just as surely as Copernicus, Galileo and Newton discovered laws: natural laws. Just as the earth is in orbit and has come to be and is depended on the force of gravity, a natural law; so life has come into being and exists and is depended on the force of natural selection. One need not necessarily understand the why or the how of it, but a natural law such as gravitation or selection nonetheless exists, whether a particular puny human being, or group of them believe it or not. The theory as presented in Darwin's The Origin of Species, I should say, was not new to the world and it cannot be attributed to Darwin. The theory, contrary to popular belief has been around since Aristotle and Lucretius. Darwin's contribution is that he gathered indisputable evidence, and he set forth a theory on how evolution works, the theory of natural selection.
from here.
Tell you what, LN. Google up "great scientists" or anything like that. If you don't add "creationist" or "theist" to your search, you'll find Darwin on the list.
Please show your math. thank you.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Source?
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
Ah, just like the good old days: a creationist indulging in character assassination of Darwin under the delusion that this is somehow an argument against evolution.
Look, LN, set aside for a moment the fact that what you have written here is baseless - that's standard for where you're coming from. Can you not see that even if it were true it would not impact in the slightest upon the status of evolution as the foundation stone of modern biology? Do you really imagine that one man, even if driven by the malignity you ascribe to Darwin above, could dream up a falsehood that would not only revolutionise the natural science of his day but carry the entire scientific world with it for the next 150 years? That the overwhelming evidence that supports the theory of evolution would somehow go away if you were able to demonstrate that one of its founding fathers was a flawed man?
Think it through, for pity's sake.
Super Saiya Jinn
Member
How many times do you guys need to be told. Evolution has nothing to do with whether there is a God or not, you have been brainwashed to think that by your moronic preachers, God could be the reason as to why, and evolution as the answer to how.
Attacking Darwin's character just weakens your already weak argument.
Last edited: