reply to post by yamammasamonkey
Here is one in the form of a direct quote from Darwin: find the rest yourself, they are published in countless books and scientific
You made the claim, you provide the evidence to support it. That's how science works.
... Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?
Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional
forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… Why then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this,
perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp. 172,
You have provided the words of Darwin, not any evidence that his potential falsification "has been proved true".
1. You did yourself and your argument a disservice by simply copy and pasting this from another website, which you then failed to cite, either
accidentally or intentionally. It's immediately recognizable as an example of
to anyone that has actually read The Origin Of Species
If we fill in some of the gaps your source left in Darwin's words, you'll quickly see why it's not an example of one of the potential
falsifications which "have been proven true".
But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the
earth? It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only
state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast
museum; but the natural connections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time.
He wrote an entire chapter discussing why there were so few fossils, based upon the work of and in consultation with the geologists and
paleontologists of his day. In other words scientists knew and understood why there's no such thing as a "complete" fossil record over a century
and a half ago.
2. This isn't a potential falsification, as you seem to claim. The initial part of your quote mine is from a chapter called "Difficulties of the
Theory". No scientific theory is ever finished or complete or whole, all scientific theories have unanswered questions. In fact, I'd argue that
scientific theories aren't the end of an avenue of research but a beginning. Darwin, in a completely open and honest way, was pointing out where
further research needed to be done to understand evolution.
Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to
this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent,
and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to the theory.
3. There's a reason why only people who don't really understand modern evolutionary synthesis, today's theory of evolution, still call it Darwinism
or Darwinian evolution -- it's because they're laboring under the misunderstanding that the theory has remained unchanged for a century and a half.
Darwin theorized that traits were heritable, and that traits that improved chances of reproduction would be favored over time. But he had no idea by
what mechanism they were heritable.
Mendel's work wasn't initially recognized as being the answer to that question until the early 1900's. If anything, Mendel's work was initially
viewed as running counter to Darwin's theory... it wasn't until after both men were dead that scientists finally understood that they were
complementary theories with the understanding of population genetics.
All of that was just a really long way to get around to saying this: the evidence for evolution used to support the theory today is overwhelmingly
genetic. Not fossil. Genetic. So much so that, even in the complete absence of any fossils, the theory of evolution would still be the dominant
explanation for biodiversity.
So we've now covered the first of your "8-10 things that would nullify all of his THEORIES if proven true". Given that you've provided zero
evidence that it's what you're claiming, I sincerely hope for your sake that you didn't lead with your strongest example. Tee up the next one!