The Origin of Species as Myth
backspace
never explained the origin of species.
http://lostborders.wordpress.com/
The Origin of the Species is “myth,” in the way Mircea Eliade uses the
word myth - a story that tells how “a reality came into existence.”
Eliade wrote: “To tell how things came into existence is to explain
them and at the same time indirectly to answer another question: Why
did they come into existence? Eliade explains: “The why is always
implied in the how — for the simple reason that to tell how a thing
was born is to reveal an irruption of the sacred into the world, and
the sacred is the ultimate cause of all real existence.”
The Origin of the Species is, in this sense, a religious story.
Although Darwin’s intention was to tell a story that did not involve
God, it makes us think of God, not just because it reminds us of
Genesis, but because its genre is myth.
In the story told in The Origin of the Species, the species have
emerged through a long struggle for survival. The struggle theme is
also found in the ancient near eastern myths in which the cosmos
emerged from a struggle between a god and a great sea monster, the god
representing order and the sea monster representing chaos. Through the
course of history, that myth became part of the western mosaic of
myths and became a paradigm that has guided our attitudes and actions,
which is what Eliade said myths do. The Origin of the Species is the
latest retelling of that myth, but in the retelling the paradigm has
changed.
In the new myth, order is not imposed on chaos by a god, but by the
organisms of life themselves. The organisms have fought the battle
themselves. This is the paradigm that guides our attitudes and actions
in modernity.
The ancient myth explained the existence of an agrarian world ruled by
kings and queens and emperors. The myth retold in The Origin of the
Species explains an industrial world ruled by democracies and free
markets. In the retold myth, we do not fight sea monsters, but each
other and the world is not one given to us by a god, but one we have
won or made for ourselves.
sv07171024
news:74f54383-be5b-4e17...@q11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> A while ago I posted that even Scientific American now admits Darwin
> never explained the origin of species.
>
> http://lostborders.wordpress.com/
> The Origin of the Species is “myth,” in the way Mircea Eliade uses the
> word myth - a story that tells how “a reality came into existence.”
Origin of species is not equal to origin of life. As has been explained here
a zillion times.
Evolutionist reason wins again, fingers in the nose. Creationist mumbles an
excuse "well, I wasn't well prepared, and didn't really know what I was
talking about".
Exactly!
backspace
> "backspace" <Steph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:74f54383-be5b-4e17...@q11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> > A while ago I posted that even Scientific American now admits Darwin
> > never explained the origin of species.
> > http://lostborders.wordpress.com/
> > The Origin of the Species is �myth,� in the way Mircea Eliade uses the
> > word myth - a story that tells how �a reality came into existence.�
> Origin of species is not equal to origin of life.
That depends what you define as Life. See
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_meaning_of_life/ by
Cleland an article that was so powerful in its sheer logic that even
Harshman and Wilkins now admit we don't know what Life is in within
the materialist paradigm.
The Lord Jesus who is Language and God incarnated as flesh said: I am
Life ... no man comes to the Father but by me.
backspace
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2009/02/myths_about_darwin.php
It is at number one out of 537 000 hits. This thread is at nr.4
"...The notion became common currency amongst scientists and
geneticists in particular over the next decades, culminating in a book
by Guy Robson in 1928, The Species Problem, in which variation was
taken to be an indication that species were not real things,
influencing Dobzhansky and others in the "modern" synthesis...."
This "modern synthesis" thing is fraud, it was called Neo-Darwinism in
the Journals. One can't by renaming something arbitrarily remove all
the journal papers on Neo-Darwinism such as this one:
"There is no canonical definition of neo-Darwinism, and surprisingly
few writers on the subject seem to consider it necessary to spell out
precisely what it is that they are discussing. This is especially
curious in view of the controversy which dogs the theory, for one
might have thought that a first step towards resolving the dispute
over its status would be to decide upon a generally acceptable
definition over it. ... Of course, the lack of firm definition does,
as we shall see, make the theory much easier to defend." P.T. Saunders
& M.W. Ho, "Is Neo-Darwinism Falsifiable? - And Does It Matter?",
Nature and System (1982) 4:179-196, p. 179.
And if you go to the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis
you will note that Neo-darwinism or modern whatever isn't defined.
1. All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent
with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of
naturalists. ---- What is an evolutionary phenomena?
2. Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes, recombination
ordered by natural selection. Discontinuities amongst species (or
other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through
geographical separation and extinction (not saltation). ----- Or some
lived and some died.
3. Selection is overwhelmingly the main mechanism of change; even
slight advantages are important when continued. The object of
selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment. The role of
genetic drift is equivocal; though strongly supported initially by
Dobzhansky, it was downgraded later as results from ecological
genetics were obtained.
----- Selection isn't a mechanism but a word we use to communicate
consciousness. Note the tautology about slight advantages being
important, how could it not be important.
4. The primacy of population thinking: the genetic diversity
carried in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. The
strength of natural selection in the wild was greater than expected;
the effect of ecological factors such as niche occupation and the
significance of barriers to gene flow are all important.
------ Natural population as opposed to a supernatural population ?
What else than "natural" could it be.
5. In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical observations
by extrapolation from micro to macro-evolution is proposed. Historical
contingency means explanations at different levels may exist.
Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change.
------ Depends what you define as micro evolution. R.G. Leavette in
1909 Botanical gazette used it as: How formlessness gives rise to
form , which must be explained first.
Ralph
In 1909???? Guess it must be correct since it is so current:-)))).
Ralph
What about the thousands of others who have said words to that effect?
As Darwin used the term 'origin of the species' he wasn't referring to
beginning life. Even if he was, so what?
Matt Silberstein
backspace <Steph...@gmail.com> in
<74f54383-be5b-4e17...@q11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
>A while ago I posted that even Scientific American now admits Darwin
>never explained the origin of species.
It kind of depends on what "explain" means. Darwin took us from having
no explanation at all to knowing that species are formed via descent
with modification. That was an enormous step. We want to know more
details of course, Darwin did not give us the *complete* explanation.
I assume that was what you posted.
>
>http://lostborders.wordpress.com/
>The Origin of the Species is “myth,” in the way Mircea Eliade uses the
>word myth - a story that tells how “a reality came into existence.”
>
>Eliade wrote: “To tell how things came into existence is to explain
>them and at the same time indirectly to answer another question: Why
>did they come into existence? Eliade explains: “The why is always
>implied in the how — for the simple reason that to tell how a thing
>was born is to reveal an irruption of the sacred into the world, and
>the sacred is the ultimate cause of all real existence.”
"Why" has many meanings. If you are asking for a teleological "why"
biology offers no such answer. If you are asking for the specifics of
a species we can give that in some cases depending on how much
evidence we have.
>The Origin of the Species is, in this sense, a religious story.
In what sense? In the sense that answering a "why" is religious? If so
then all you have here is a rhetorical trick: how to why to religion.
By that logic Newton's physics, which explained how the Moon orbited
the Earth told us why it orbited which was then a religious story.
>Although Darwin’s intention was to tell a story that did not involve
>God,
His intent was to provide a scientific explanation, not to tell any
kind of story.
>it makes us think of God, not just because it reminds us of
>Genesis, but because its genre is myth.
How so?
>In the story told in The Origin of the Species, the species have
>emerged through a long struggle for survival. The struggle theme is
>also found in the ancient near eastern myths in which the cosmos
>emerged from a struggle between a god and a great sea monster, the god
>representing order and the sea monster representing chaos.
How nice: you now play another rhetorical trick, equating the specific
supported differential reproductive success (Natural Selection) with
some story about some different struggle. This sort of like saying
that Newton showed the Fall of Man because he discussed gravity making
things fall.
>Through the
>course of history, that myth became part of the western mosaic of
>myths and became a paradigm that has guided our attitudes and actions,
>which is what Eliade said myths do. The Origin of the Species is the
>latest retelling of that myth, but in the retelling the paradigm has
>changed.
>
>In the new myth, order is not imposed on chaos by a god, but by the
>organisms of life themselves. The organisms have fought the battle
>themselves. This is the paradigm that guides our attitudes and actions
>in modernity.
>
>The ancient myth explained the existence of an agrarian world ruled by
>kings and queens and emperors. The myth retold in The Origin of the
>Species explains an industrial world ruled by democracies and free
>markets. In the retold myth, we do not fight sea monsters, but each
>other and the world is not one given to us by a god, but one we have
>won or made for ourselves.
This reads like the work of someone who has never actually studied
biology. That is, there is no actual biology in the analysis.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
backspace
> It kind of depends on what "explain" means. Darwin took us from having
> no explanation at all to knowing that species are formed via descent
> with modification. That was an enormous step.
It was Halloy not Darwin that wrote a paper about "descent with
modification" as discussed here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_thread/thread/d138b2c03c35d64f
> "Why" has many meanings. If you are asking for a teleological "why"
> biology offers no such answer.
The abstract authority Mr. Biology certainly doesn't , which
individual are you referring to?
Biology's dictionary definition is 'study of life', but since we don't
know what life is lets redefine it as "study of frogs". A frog is the
result of life but not life itself. In what way does the study of
frogs not provide the answers to teleological why's? It all depends on
what you define as biology.
> How nice: you now play another rhetorical trick, equating the specific
> supported differential reproductive success (Natural Selection) with
> some story about some different struggle.
Darwin never said "reproductive success" who are you referring to?
> This reads like the work of someone who has never actually studied
> biology. That is, there is no actual biology in the analysis.
rephrase:
This reads like the work of someone who has never actually studied
frogs. That is, there is no actual study of frogs in the analysis.
See how fun it is when words like "biology" becomes undefined.
Matt Silberstein
backspace <Steph...@gmail.com> in
<ecdf48c1-fbcd-47cc...@j39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
>> It kind of depends on what "explain" means. Darwin took us from having
>> no explanation at all to knowing that species are formed via descent
>> with modification. That was an enormous step.
>
>It was Halloy not Darwin that wrote a paper about "descent with
>modification" as discussed here:
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_thread/thread/d138b2c03c35d64f
What do you mean by "rather"? BTW, do you think that evolution would
stop if you could show that it was not Darwin's idea? Yes, other
people had various evolutionary ideas before Darwin, he put it
together into a cohesive theory.
>> "Why" has many meanings. If you are asking for a teleological "why"
>> biology offers no such answer.
>
>The abstract authority Mr. Biology certainly doesn't , which
>individual are you referring to?
I mean the science of biology. Various scientists may well have a
notion of teleology, but not when working as a scientist.
>Biology's dictionary definition is 'study of life',
It is the *scientific* study of life.
>but since we don't
>know what life is lets redefine it as "study of frogs".
Nope. That we can't make a consistent definition that works in all
cases does not mean there is nothing referred to by the term "life".
So the set of living things is fuzzy, that does not mean we can't
study it.
>A frog is the
>result of life but not life itself.
Yes, your strawman was silly.
>In what way does the study of
>frogs not provide the answers to teleological why's? It all depends on
>what you define as biology.
Did you have something to say?
>> How nice: you now play another rhetorical trick, equating the specific
>> supported differential reproductive success (Natural Selection) with
>> some story about some different struggle.
>
>Darwin never said "reproductive success" who are you referring to?
No, he did not use those terms. Why the focus on Darwin's terms? I
gave you a clue in the parentheses.
>> This reads like the work of someone who has never actually studied
>> biology. That is, there is no actual biology in the analysis.
>
>rephrase:
>This reads like the work of someone who has never actually studied
>frogs. That is, there is no actual study of frogs in the analysis.
Rephrase: gee, the weather is nice, I think I will have a milkshake.
>See how fun it is when words like "biology" becomes undefined.
No, I don't, I see someone trying to avoid communication.
backspace
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> "Why" has many meanings. If you are asking for a teleological "why"
> >> biology offers no such answer.
> >The abstract authority Mr. Biology certainly doesn't , which
> >individual are you referring to?
> I mean the science of biology. Various scientists may well have a
> notion of teleology, but not when working as a scientist.
Still the same fallacy the abstract authority Mr.Science-Of-Biology
doesn't offer any answers because he doesn't exist, who is the person
you are interpreting? In Christianity for example we interpret Paul or
Peter, Christians can't just dream up their own theology. Which
scientist where hasn't got what notion.
> >Biology's dictionary definition is 'study of life',
> It is the *scientific* study of life.
What does scientific mean and who has defined what it means?
Matt Silberstein
backspace <Steph...@gmail.com> in
<6387ad64-75c7-41d1...@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
>On Mar 19, 10:59 pm, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> >> "Why" has many meanings. If you are asking for a teleological "why"
>> >> biology offers no such answer.
>
>> >The abstract authority Mr. Biology certainly doesn't , which
>> >individual are you referring to?
>
>> I mean the science of biology. Various scientists may well have a
>> notion of teleology, but not when working as a scientist.
>
>Still the same fallacy the abstract authority Mr.Science-Of-Biology
Sorry, but the "authority" here was simply in allowing context
relevant definitions.
>doesn't offer any answers because he doesn't exist, who is the person
>you are interpreting? In Christianity for example we interpret Paul or
>Peter, Christians can't just dream up their own theology. Which
>scientist where hasn't got what notion.
>> >Biology's dictionary definition is 'study of life',
>
>> It is the *scientific* study of life.
>
>What does scientific mean and who has defined what it means?
You have got to be kidding. You think that you can somehow trap me
here? Show me you have something worth discussing and I will join you.
Right now you are playing silly word games and presenting elementary
questions as though they were deep questions. You started off with
some empty complaints about Darwin, now you want to discuss philosophy
of science. Figure out if you have anything and present it.
backspace
> In the story told in The Origin of the Species, the species have
> emerged through a long struggle for survival. The struggle theme is
> also found in the ancient near eastern myths in which the cosmos
> emerged from a struggle between a god and a great sea monster, the god
> representing order and the sea monster representing chaos.
The post below is relevent to the sea monsters fighting Gods and what
have you.....
http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/punbb/viewtopic.php?id=2382
"....I wouldn't entirely agree that "survival of the fittest" is just
a metaphor - as I tried to show in the last paragraph of my previous
post, I think it's more accurately described as a quick catchphrase
that nevertheless sums up one important aspect of the evolutionary
process, the idea that there is a struggle for existence in which
individuals with genetic advantages tend to survive and reproduce.
It's a bit like "for every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction" as a statement of Newton's 3rd law of motion, a pithy verbal
formula that can be used to vividly package an idea for the benefit of
non-scientists.
Accordingly, I think biologists should continue to use the phrase,
although I think we also need to get across the idea that "the
fittest" are fundamentally defined as those with advantageous traits,
rather than those that happen to have the most viable offspring at the
end of the day...."
Numerous time I pointed out to Howard on Talk.origins which have now
banned me from posting there that "struggle for survival" is a red
herring because it doesn't explain how both the dead and live chicken
managed to implement the IPC (Inverted pendulum control) algorithm
from a blob of jelly. He said that it is "irrelevant". In a sense
Howard is our university secular priest with a Gandalf pointy hat, he
has replaced the Christian chaplain and engages in myth making derived
from sea monsters fighting Gods mixed with Tautological fallacies from
Aristotle to James Hutton -
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_frm/thread/aefd3884630a72bb#
backspace
> Numerous time I pointed out to Howard on Talk.origins which have now
> banned me from posting there that "struggle for survival" is a red
> herring because it doesn't explain how both the dead and live chicken
> managed to implement the IPC (Inverted pendulum control) algorithm
> from a blob of jelly. He said that it is "irrelevant". In a sense
> Howard is our university secular priest with a Gandalf pointy hat, he
> has replaced the Christian chaplain and engages in myth making derived
> from sea monsters fighting Gods mixed with Tautological fallacies from
Another observation that ties in with this whole slaying of sea
monsters, order gaining over chaos is the concept "reproductive
success". For who is what a success? Who a reached a goal or as I put
it to Howard: If a cow was meant to produce beer instead of milk would
it still be a success? In ancient mythology when the God slayed the
sea monster he achieved a "success" and thus it seems this where this
whole success business comes from. Somehow fairy tales like Lord of
the Rings have found it's subtle way into the upper reaches of
academia. The Bible says there is nothing new under the sun, if people
could engage in myth making thousands of years ago then why would
modern man not do the same?
backspace
http://lostborders.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/the-origin-of-species-as-myth/#comment-223
This is a brilliant post to which I linked here at
alt.talk.creationism
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_thread/thread/585ce619796dd7b9
Your post is at nr.1 out of 334000 Google hits and the Usenet
discussion on it at nr2. just below yours. As I understand your post
"reproductive success" for example is the evolutionary priests
"casting spells" so to speak in a huge roll playing game where the
terms such as "Theory of evolution" don't actually mean anything. ToE,
ToNS are magic spells in the same sense that somebody would cast a
spell in a Warcraft game, only this game is fought on via blogs,
journal papers and government funding which the materialist priesthood
controls. Somebody like Dawkins and Dennette are druids using magic
words. Words which in effect are meaningless ....
backspace
"...The problem for the early evolutionists, who knew nothing about
genetics, was the actual mechanism that produced the inherited
variability required for natural selection to work...."
The problem really was that genetics proved a spanner in the works of
the ancient myth of sea monsters being slain by Gods retold for modern
man in 1859 in the book Origin of Species. Thus the invention of Neo-
Darwinism or modern synthesis or green cheese or whatever people wish
to call some concept that nobody has yet defined somewhere around 1940
about it seems.
The situation today has grown worse for our University Gandalf's
posting their spells in journals , blogs and Usenet because we can't
define Life within materialism. Posters like backspace have noted how
they used "natural selection" and "evolution" interchangeably - it
doesn't really matter what term they use in the same way a gamer
doesn't really take himself to serious when he casts a blue lightning
spell instead of a death star in a role playing game.
Backspace for example have posted "what is the difference between
theory of evolution and theory of natural selection?". Finally with
this thread backspace knows what is going on. I can only pray that my
fellow YEC fundamentalists can stop fighting or disproving the Theory
of Evolution, since you can't refute something which doesn't exist.
backspace
Note the struggle for existence theme as djmullen interprets Origin of
Species:
djmullen:
"...Darwin didn’t need a book to describe his theory, he used the book
to provide evidence to support it. Here’s Darwin’s theory in a
nutshell: Offspring vary from their parents. There are not enough
resources for all offspring to survive to adulthood. Any offspring
born with a difference that makes them more likely to survive will
replace those less favored.
Can you give us Message Theory in one paragraph? Or tell us how to
test it, like the OP’s title suggests you can?..."
== Rephrase ==
Offspring vary from their parents. There are not enough resources for
all offspring to survive to adulthood. Any offspring born with a
difference that makes them more likely to survive will replace those
less favored.
== Rephrase ==
1). Offspring vary from their parents. - Truism
2) Those more likely to survive will replace those less favored -
Tautology
The truisms and tautologies disguises the underlying slaying of sea
monsters theme.
backspace
Darwin Origin of Species:
"...As more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there
must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual
with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct
species, or with the physical conditions of life. ... Can it, then, be
thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have
undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each
being in the great and complex battle of life, should sometimes occur
in the course of thousands of generations? If such do occur, can we
doubt (remembering that more individuals are born than can possibly
survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over
others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating
their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in
the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This
preservation of favorable variation and the rejection of injurious
variations, I call Natural Selection...."
Notice the words battle, struggle, survive, existence and the obvious
tautologies surrounding his concept of natural selection which most of
you should by now be able to identify by looking at multiple words
that alludes to the same fact.
Ralph
Notice the rest of the article:
Darwin's argument addresses the problem of explaining the adaptive
character of organisms. Darwin argues that adaptive variations
("variations useful in some way to each being") occasionally appear, and
that these are likely to increase the reproductive chances of their
carriers. Over the generations favorable variations will be preserved,
injurious ones will be eliminated. In one place, Darwin adds: "I can see
no limit to this power [natural selection] in slowly and beautifully
adapting each form to the most complex relations of life." Natural
selection was proposed by Darwin primarily to account for the adaptive
organization, or "design," of living beings; it is a process that
promotes or maintains adaptation. Evolutionary change through time and
evolutionary diversification (multiplication of species) are not
directly promoted by natural selection (hence, the so-called
"evolutionary stasis," the numerous examples of organisms with
morphology that has changed little, if at all, for millions of years, as
pointed out by the proponents of the theory of punctuated equilibrium).
But change and diversification often ensue as by-products of natural
selection fostering adaptation.
Darwin formulated natural selection primarily as differential survival.
The modern understanding of the principle of natural selection is
formulated in genetic and statistical terms as differential
reproduction. Natural selection implies that some genes and genetic
combinations are transmitted to the following generations on the average
more frequently than their alternates. Such genetic units will become
more common in every subsequent generation and their alternates less
common. Natural selection is a statistical bias in the relative rate of
reproduction of alternative genetic units.
Natural selection has been compared to a sieve which retains the rarely
arising useful genes and lets go the more frequently arising harmful
mutants. Natural selection acts in that way, but it is much more than a
purely negative process, for it is able to generate novelty by
increasing the probability of otherwise extremely improbable genetic
combinations. Natural selection is thus creative in a way. It does not
"create" the entities upon which it operates, but it produces adaptive
genetic combinations which would not have existed otherwise.
The creative role of natural selection must not be understood in the
sense of the "absolute" creation that traditional Christian theology
predicates of the Divine act by which the universe was brought into
being ex nihilo. Natural selection may rather be compared to a painter
which creates a picture by mixing and distributing pigments in various
ways over the canvas. The canvas and the pigments are not created by the
artist but the painting is. It is conceivable that a random combination
of the pigments might result in the orderly whole which is the final
work of art. But the probability of Leonardo's Mona Lisa resulting from
a random combination of pigments, or St. Peter's Basilica resulting from
a random association of marble, bricks and other materials, is
infinitely small. In the same way, the combination of genetic units
which carries the hereditary information responsible for the formation
of the vertebrate eye could have never been produced by a random process
like mutation. Not even if we allow for the three billion years plus
during which life has existed on earth. The complicated anatomy of the
eye like the exact functioning of the kidney are the result of a
nonrandom process—natural selection.
backspace
> backspace wrote:
> >http://www.counterbalance.net/evolution/direct-frame.html
> > Notice the words battle, struggle, survive, existence and the obvious
> > tautologies surrounding his concept of natural selection which most of
> > you should by now be able to identify by looking at multiple words
> > that alludes to the same fact.
The same struggle, battle, challenges, enhance and "tackle" for
existence as the sea monster is vanquished by the flaming sword of
"natural selection" rhetoric and the God smoting the sea monster
"enhances" his "battle" abilities can be seen with this old Wikipedia
entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_selection&oldid=46640609
Natural selection is the phrase Charles Darwin used in in his 1859
book The Origin of Species to refer to the natural process he proposed
to be responsible for the origin of new species and the obvious
adaptation of organisms to their environments. Darwin coined the term
as an analogy to the way farmers selected crops or livestock for
breeding, referred to as artificial selection.
Natural selection occurs when individuals differ in reproductive
output for functional reasons, i.e., when differences in reproduction
follow from the fact that individuals differ from each other in their
ability to tackle the challenges posed by their internal biology and
by the biological and physical environment. This ability is a function
of the physical structures (traits) of life forms and of how these
structures affect their ability to tackle the aforementioned
challenges.
Natural selection results in adaptive evolution when traits that
enhance organismic abilities and thus the reproductive output of
individuals displaying them, are heritable. Such traits should become
more frequent over the generations.
</pre>
backspace
the tautologies from Darwin.
http://lostborders.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/darwin-on-the-origin-of-beauty/
Darwin on the Origin of Beauty
January 29, 2008 in Darwin, Evolution, Nature Writings | Tags: Beauty,
Darwin, Evolution, Natural Selection
Darwin wrote that he “sometimes felt much difficulty in understanding”
why species have some traits that seem unnecessary for their survival.
Unimportant organs were an example of such traits. Even more difficult
to understand than unnecessary organs was beauty, superfluous beauty.
Some naturalists in Darwin’s time questioned the adequacy of natural
selection to explain the origin of the species because it did not seem
able to account for beauty. Darwin wrote, “They believe that very many
structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for
mere variety.” Darwin considered their argument that beauty had its
own reason, a separate reason from the preservation of life, to be a
serious problem for his own argument that natural selection accounts
for the origin of the species. The stakes in this dispute were high.
They still are. In his words, “This doctrine, if true, would be
absolutely fatal to my theory.”
Darwin argued that unnecessary organs and traits that are merely
beautiful were once necessary for the survival of progenitors and had
been inherited by the descendent species even though they were no
longer necessary for survival. He argued that natural selection would
have eliminated these traits if they caused harm to the descendent
species, but would not necessarily have eliminated them if they caused
no harm.
A final conclusion about such things seems beyond the reach of
science.
Much remains at stake here. Beauty remains potentially fatal to
Darwin’s argument. If beauty is superfluous to survival, and yet
exists, then perhaps God not natural selection was, after all,
responsible for the origin of the species.
Ralph
Blah...blah...blah. Funny thing about the fatality of the flaws in
Darwin's arguments, science only keeps adding to the validity of his
ideas. If only creationists had someone as intelligent as Darwin:-)))).
backspace
> >http://lostborders.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/darwin-on-the-origin-of-b...
> He argued that natural selection would
> have eliminated these traits if they caused harm to the descendent
> species, but would not necessarily have eliminated them if they caused
> no harm.
=== rephrase ===
Roger Rabbit would have eliminated these traits if they caused harm to
the descendent species ....
=== rephrase ===
Wizard of Oz eliminated the traits that caused harm ....
=== finally ===
Those traits that caused harm resulted in the death of the animal.
Question:
Other than noting the animal died how did you deduce that he had
harmful traits?
> A final conclusion about such things seems beyond the reach of
> science.
What is beyond the reach of our culture is the lack of understanding
that the Abstract Authority Mr.Science doesn't exist hence there is
nothing that can be beyond his "reach".
> Much remains at stake here.
Much remains at stake, such as the inability of Ken Ham, Dave Scott
and Wilkins to understand what a tautology is, resulting in endless
debates between them over something which doesn't exist: Theory of
Evolution and Theory of Natural Selection.
backspace
Popper says:
"....that historically speaking all — or very nearly all — scientific
theories originate from myths..."
".....At the same time I realized that such myths may be developed,
and become testable; that historically speaking all — or very nearly
all — scientific theories originate from myths, and that a myth may
contain important anticipations of scientific theories. Examples are
Empedocles’ theory of evolution by trial and error, or Parmenides’
myth of the unchanging block universe in which nothing ever happens
and which, if we add another dimension, becomes Einstein’s block
universe (in which, too, nothing ever happens, since everything is,
four-dimensionally speaking, determined and laid down from the
beginning). I thus felt that if a theory is found to be non-
scientific, or “metaphysical” (as we might say), it is not thereby
found to be unimportant, or insignificant, or “meaningless,” or
“nonsensical.” But it cannot claim to be backed by empirical evidence
in the scientific sense — although it may easily be, in some genetic
sense, the “result of observation.”
........................"