Darwin, mighty hero of evolution, found to be a liar

[MrUngulate]

They both came to the conclusion of evolution although Darwin proposed Evolution by Natural Selection while Russel believed evolution was due to acquired characteristics (example: giraffes got longer necks as they reached higher leaves on a tree, and then this longer neck was passed on to their offspring, although this idea was wrong)

Historians have accepted Darwin's testimony that letters from Wallace arrived after he published Origin of Species. This is in error.

Wallace came up with the idea of evolution first. Shipping records show letters written by Wallace were recieved by Darwin before Darwin published his Origin of Species.

They did not both come up with the same idea at the same time independently of each other. Another falsehood that has been taught as can be seen by some of the comments above.

[MrUngulate]

you have 1 rep power.

Point is, you made a retarded thread without posting a source for your retarded info.

I've been posting for what, two weeks? Of course I have little rep power. Regardless, learn to read before you neg people for retarded reasons.

[shadowwalker021]

Historians have accepted Darwin's testimony that letters from Wallace arrived after he published Origin of Species. This is in error.

Wallace came up with the idea of evolution first. Shipping records show letters written by Wallace were recieved by Darwin before Darwin published his Origin of Species.

They did not both come up with the same idea at the same time independently of each other. Another falsehood that has been taught as can be seen by some of the comments above.

Why does it matter who really came up with it?

[mjfan12]

darwin and wallace both worked on similar theories. i beleive darwim was working on it longer. wallace was somewhere in asia and didnt make it to london in time to publish his work.

darwin is credited because he was there first pretty much.

[Whingman]

Historians have accepted Darwin's testimony that letters from Wallace arrived after he published Origin of Species. This is in error.

Wallace came up with the idea of evolution first. Shipping records show letters written by Wallace were recieved by Darwin before Darwin published his Origin of Species.

They did not both come up with the same idea at the same time independently of each other. Another falsehood that has been taught as can be seen by some of the comments above.

Are you too ****ing lazy to do any research or do you just enjoy being so damn ignorant? Before Origin of the Species was published Darwin took both his research and Wallace's research and presented them to the Linean society. Darwin, even presented Wallace's research before his own. Although, Darwin had been compiling his research for something like twenty years before he presented it.

Afterwards Darwin finished up his book, Origin of the Species, and published it. His book happened to garner large levels of interest and as a result placed natural selection and common descent into the public eye. However, it was not the first time Natural selection had been written about, discussed, or presented in public. It certainly was not the first time Evolution had been discussed or written about. In European society the idea of evolution had been around in some form or another generations before Darwin.

The only way this becomes a problem is if you are too ****ing ignorant to know this and think you have just discovered some groundbreaking fact. I bet it's the illuminati they hide **** like this in these rare things called books...try reading one. I can't wait until you hear about Erasmus Darwin and then you can tell us about how Charles copied his Grandfather. Do some ****ing research please.

[MrUngulate]

Are you too ****ing lazy to do any research or do you just enjoy being so damn ignorant? Before Origin of the Species was published Darwin took both his research and Wallace's research and presented them to the Linean society. Darwin, even presented Wallace's research before his own. Although, Darwin had been compiling his research for something like twenty years before he presented it.

Afterwards Darwin finished up his book, Origin of the Species, and published it. His book happened to garner large levels of interest and as a result placed natural selection and common descent into the public eye. However, it was not the first time Natural selection had been written about, discussed, or presented in public. It certainly was not the first time Evolution had been discussed or written about. In European society the idea of evolution had been around in some form or another generations before Darwin.

The only way this becomes a problem is if you are too ****ing ignorant to know this and think you have just discovered some groundbreaking fact. I bet it's the illuminati they hide **** like this in these rare things called books...try reading one. I can't wait until you hear about Erasmus Darwin and then you can tell us about how Charles copied his Grandfather. Do some ****ing research please.

Wow, strong emotional response. But, I guess thats to be expected when religious fundies have their gods challenged.

Nothing you said above disputes what I've said. Calm down, take a deep breath and change your tampon.

[cleank72]

It seems he plagiarized (to put it mildly) a welsh scientist named Alfred Russel Wallace for his theory of evolution.

God knows if the man did that he would not have lied about anything else.

WRONG!
Wallace undertook a similar journey at the same time as Darwin. They didn't plagiarize each other, they both just realized the obvious facts of selection that so many theists refuse to believe.

[MrUngulate]

WRONG!
Wallace undertook a similar journey at the same time as Darwin. They didn't plagiarize each other, they both just realized the obvious facts of selection that so many theists refuse to believe.

WRONG! New evidence disputes what you thought you knew. I suggest you read all my posts.

[cleank72]

Historians have accepted Darwin's testimony that letters from Wallace arrived after he published Origin of Species. This is in error.

Wallace came up with the idea of evolution first. Shipping records show letters written by Wallace were recieved by Darwin before Darwin published his Origin of Species.

They did not both come up with the same idea at the same time independently of each other. Another falsehood that has been taught as can be seen by some of the comments above.

Wrong.

Darwin didn't come up with the idea of evolution. His discovery was natural selection. Darwin/Wallace aren't the sole creators of evolution.

[MrUngulate]

Wrong.

Darwin didn't come up with the idea of evolution.

Wrong assumption. Nowhere do I make such a claim.

[Ruhanv]

I don't get it.

What did he lie about? Being first to discover this?

Surely this has nothing to do with Evolution itself but more about the pace of the publishing industry in England in the 19th century.

[magnumpeanut]

This is a weak argument. Unfortuantly this type of thread really adds to the steriotype that people that don't believe in evolution are stupid.

Not that I think they are, but that seems to be the steriotype.

[Duckenheimer]

Alfred Russel Wallace was a strong supporter of On the Origin of Species.

He wrote two papers defending Darwin's book. They were friends too. Doesn't seem that any ideas that Darwin may have borrowed bothered him.

^^^

[AKR]

It seems he plagiarized (to put it mildly) a welsh scientist named Alfred Russel Wallace for his theory of evolution.

God knows if the man did that he would not have lied about anything else.

What exactly is the point you're trying to make? Do you think everyone's going to run around screaming and tearing up science books after your post?

[catmando]

Talking about 2 totally different things here.. gravity being fact.. and the other not

If Evolution is not a fact, what theory based on fact do you have to put in its place, and why have you not put your fact-based theory before the National Academy of Sciences for peer review?


You have not answered my question.

[hokiebird]

I don't get it.

What did he lie about? Being first to discover this?

Surely this has nothing to do with Evolution itself but more about the pace of the publishing industry in England in the 19th century.

The city of Darwin will need to do some soul-searching if it does not want to be associated with theft and plagiarism.

1.There is no connection at all between the two concepts "artificial selection" and (Darwinian) "Natural Selection
2.The belief in evolution, per se, is based on several logical fallacies, one in particular, a "post hoc propter hoc" type of argument
3.Belief that "selection" of some kind is the cause of evolution, is an example of the process of inverse reasoning, properly called "inverse logic", which is also a logical fallacy.
4.The idea that any type of action (a "cause") outside of the life of the organism is the cause of evolution is a "cause/effect" reversal
5.Darwinian Natural Selection is ubiquitous: Kettlewell's experiment with the moths (supposedly demonstrating selection) is no proof of any aspect of evolution
6.The cause of diversity is not a "selection" process; for analogy, this concept is supported by the operation of a hypothetical Natural Selection "machine". The output of the machine (like evolution) is not caused by any form of selection, as one might conclude, rather it is a phenomenon which is unknown.
7.Darwinists define the two terms, Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest, by their effects on organisms, as opposed to stating a detailed description of the process, or mechanism of operation, of either term; they are thus each, a non-sequitor
8.The term Survival of the Fittest is a tautology. It predicts an undefined winner which can only be identified by the outcome of the competition in which the competitor is engaged.
9.Survival of the Fittest is also ambiguous, a misleading term that is unscientific.
10.All organisms such as the Oak tree, Fruit Fly, and others, have aspects of their organisms which are not the "fittest" by any definition.
11.If Darwin's theory was truly in operation, the number of species would be reduced from what is now evident
12.The "fitness" of species is limited by a factor unknown to Science
13.The "Malthusian" concept would not effect "evolution" except as to the "rate" of evolution; it promotes stasis rather than evolution
14.Darwin's theory can neither explain the existence of the wide variety of open niches which exist on this planet, nor can any principles or laws it establishes explain the characteristics of current existing or non-existing species, or proto-species to fill the open niches
15.Science Studies almost invariably operate under an assumption, not a part of Science, but rather a proper consideration of Philosophy. This assumption is called "naturalism". As science, it is erroneous.
16.Currently, the most prevalent interpretation of Darwinism virtually excludes all other possible scenarios as an explanation for life and all of its forms; this is a logical fallacy based on the "Five Senses Hypothesis". Darwinian Theory has inevitably become a stalking-horse for Naturalism, Secular Humanism, and other materialistic philosophies.

Is that enough?


http://www.tdtone.org/evolution/TDTns.htm

[jf1]

The city of Darwin will need to do some soul-searching if it does not want to be associated with theft and plagiarism.

1.There is no connection at all between the two concepts "artificial selection" and (Darwinian) "Natural Selection
2.The belief in evolution, per se, is based on several logical fallacies, one in particular, a "post hoc propter hoc" type of argument
3.Belief that "selection" of some kind is the cause of evolution, is an example of the process of inverse reasoning, properly called "inverse logic", which is also a logical fallacy.
4.The idea that any type of action (a "cause") outside of the life of the organism is the cause of evolution is a "cause/effect" reversal
5.Darwinian Natural Selection is ubiquitous: Kettlewell's experiment with the moths (supposedly demonstrating selection) is no proof of any aspect of evolution
6.The cause of diversity is not a "selection" process; for analogy, this concept is supported by the operation of a hypothetical Natural Selection "machine". The output of the machine (like evolution) is not caused by any form of selection, as one might conclude, rather it is a phenomenon which is unknown.
7.Darwinists define the two terms, Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest, by their effects on organisms, as opposed to stating a detailed description of the process, or mechanism of operation, of either term; they are thus each, a non-sequitor
8.The term Survival of the Fittest is a tautology. It predicts an undefined winner which can only be identified by the outcome of the competition in which the competitor is engaged.
9.Survival of the Fittest is also ambiguous, a misleading term that is unscientific.
10.All organisms such as the Oak tree, Fruit Fly, and others, have aspects of their organisms which are not the "fittest" by any definition.
11.If Darwin's theory was truly in operation, the number of species would be reduced from what is now evident
12.The "fitness" of species is limited by a factor unknown to Science
13.The "Malthusian" concept would not effect "evolution" except as to the "rate" of evolution; it promotes stasis rather than evolution
14.Darwin's theory can neither explain the existence of the wide variety of open niches which exist on this planet, nor can any principles or laws it establishes explain the characteristics of current existing or non-existing species, or proto-species to fill the open niches
15.Science Studies almost invariably operate under an assumption, not a part of Science, but rather a proper consideration of Philosophy. This assumption is called "naturalism". As science, it is erroneous.
16.Currently, the most prevalent interpretation of Darwinism virtually excludes all other possible scenarios as an explanation for life and all of its forms; this is a logical fallacy based on the "Five Senses Hypothesis". Darwinian Theory has inevitably become a stalking-horse for Naturalism, Secular Humanism, and other materialistic philosophies.

Is that enough?

speaking of plagiarism...

[hokiebird]

speaking of plagiarism...

Well, is that the best you have?? THose are legit responses, do you care to address any of them.. we always go in circles on these things.. please shed some light on number 1-16 please. Seems like all the atheist and Darwin lovers go hide in a cave when presented with such things.

[nonAtlas]

Darwin, mighty hero of evolution, found to be a liar

That hardly is a new development. Chucky D was known primarily and exclusive for his ability to lie. As a child he was universally known as a kid who couldn't be trusted to speak the truth.

[Rune]

That hardly is a new development. Chucky D was known primarily and exclusive for his ability to lie. As a child he was universally known as a kid who couldn't be trusted to speak the truth.

Just like your known for speaking out of your ass.

[nonAtlas]

Just like your known for speaking out of your ass.

Kiss it.

[JBDW]

Well, is that the best you have?? THose are legit responses, do you care to address any of them.. we always go in circles on these things.. please shed some light on number 1-16 please. Seems like all the atheist and Darwin lovers go hide in a cave when presented with such things.

I'm seriously willing to take a stab at it.


But first, I want you to explain each point to me specifically in your own words, to at least demonstrate to me that you have a firm enough grasp on the subject that if I (or anyone) explains it to you, you're able to understand it. If you can't even explain how these points directly relates to evolution, then it'll be clear that there's no point addressing them.

[Arbex]

There are definitely flaws considering your family line has survived

ROFL.

Someone rep this guy.

[Merakon]

I'm seriously willing to take a stab at it.


But first, I want you to explain each point to me specifically in your own words, to at least demonstrate to me that you have a firm enough grasp on the subject that if I (or anyone) explains it to you, you're able to understand it. If you can't even explain how these points directly relates to evolution, then it'll be clear that there's no point addressing them.

Thats why I didn't respond.

[JBDW]

Thats why I didn't respond.

I'm not expecting a response, tbh.

[user1245464]

Well, is that the best you have?? THose are legit responses, do you care to address any of them.. we always go in circles on these things.. please shed some light on number 1-16 please. Seems like all the atheist and Darwin lovers go hide in a cave when presented with such things.

Didn't want to bite cause this is gonna take a while. But since you insist...

1.There is no connection at all between the two concepts "artificial selection" and (Darwinian) "Natural Selection"

They are identical processes; the only distinction is that one is man-induced, but nevertheless, they produce the same outcome. Both induce, in the broadest sense, 'selection pressures'.

2.The belief in evolution, per se, is based on several logical fallacies, one in particular, a "post hoc propter hoc" type of argument

Post hoc ergo propter hoc essentially states: "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." I'm honestly not sure how this has anything to do with evolution. Can you give me a specific example?

3.Belief that "selection" of some kind is the cause of evolution, is an example of the process of inverse reasoning, properly called "inverse logic", which is also a logical fallacy.

So what you're telling me here is this: If you take a population of lizards, exterminate every lizard that has short tails, breed only the lizards with longest tails, and continue this process for 100 generations, you will not end up with only lizards with long tails? Oh, but you'll just say "Sure, but the lizard is still a lizard". Well, the lizards were selected based on just one selection pressure - the length of their tails. Complicate the process by an almost infinite number of pressures for every body part (longer tongues to catch insects, longer legs for evasiveness, lighter/darker skin to adjust for neccessary absorbtion/reflection of sunlight, change in digestive system in response to a different environment and thus different prey, longer claws for digging, shorter claws for swiftness in movement, etc). Then, continue this process for not 100 generations, but 1,000,000 generations. See my point?

4.The idea that any type of action (a "cause") outside of the life of the organism is the cause of evolution is a "cause/effect" reversal.

It may be, but the evolution has still taken place regardless. What you're saying is this:

Natural selection occurs, evolution is the result.

Can be stated as:

Evolution occurs, natural selection is the result.

Either way, evolution occurs, so this doesn't support your position at all.

5.Darwinian Natural Selection is ubiquitous: Kettlewell's experiment with the moths (supposedly demonstrating selection) is no proof of any aspect of evolution

Natural selection is indeed ubiquitous; selection pressures are everywhere. This is why we observe such biological diversity. If natural selection were less ubiquitous and more uncommon or infrequent, evolution would progress much more slowly and we may have just a small fraction of the species which inhabit the planet today. As for Kettlewell's experiment, it is actually a perfect example of how natural selection drives evolution. For those unfamiliar with his experiment:

In Great Britain during the late 1840s through the 1850s, it was noticed that there was a reduced number of light colored European peppered moths (Biston betularia) (light color was the dominant trait) and an increased number of the darker colored moths in the industrial areas. This led British ecologist Bernard Kettlewell to search for an explanation.

During the late 1850s, Kettlewell began raising populations of light and dark peppered moths in his laboratory so he could perform his experiment. He marked all the moths with a drop of paint on the wings, so they could be recognized later. Next he released the light and dark moths in two separate wooded areas of England. One of the wooded areas was Birmingham wood near the highly industrial city of Birmingham, which was heavily polluted. The other wooded area was Dorset wood, which was in a rural area that was not polluted. At the end of this, Kettlewell set traps around the woods to catch the moths and see which populations survived in the two different areas. The moths that matched the color of the tree trunks survived. This showed that in the polluted areas where the trees were darker the dark peppered moths survived, and in the Dorset wood where the trees were lighter, the light peppered moths survived.

Why were the light peppered moths able to survive where tress were lighter, and vice versa with dark peppered moths? Because each moth in it's respective habitat was more efficiently able to camoflauge itself from natural predators. A prime example of natural selection. Again though, this is just one selection pressure which caused a complete change in a population of moths. Add hundreds of selection pressures and millions of years to the equation, and you have large-scale evolution.

6.The cause of diversity is not a "selection" process; for analogy, this concept is supported by the operation of a hypothetical Natural Selection "machine". The output of the machine (like evolution) is not caused by any form of selection, as one might conclude, rather it is a phenomenon which is unknown.

This... does not make any sense at all. You're beginning your argument with a baseless conclusion: "The cause of diversity is not a "selection" process". You've done nothing to establish this claim as a viable conclusion. You then follow your baseless conclusion with an irrelevant and nonsensical analogy.

7.Darwinists define the two terms, Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest, by their effects on organisms, as opposed to stating a detailed description of the process, or mechanism of operation, of either term; they are thus each, a non-sequitor

What? Read up on some evolutionary scientific literature. There are novel length books dedicated to describing the process of natural selection in very intimate detail. In fact I'm sure a few quick web-searches will provide more than enough detailed descriptions.

Sheesh, that's it for now. Either someone else can answer the rest or I'll get to them later.

[jf1]

I'm seriously willing to take a stab at it.


But first, I want you to explain each point to me specifically in your own words, to at least demonstrate to me that you have a firm enough grasp on the subject that if I (or anyone) explains it to you, you're able to understand it. If you can't even explain how these points directly relates to evolution, then it'll be clear that there's no point addressing them.

you beat me to it!
that is exactly what i was going to propose!

now i have to add another name to my 'owe reps' list!
repped!

[hokiebird]

I'm seriously willing to take a stab at it.


But first, I want you to explain each point to me specifically in your own words, to at least demonstrate to me that you have a firm enough grasp on the subject that if I (or anyone) explains it to you, you're able to understand it. If you can't even explain how these points directly relates to evolution, then it'll be clear that there's no point addressing them.

Point number 1-disease kills most of the sheep in a farmer's flock

weakest members of a herd of caribou are preyed upon.

Pest-resistant rice is crossed with rice that is rich in protein.

a farmer only allows apple trees to grow in his orchard.
1 year ago .How did observations in nature lead to the formulation of the theory of evolution?

Point number 2-It is only opinions or, wel just Self read my sig

point 3-in?verse -Reversed in order, nature, or effect.

Point 4-pretty straight and clear isnt it?

[hokiebird]

Thats why I didn't respond.

I bet, likely answer... I fully understand al the points... I am just waiting for you to discuss them. Everytime something is presented I get an answer like this. I understand them, but even if I did not they still remain true.. so discuss them.

[JBDW]

Point number 1-disease kills most of the sheep in a farmer's flock

weakest members of a herd of caribou are preyed upon.

Pest-resistant rice is crossed with rice that is rich in protein.

a farmer only allows apple trees to grow in his orchard.
1 year ago .How did observations in nature lead to the formulation of the theory of evolution?

What on earth are you getting at with those examples? How do they relate in any way to artificial selection not being connected with natural selection?

HINT: When you say two things are not connected, you need to explain why they're not connected, not just throw out random facts.

Point number 2-It is only opinions or, wel just Self read my sig

That's not an opinion, that's a claim. And your sig has absolutely nothing to do with point 2. If anything, it relates more to point 16 on that list. Did you even read the list yourself?

point 3-in?verse -Reversed in order, nature, or effect.

I know what inverse means. I want you to explain how it relates to evolution. And also how claiming a cause/effect relationship can be considered a logical fallacy.

Point 4-pretty straight and clear isnt it?

Why don't you elaborate on it?