Evolution - Darwinism

[mith]

Starting a thread for posting the differences between the original Darwin's theory and the modern interpretation. I felt this need since there are a couple of creationist websites that say "Darwin would not approve of this!!!"

edit...hmm the title doesn't let me put symbols.[/code]

[thank.darwin]

When Darwin wrote the Origin he didn't know about DNA - The basic interpenetration hasn't changed but only been slightly modified. Darwin didn't realize how simple the theory of evolution was and was unable to see the whole picture. Today we have filled in the rest of the puzzle with evidence from DNA, fossils, and organisms such as the AID's virus.

[biostudent84]

When Darwin wrote the Origin he didn't know about DNA - The basic interpenetration hasn't changed but only been slightly modified. Darwin didn't realize how simple the theory of evolution was and was unable to see the whole picture. Today we have filled in the rest of the puzzle with evidence from DNA, fossils, and organisms such as the AID's virus.

Darwin didn't know about DNA, yes. And he even believed in the homunculus (the idea that a miniature human was inside every sperm cell) to the day he died. But he did believe, as did Mendel, that there was SOME substance within the body controlling genetic expression.

Kyle

[thank.darwin]

I'm reading a book right now about this very same topic; Darwin's Ghost, by Steve Jones. It's like a modern version of the Origin... he compares how the theory has changed/ been backed up in the past decades.

[NewellUsher]

I'm reading a book right now about this very same topic; Darwin's Ghost, by Steve Jones. It's like a modern version of the Origin... he compares how the theory has changed/ been backed up in the past decades.

From the book jacket:

http://www.bookbrowse.com/dyn_/title/titleID/596.htm

“Charles Darwin's masterpiece, The Origin of Species, is probably the best-known, least-read book. Un-questionably one of the most important achievements of the millennium, its publication in 1859 caused a sensation, because it forced mankind to see itself as part of the animal world--a notion that hundreds of millions still deny. Darwin's theory of common descent did for biology what Galileo did for astronomy: made it into a single science rather than a collection of unrelated facts. Those facts, however, are now a century and a half old, as are The Origin's illustrative examples and Victorian prose style. Writing as "Darwin's ghost," the well-known geneticist Steve Jones has drawn on our ever-expanding scientific knowledge and the brilliant logic set out in The Origin to restate evolution's case for the twenty-first century.”

*

I read “The Origin of Species” over 50 years ago. Whether it’s is as important as the Steve Jones and the Darwinholics claim is debatable but “The Origin” did give me a lot to think about as a young Christian-fundamentalist-trained truth seeker, trying to reconcile everything that I was taught with everything I was learning, believing that somehow, all of it was explainable, together.

In Darwin’s thoughts I found lots of red meat to question my teachers and parents about. And so the theory for me was very useful. It was the catalyst for lots of learning I could not otherwise have gotten.

Since that time I’ve progressed in my search into celestial-like explanations, and now I go far beyond the ‘Origin’ thinking, reflecting what I believe a more comprehensive and understandable gnosis.

The metaphor I now perceive is that evolution is more like a trail of shadowed reflections in a mirror of cosmic change, where conjunctions of wavelets of energy from celestial radiation move in cloud patterns within a big mobius-sphere, and define what we observe as evolution. A trail of shadows is deposited for the mortals who measure in mirrors of relativistic warp the residue of space, as it reveals a big astrology-like movie, or play, initiating, evolving and phasing a myriad of ‘spirit’ energies, which when cooled make the cocoon shadows that we study as life forms.

Everything is already alive, what we call death is but a mirror reflecting a light reversal.

And so all of the stories of the ancients, the gods and goddesses, the glyphs of Egyptian finds, and lost relics of civilization, the dragons, fairies, monsters, mermaids, four-eyed monsters, and dreams of little children are all true in the well-of-the-all-of it. And evolution is but another ‘true’ scientific‘ trail that models and explains in some ‘digital’ detail, a 'scientificpeek' of this ‘analog’ Infinity of it all, a mere point on Infinity of the All-of-it.

DNA, by the way is mere linkage to computer-like network clouds that reveal and interact with our earthly workstations, those capsules we know, tracking and facilitating what we absorb and re-energize, within the total BIG NETWORK, as all life is but reflectve masturbation within ONE cosmic body, which is the eternal life that The Spirit of Christ is a metaphor for, and the All-of-it is known as ‘God’, and so revealed in the glyphs and poetry of the Ages, and the alleluias of the worshipers, and the rituals of the pagans, and the meditations of the seekers, and the rowdiness of the confused.

And the wonderful truth is that when we go to school, our ability to learn is not what we memorize, nor what we discover or the truth we find to believe, but how well we can understand our teacher’s way of thinking to replicate exactly what he or she desires us to learn. As everything is true and only the ability to see within another’s eyes, and connect, two as one, is the lesson of Love that solves all mysteries by reconnecting what is breaking apart.

And biology is only the beginning. And evolution is in the seeking mind, not in the way, life forms evolve. It is the eyes of our mind that evolve, as nothing else ever changes. All new perceptions are but light being revealed in clearer vision.

And Darwin was right. There is a little ‘being’ in every cell, each a mirror to it-all. The Seed of it all. A little ‘knowing’, ‘I Am’, that voice you know, birds know, each rose knows, and every life-form knows, reflecting the balance of all light and all life from One seed, the root of all life, The All-of-it. You might call it Infinology.

Newell AKA Silver Streak of Silver Springs, Florida
The Poet.

[Guest]

hello everbody, i am in highshool Biology and of course the subject of evolution came up, i was asked to do a report on Darwin, i am getting some mixed messages as to what exactly he stands for, in a book i found it says that Darwin said in his last book that all his works were subject to opinion or never the less false, is this false? i think it is strang if he did do this, because it hurts his opinion and hypothisis...please answer my questions..thanx

[thank.darwin]

Well his works were questioned because they went against religion... In the origin, he was just putting his theory out there - he didn't know if he was right or wrong - He couldn't have stopped the criticism even if he had wanted to.

[biostudent84]

Well his works were questioned because they went against religion... In the origin, he was just putting his theory out there - he didn't know if he was right or wrong - He couldn't have stopped the criticism even if he had wanted to.

Darwin knew this his findings were correct. He was focused primarly on evolution occuring during recent times...not whether Creationism or Evolutionism was correct. Even the religious organizations today recognise that evolution occurs today (the debate is whether or not God created man, or Evolution did).

His work was incomplete, however. He did not feel his findings were complete. But there was another scientist that was about to publish a similar work to the Origin. Darwin did not want to lose credit for being the first to come up with the concept of natural selection...so he published the work early.

[reallyuniquename]

Here's a tidbit for you. When Darwin wrote the Origin of the Species, the fossil record did not validate his theories. Before you jump the gun and start writing a reply, finish reading as I have sat and read you posts. The Cambrian Explosion was in direct violation to his theories, and he knew that and thought that later in history the fossil records would reconcile these findings. They still haven't. We have yet to find one fossil to reconcile apes with men. And if you give me that one tale about the hobbit man, I am going to scream. The inconclusive evidence to support that theory would be laughable if in any other field of science. The only bones to support apes becoming humans turned out to be man made frauds that scientists were all to eager to snatch up.

[mith]

Well a big change has been the punctuated equilibrium theory, and secondly I do think there are many valid fossils found. And no, there doesn't need to be a reconciliation between apes and humans.

[reallyuniquename]

Why don't they need to be reconciled? Also, I would like to know what fossils you were talking about. The only one I know of, if I remember correctly, is one found on some island, but it was just a tooth and the top dome of the skull. Thank you for replying. I look forward to hearing from you.

Ben

[mith]

Like I said before, if punctuated equilibrium holds true, there would be no intermediate forms between humans and the missing link.
As for fossils, there's australopithecus, homo erectus, homo habilis etc...A simple google search will reveal many of them.