Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
medenaywe
AE Moderator
Master of Meanings
Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17084
|
Quote Reply
Topic: 1835: Charles Darwin, falls overboard, drowns Posted: 05-Nov-2011 at 14:09 |
As humans it is our assignment to tell the people that is not true!I have his book in my library shelves also. Till recently "Mein Kampf" was also there.My nephew have borrowed for reading.Best way to talk about good and bad is to read other opinion and think about it.Most of people allow somebody else to comment those in news&books.Beagle Diary&Origin of Species are books of my youth anyway.
|
|
Jarns
Janissary
Joined: 05-Nov-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 18
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Nov-2011 at 13:47 |
Originally posted by medenaywe
Except that millions have died cause of "uber human being" idea and implementation of natural selection in human social condition,will agree with you that they were "ignorant" only and "not guilty about it" except if they are not Germans of course.
| The idea of racial superiority predated Darwin by some years. Heinrich Bronn - who translated Origin of the Species into German and bastardized many of its ideas - was advocating the specific superiority of the German race by 1830. Schopenhauer was attributing civilization to the German races in his philosophical writings, and he died the year after Origin of the Species was published - and before the German edition. Mendelian genetics likewise came onto the scene after the formation of these ideas. Systematic repression of Jewish peoples in Europe was already common place by the time evolution came into the picture. Blood libel, the Inquisition and other such horrid things had already established the idea of the supremacy of the gentile over the Jew. I'll admit that the terminology used in the Origin of the Species put some fuel on the fire - but not the science. Anyone who looked at the information at that time and concluded that racial supremacy was an aspect of evolution was severely, severely misreading the science.
|
|
medenaywe
AE Moderator
Master of Meanings
Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17084
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Nov-2011 at 09:15 |
Except that millions have died cause of "uber human being" idea and implementation of natural selection in human social condition,will agree with you that they were "ignorant" only and "not guilty about it" except if they are not Germans of course.
|
|
Karalem
Knight
Joined: 07-Aug-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 94
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Nov-2011 at 09:06 |
The thing with science is that it's dealing with a set number of assumptions.
Given enough time, the order to these facts will eventually be recognized or disproved.
In the19th century Science was no BS. Either you were correct or fake and dubbed pseudoscience. In the twentieth century science did a sharp turn and landed safely in a gray area from where it can claim whatever it wants thanks to the commonplace believe in science and the also commonplace ignorance.
|
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
|
|
Jarns
Janissary
Joined: 05-Nov-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 18
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Nov-2011 at 07:31 |
Interesting thread to make my maiden post.
The thing with science is that it's dealing with a set number of observable facts. Given enough time, the order to these facts will eventually be recognized. Take, for instance, the works of the Greek philosopher Democritus. Democritus made his speculations about the indivisible atom on philosophy; other philosophers of the time argued against the indivisible atom because it was not observable - in this sense, the Greek philosophers opposed to Democritus made the correct observation as their ideas were based on what could be observed and Democritus made his claims on mere opinion.
But fast forward nearly fifteen hundred years and the advance of science has changed what can be observed. What can be witnessed by the scientists of the nineteenth and twentieth century is different than what was observable to the ancient Greek philosophers. They find that the previous explanation for existence was wrong and that Democritus - despite flawed reasoning - was absolutely correct.
To establish another example, let's put up Zeno's paradoxes and Diogenes the Cynic. Zeno was of the opinion that distance was not a real thing as one must always arrive at the half-point before reaching the conclusion. Taking from this, he argued that there was an infinite number of half-way points that made it impossible for an individual to reach the end of his journey. In response, Diogenes the Cynic stood up, walked around the room and sat back down in his chair.
At the time, Diogenes would have had no real knowledge of the ideas of countable infinity and uncountable infinity, yet he displayed a knowledge of the idea that was immediately recognizable.
The point I'm trying to make is that, had Diogenes never existed, Zeno's paradoxes would have still been incorrect and eventually disproved. Likewise, the facts would have eventually proven that Democritus was correct. The facts were already there, they just needed someone of sufficient intelligence or understanding to put them all together.
Natural selection - being an observable fact and supported by hard science - would have eventually been deduced.
|
|
Bill Cobbett
Janissary
Joined: 23-Oct-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Oct-2011 at 03:26 |
Originally posted by Nick1986
I imagine someone else would eventually come up with a similar theory, although the development of modern science would have been set back by some 50 or 100 years |
See above. Wallace had already come up with the same idea. It is Wallace' s theory of evolution but Darwin wrote the best seller.
It is the natural part of the selection that is the important bit; set as a counterpoint to the artificial selection of animals under domestication (to produce milkier and beefier cattle and woolier sheep etc.) with which his readers would have some familiarity.
That is why there is so much about pigeon breeding early on.
|
|
Bill Cobbett
Janissary
Joined: 23-Oct-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Oct-2011 at 03:10 |
Ah yes. Glad we got that sorted.
|
|
Karalem
Knight
Joined: 07-Aug-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 94
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Oct-2011 at 21:34 |
Is Darwin responsible for the two world wars? They were the effect of the confused communal mindset of the late 19th century.
|
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
|
|
Nick1986
Emperor
Mighty Slayer of Trolls
Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Oct-2011 at 19:26 |
I imagine someone else would eventually come up with a similar theory, although the development of modern science would have been set back by some 50 or 100 years
|
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
|
PADDYBOY
Pretorian
Historum joker, suspended
Joined: 20-Nov-2008
Location: Gododdin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 154
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Oct-2011 at 09:28 |
Darwin didn't invent evolution. He came up with a theory called 'Natural Selection' which explained the evolutionary process. a process which people had been aware of for a very long time. Most of the previous theories had included God and/or excluded man. What Darwin did was to present a theory which excluded God and included man. Hence its unpopularity amongst certain people.
Off course, Darwinism can be twisted and blamed for some of mankinds problems, but so can religion....What's new.
Edited by PADDYBOY - 29-Oct-2011 at 09:31
|
|
medenaywe
AE Moderator
Master of Meanings
Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17084
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Oct-2011 at 06:42 |
He have compared animal society with human!Animal society had legalized incest mating for advance changes fixing, humans have tried to avoid it!At least official have been spoken it.But Vampires&Werewolves&X-men societies differs this rule!They have invented Darwin for their advantages glorification!Rest of his theory is OK!Even there were lot of copy&paste examples.But as Zukerberg have said we all have right for chair production if it improves the model!
Edited by medenaywe - 30-Oct-2011 at 06:32
|
|
Bill Cobbett
Janissary
Joined: 23-Oct-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Oct-2011 at 06:18 |
In fact; having given further consideration to the matter, I feel it as stupid to blame Darwin for the current inventory of animal life upon the Earth, as it would be to blame Maxwell for your being able to see or to blame Newton when you drop something.
Just what do you mean by 'Darwin screwed up the world'?
|
|
Bill Cobbett
Janissary
Joined: 23-Oct-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Oct-2011 at 15:57 |
Tell me how the world 'has been screwed up by Darwin'.
He made some very fine observations; wrote some beautiful prose; and drew some obvious conclusions which made the ways of the world a little bit easier to understand.
As [hmm] (?)Huxley(?) said at the time, 'How silly not to have realised that before.'
As noted above, Darwin didn't invent anything; he certainly didn't invent 'descent with modification' that has been around just a little bit longer (there's a little fella sittin on my shoulder saying that Darwin didn't even use the E word but he (TLFSOMS) is fallable).
|
|
shokdee
Knight
Spammer
Joined: 16-Jul-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 67
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Aug-2011 at 07:24 |
Jokes aside, the purpose of this thread is not to rehash the
religious debate between Darwinists and Creationists.
If you believe the Universe started with a bang, life
started in a soup, and man started from an ape, that is your choice.
If you believe God is the creator of all things, according to His divine will, that is
your choice.
If your honest answer to the question - Can you imagine the
nature and quality of discourse had the world not been screwed up by Darwin? -
is "No, I can't imagine" , then stick with this thread.
Let us transcend religious beliefs and look at the
diversity of life with fresh eyes, let our imagination run free to explore non-mechanical, non-linear, and non-local approaches and their possible
outcomes.
|
Monkey see monkey do be doobie do
|
|
shokdee
Knight
Spammer
Joined: 16-Jul-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 67
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Aug-2011 at 12:58 |
Thank you for the compliment! If by " gobbledygook" you are referring to Wikipedia, then I couldn't agree more
Originally posted by Toltec
Had Darwin died the Theory of Evolution would have happened. Darwin didn't invent evolution, he just proved it. He proved it in such an overwhealming way it was undeniable. Alfred Russel Wallace almost simultaneously to Darwin was proving the
theory too, though not as far developed as Darwin, had he not abandoned
it who knows what he would have produced. Unlikely to be as developed as
Darwin and maybe minus the Survival of the Fittess machanism. But this
would have undoubtably developed later. |
Do you have any rational thoughts to offer or only religious fundamentalism? 1835: Charles Darwin, falls overboard, drowns walks on water.
Edited by shokdee - 17-Aug-2011 at 01:25
|
Monkey see monkey do be doobie do
|
|
Toltec
Arch Duke
Shape Shifter
Joined: 12-May-2011
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1748
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Aug-2011 at 12:17 |
Not a bad idae for a post title, but gobbledygook from then on.
So lets take up the debate from the full stop after the title.
Had Darwin died the Theory of Evolution would have happened. Darwin didn't invent evolution, he just proved it. He proved it in such an overwhealming way it was undeniable. Alfred Russel Wallace almost simultaneously to Darwin was proving the theory too, though not as far developed as Darwin, had he not abandoned it who knows what he would have produced. Unlikely to be as developed as Darwin and maybe minus the Survival of the Fittess machanism. But this would have undoubtably developed later.
|
|
|
shokdee
Knight
Spammer
Joined: 16-Jul-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 67
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Aug-2011 at 05:46 |
[A light-hearted reply to the insightful comment Centrix Vigilis made]
---- Had he drowned in 1835, he wouldn't have had to make any
deathbed confessions " I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out
queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my
astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of
them." http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/did-darwin-become-christian-his-deathbed
---- Had he drowned in 1835, William Erasmus Darwin (27 December
1839) wouldn't be born and be subjected
to his father's "psychological studies" ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Erasmus_Darwin
... which would have included
dressing him up in girl's clothes !? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Charles_and_William_Darwin.jpg
---- Had he drowned in 1835, he wouldn't have suffered from
"mysterious" illnesses, including Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_health The Wiki hive mind is besotted with Mr Darwin, the last entry shows that sometimes there's just too much detail. What next Wikipedia, Charles Darwin's shoe collection?
Edited by shokdee - 17-Aug-2011 at 00:59
|
Monkey see monkey do be doobie do
|
|
Centrix Vigilis
Emperor
Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Aug-2011 at 00:28 |
He probably would have preferred to go out that way.
|
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'
|
|
shokdee
Knight
Spammer
Joined: 16-Jul-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 67
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Aug-2011 at 00:19 |
Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Editorial_cartoon_depicting_Charles_Darwin_as_an_ape_%281871%29.jpgAfter reading the book by George Basalla "The evolution of technology", yesterday I was reading the article "Cultural Darwinism: Natural selection of the spoked
wood wheel" by F.T. Cloak. To his credit Basalla does point out that he uses the word "evolution" as a metaphor, but Cloak sticks to debilitating
constraints and ends up with surrealist arguments.
But the rot is so much deeper and "Darwinism"
has taken root in the very foundations of our thinking, from economics to sociology.
See Universal Darwinism and be amazed at the influence of this mental cancer. http:////en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_darwinism Benjamin Wiker correctly places Darwin's "The descent of
Man" on his list of "10 books that screwed up the world".
Can you imagine the nature and quality of discourse had the
world not been screwed up by Darwin?
16 September 1835. After a busy day exploring
the Galapagos Islands, Charles Darwin's pockets are stuffed with rock samples. He
takes a walk on the top deck of the Beagle when a sudden swell throws him off
balance, he lunges at the railing, misses, falls overboard and sinks to the
depths.
Edited by shokdee - 17-Aug-2011 at 01:12
|
Monkey see monkey do be doobie do
|
|