Evloution and science

[Ashley the Bee]

Katherine1

Tlara

Even Charles Darwin was forced by the facts to admit: “The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54) This still remains true.

Funny, you cited your quote, yet I can't find the quote in Origin of Species. Could you give the surrounding paragraphs as well so that I can see that this isn't a quote mine or fabrication?

As people have pointed out already, even if Charles Darwin, "on his deathbed", loudly proclaimed with his dying breath, "I made it all up! Evolution is a lie! Long live Voltron!" it really wouldn't make any difference. Evolution isn't a scientific theory (read: proven fact) because he said it was, it's so because many other scientists did research and came to the same conclusions.

[Katherine1]

Ashley the Bee

Katherine1

Tlara

Even Charles Darwin was forced by the facts to admit: “The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54) This still remains true.

Funny, you cited your quote, yet I can't find the quote in Origin of Species. Could you give the surrounding paragraphs as well so that I can see that this isn't a quote mine or fabrication?

As people have pointed out already, even if Charles Darwin, "on his deathbed", loudly proclaimed with his dying breath, "I made it all up! Evolution is a lie! Long live Voltron!" it really wouldn't make any difference. Evolution isn't a scientific theory (read: proven fact) because he said it was, it's so because many other scientists did research and came to the same conclusions.

I know, but I want to make sure the quote is at least accurate. Especially since it is cited.

[Striga]

Tlara

ValicVacosties

Evolution... DEFINED by Merrimam Webster:

4 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory (Site is Evolution)

OK! Well, that was clarifying, wasn't it? Amazing what a good dictionary can do.

So where does the "theory" that everything came from 1 single cell organism come into that? I have no problem with "mutations" within a group. But all living things coming from 1 single cell? Scientists work in a "controlled environment", they dont need "millions" of years for this "process" to take place. They can attempt to do it in a lab. On this point, if you put a car engine (completely torn down, all bolts included) put it in a cement mixer started it rotating, how long till you have a working car engine? How about a computer? A watch?........all these things took someone to build them, they didnt just appear. Did the house your in just appear? How about the roads? Think about the microprocessers, how intricate they are...did someone design it, or did it happen over millions of years?

Are the components of a car self-replicating? How about a computer? A watch? A house? Roads?

Do any of those things reproduce?

No. That's why it's not an applicable comparison at all.

[Tahpenes]

Tlara

From the earliest human record until now, the evidence is that dogs are still dogs, cats continue to be cats, and elephants have been and will always be elephants. Sterility continues to be the delimiting factor as to what constitutes a “kind.” This phenomenon makes possible, through the test of sterility, the determining of the boundaries of all the “kinds” in existence today.

Yes, and almost every masters-level biology student has hit that boundary while breeding fruit flies.

Tlara

Whereas specific created “kinds” may number only in the hundreds, there are many more varieties of animals and plants on the earth. Modern research has indicated that hundreds of thousands of different plants are members of the same family. Similarly, in the animal kingdom, there may be many varieties of cats, all belonging to one cat family or feline “kind.” The same is true of men, of cattle, and of dogs, allowing for great diversity within each “kind.” But the fact remains that no matter how many varieties occur in each family, none of these “kinds” can commingle genetically.

Exactly, which supports the idea of common ancestry among a group. What's your point?

[Henry Dorsett Case]

Hey Tlara, could you sate my curiosity a bit here? I've seen that "From the earliest[...]" thing on a couple different places under the name "Talk.Origin Banned subject: what is a 'Kind'?" - were the "Jabriol" that posted it, is that the post you're ripping off, or is there some central source you and the others are plagiarizing?

[Tlara]

Katherine1

Tlara

Even Charles Darwin was forced by the facts to admit: “The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54) This still remains true.

Funny, you cited your quote, yet I can't find the quote in Origin of Species. Could you give the surrounding paragraphs as well so that I can see that this isn't a quote mine or fabrication?

darwin

Reading his ramblings gives me a headache. Are people sure he wasnt nuts?

[Le Freshmaker]

Tlara

Katherine1

Tlara

Even Charles Darwin was forced by the facts to admit: “The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54) This still remains true.

Funny, you cited your quote, yet I can't find the quote in Origin of Species. Could you give the surrounding paragraphs as well so that I can see that this isn't a quote mine or fabrication?

darwin

Reading his ramblings gives me a headache. Are people sure he wasnt nuts?

By the same logic, I could say something to the extreme of "Reading the bible makes bores me to sleep. Are people sure the monks that transcribed and translated it weren't stoned?"

[Cranium Squirrel]

Tlara

darwin

Reading his ramblings gives me a headache. Are people sure he wasnt nuts?

..And it looks like you were quotemining to me, as the rest of that area seems to be very clearly stating that while it looks like a problem, it's not.

Here you go then, rambling ahoy.

Chapter 9 is where the quotation is ripped from, and then promptly explained thereafter.

[Tlara]

Henry Dorsett Case

Hey Tlara, could you sate my curiosity a bit here? I've seen that "From the earliest[...]" thing on a couple different places under the name "Talk.Origin Banned subject: what is a 'Kind'?" - were the "Jabriol" that posted it, is that the post you're ripping off, or is there some central source you and the others are plagiarizing?

Jabriol? And never heard of that site?book? whatever it is. as for plagiarizing, The authors have printed:

It is our earnest desire that this publication will deepen your appreciation for the Bible’s Author, Jehovah God, and give you greater insight as to the meaning of his Word, and that it will move you to apply its contents more fully in your own life and to share its vital truths with others.

so no, no plagiarizing.

[amigo bear]

Tlara

For those of you who believe in evolution, how does it explain gravity? The theory of relativity? The planets? The solar system? Oh and this time guys...try putting references in your replies...no references, no replies.

gravity is explained in the theory of relativity

gravity is caused by a large piece of mass in space the mass will move or "bend" the fabric of space and time(much like a marble on a sheet of paper) and when a smaller object near the bent fabric it is stuck = making gravity

if you watch the universe on the history channel it makes alot more sense then what i typed

coincidentally the same episode explain that the universe is expanding and it was smaller then what it is today. small like an, but this atom was no ordinary atom it was a super atom if you will, containing a blob of a nucleus and the four nature(gravity,strong and weak electromagnetic force,and radiation) of space as it's electron rings. On day the gravity left the atom cause it to become unstable an explode making the universe

[Tlara]

Byaggha

Tlara

darwin

Reading his ramblings gives me a headache. Are people sure he wasnt nuts?

..And it looks like you were quotemining to me, as the rest of that area seems to be very clearly stating that while it looks like a problem, it's not.

Here you go then, rambling ahoy.

Chapter 9 is where the quotation is ripped from, and then promptly explained thereafter.

I read that chapter, no I wasnt quote digging. But he has several doubts of his own there.

[Henry Dorsett Case]

Tlara

Jabriol? And never heard of that site?book? whatever it is. as for plagiarizing, The authors have printed:

It is our earnest desire that this publication will deepen your appreciation for the Bible’s Author, Jehovah God, and give you greater insight as to the meaning of his Word, and that it will move you to apply its contents more fully in your own life and to share its vital truths with others.

so no, no plagiarizing.

Which book? And it is, in fact, plagiarizing, if you reprint words from another work as if they were your own. Even failure to properly cite sources is plagiarism. Even public domain works can be plagiarized, in the sense of academic and intellectual integrity if not in any legal sense of the term.

Byaggha - Tlara wasn't quote-mining; the authors of the book she improperly cited were.

[Tlara]

Le Freshmaker

Tlara

Katherine1

Tlara

Even Charles Darwin was forced by the facts to admit: “The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54) This still remains true.

Funny, you cited your quote, yet I can't find the quote in Origin of Species. Could you give the surrounding paragraphs as well so that I can see that this isn't a quote mine or fabrication?

darwin

Reading his ramblings gives me a headache. Are people sure he wasnt nuts?

By the same logic, I could say something to the extreme of "Reading the bible makes bores me to sleep. Are people sure the monks that transcribed and translated it weren't stoned?"

Now bashing the poor monks? Under your statement, maybe Darwin was on cocaine, or pcp, piote, or morphine...If the bible puts you to sleep, fine I dont care how you fall asleep.

[amigo bear]

Tlara

Le Freshmaker

Tlara

Katherine1

Tlara

Even Charles Darwin was forced by the facts to admit: “The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54) This still remains true.

Funny, you cited your quote, yet I can't find the quote in Origin of Species. Could you give the surrounding paragraphs as well so that I can see that this isn't a quote mine or fabrication?

darwin

Reading his ramblings gives me a headache. Are people sure he wasnt nuts?

By the same logic, I could say something to the extreme of "Reading the bible makes bores me to sleep. Are people sure the monks that transcribed and translated it weren't stoned?"

Now bashing the poor monks? Under your statement, maybe Darwin was on cocaine, or pcp, piote, or morphine...If the bible puts you to sleep, fine I dont care how you fall asleep.

the way I see it .While he was in Galapagos's island there were so many animals but each on was slightly different than the other such the finches (large beak,short beak ect.) in the island on group. He knew there was no way the animals could get out of the island and there was more to it than interbreeding of how they are so different from each other. Thats how evolution was thought up of.

[Le Freshmaker]

Tlara

Le Freshmaker

Tlara

Katherine1

Tlara

Even Charles Darwin was forced by the facts to admit: “The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54) This still remains true.

Funny, you cited your quote, yet I can't find the quote in Origin of Species. Could you give the surrounding paragraphs as well so that I can see that this isn't a quote mine or fabrication?

darwin

Reading his ramblings gives me a headache. Are people sure he wasnt nuts?

By the same logic, I could say something to the extreme of "Reading the bible makes bores me to sleep. Are people sure the monks that transcribed and translated it weren't stoned?"

Now bashing the poor monks? Under your statement, maybe Darwin was on cocaine, or pcp, piote, or morphine...If the bible puts you to sleep, fine I dont care how you fall asleep.

Oh, it doesn't. It isn't at all interesting to me, but it won't help me sleep any.

All I'm saying is that it isn't fair to blame any innability to read a work properly on an author's sanity.
You may blame Thoreau for not following his own advice to simplify, but Darwin expressed his research in the appropriate form. If you can't read it without a headache, it's through no fault of his.