Darwin's masterpiece revisited

On The Origin Of Species Revisited, from NewScientist -

we have asked the geneticist, evolutionary thinker and author Steve Jones to summarise and update the book for the 21st century - and, we hope, to inspire readers to experience Darwin's astounding, world-changing writing first-hand

UNIQUE among scientific theories, evolutionary biology finds its roots in a popular book by a single author. The grey-bearded genius presented a new and radical view of existence: that life has changed over time and space, in part through a simple process called natural selection.

Charles Darwin called his work "one long argument". To a 21st-century reader it seems lengthy indeed, with only a single illustration to enliven its 150,000 words. But Darwin was a clear thinker and the book is an impressive piece of advocacy, moving from the familiar - how animals on farms have changed - to the less so, embryos and instinct included.

This is an excellent summary of Darwins work, free to view for all, comprising 14 short chapters plus editorial.

NewScientist

Enjoy!

Wow awesome, I'm glad they came out with a shortened version seeing as I couldn't acquire a full copy from my local library, thanks. I highly reccomend to anyone that seeks to understand evolution to read this, some people have such a hard time understanding such a consise theory.

reply to post by 29083010384959


Typical of ATS - a very interesting, well written and important link and 1 person reads it

I'm off to read the "Alien sausage factory found in Obamas shed" link now


[edit on 15/11/2009 by LightFantastic]

reply to post by LightFantastic


Light

I also read your post and your complaint about lack of interest. If you think this is bad you should see my thread, especially the last two posts by me.

Free energy using Synthetic Tornadoes
(www.abovetopsecret.com...)

I give a working, tested by me, and undebunked practical methodology for unlimited free energy. And, as you can see, no replies.

The problem with the theory is that it became the religion of the atheists, namely that nothing created everything ie their God is nothing.

Because it is treated as a religion by the scientific atheists it became an unassailable gospel even when confronted by some contrary evidence, such as a lack of transitional forms for some major changes (e.g. vertebrates to invertebrates, single cell to multicell etc.) and issues such as certain periods when species seemed to proliferate and appear all at once, etc.

As a consequence other theories such as Biblical creationism, intelligent design, panspermia etc. etc. are not even considered, even though they also offer rational explanations for the same phenomenon.

Most theories throughout science's history have had to change when presented with contradictory evidence. Darwinism stubbornly (and wrongly IMHO) remains.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
The problem with the theory is that it became the religion of the atheists, namely that nothing created everything ie their God is nothing.

This, even if it were true, is not a problem with the theory; it speaks of a defect in popular understanding, one you would appear to share. Darwin's book was on the origin of species--or, to put it another way, the origin of biological variety--not the origins of life. It says little, beyond the famous and confessedly speculative 'warm pond' passage, about the latter.

Your phrase 'nothing created everything' is an emotive and tendentious misuse of language. Atheists don't believe in some abstract entity called Nothing that was the creator of all things. We simply believe that no living thing was created; that, instead, life arose spontaneously from nonliving matter. Nonliving matter is not nothing. Neither is it a creator.

Your claim that 'atheists' God is nothing' is, of course, nonsensical. Atheists don't believe in some abstract entity called Nothing; we simply don't believe in God. We see no need for the concept; there is no vacancy in our universe for the post of deity, no essential job that would remain undone if there was no god around to do it.

Believing in nothing is not the same as believing in Nothing.

Because (Darwinism) is treated as a religion by the scientific atheists it became an unassailable gospel...

Statements like this suggest that the speaker has so thoroughly internalized the religious mindset he is no longer able to form concepts in secular terms. Because faith is central to the religious mindset, the speaker cannot imagine how it is possible for someone to function without it. He insists that atheists must put their faith in something--Evolution, or Materialism, or Mammon, or good old Nothing. But this is a delusion brough on by the speaker's own religious indoctrination. Atheists don't have a 'God-shaped hole' in their conceptual life that needs to be filled up with something. We have no need to make 'an unassailable gospel' out of the theory of evolution or anything else. Nor have we; that is a delusion of the religious mind.

...even when confronted by some contrary evidence, such as a lack of transitional forms for some major changes (e.g. vertebrates to invertebrates, single cell to multicell etc.) and issues such as certain periods when species seemed to proliferate and appear all at once, etc.

This is rather sad. You've been a member here for some years, and should by now have seen these creationist claims comprehensively debunked not once but dozens of times over. To keep on mouthing them repeatedly smacks of desperation. A bit pitiful and pathetic, don't you agree?

Most theories throughout science's history have had to change when presented with contradictory evidence. Darwinism stubbornly (and wrongly IMHO) remains.

Perhaps you ought to familiarize yourself with a subject before advancing your opinion on it, be the opinion never so humble. Anyone with more than a nodding acquaintace with evolutionary theory knows that Darwin's ideas have been refined and modified considerably since he first published them. An early example of such modification was the incorporation of Mendel's gene theories. Much of what Darwin merely hinted at or speculated upon has now been formalized and regularized on the basis of scientific research. The unit of natural selection is now widely recognized as the gene, after a very long period of time when other units (the individual, the social group, the kin group) were considered. We have abandoned Lamarckism--something Darwin himself did not entirely do--and embraced epigenetics. One could go on in this vein at some length, but there is no need; it is clear that any attempt to paint Darwinism as a religious faith or dogmatic orthodoxy is doomed to failure. Its unbroken record of triumph over alternative explanations for the origin of biological variety has nothing to do with the presumed dogmatism of Darwinians; it is due simply to the fact that evolution by natural selection is the correct explanation.

If that conflicts with people's religious views, so much the worse for religion; and attempts by religious conservatives to suppress the truth about evolution must, as always, fail in the long run. Truth will out.

reply to post by LightFantastic


Dear Lord......Not again???
How many times am I going to see this Darwinian-Buttlick materialize here on ATS???

Seriously though: Where is the 'Missing Link'?
Sorry, did I hear a ' we are still looking'?
Ohhhh, I guess until then it will only ever be a theory.

At least Darwin had the humility to publish his own criticisms of his theory within Chapter 6 ; Origin of the Species.

But alas; there are corporate academics whom careers hinge on parroting/championing theories.

reply to post by SevenThunders


Atheists by their very nature are not religious. that's the whole point, we believe in the process of gaining scientific knowledge rather. The gaps that still remain in that knowledge, we wait for a scientific answer rather than filling that gap in with a super natural being. If evolution is challenged by serious scientific research we will embrace the new scientific discovery rather than hold on to a belief which has been proved wrong by strict rigorous scientific research.

"The true scientist, however passionately he may “believe”, in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will - Richard Dawkins

[edit on 16-11-2009 by woodwardjnr]

Originally posted by Astyanax

...even when confronted by some contrary evidence, such as a lack of transitional forms for some major changes (e.g. vertebrates to invertebrates, single cell to multicell etc.) and issues such as certain periods when species seemed to proliferate and appear all at once, etc.

This is rather sad. You've been a member here for some years, and should by now have seen these creationist claims comprehensively debunked not once but dozens of times over. To keep on mouthing them repeatedly smacks of desperation. A bit pitiful and pathetic, don't you agree?

Nice try Astyanax. The lack of transitional forms has in no way been debunked, on this site or anywhere. I grow tired of repeating myself, so I will say no more.

reply to post by Astyanax


Hi Astyanax and woodwardjnr

I'm glad you both had the inclination to offer arguments against the 'debunkers'. When I first started here I used to do the same but I am now tired of it. The Dawkins quote posted sums it up nicely.

Of course these guys are entitled to their opinion but ATS seems to have a cabal who quickly jump on posts such as these. I was merely proffering a well written digest of Darwins work for consumption by those who haven't had a chance to read the complete works. And I get accused of being a Darwin Butlicker. Hmm I do love Christian tolerance. I have even stuck up for Christians in the "Only hate allowed on ATS" thread!

I do understand that Christians do feel that their religion is under constant attack, which leads to a more militant viewpoint, but from what I can see the perception of this is greater than the reality.



[edit on 16/11/2009 by LightFantastic]

reply to post by graysquirrel


Can you point me to a copy of your paper for your ST device. I have been involved in testing many devices over the years and one of my strengths is hydrodynamics.

reply to post by LightFantastic


The post giving the details of a practical ST device called a PTP stack can be found at the bottom of this page.
(www.abovetopsecret.com...)

The paper I published can be found here.

The Tornado and The Channelized Air Effect.
(www.abovetopsecret.com...)

Originally posted by SevenThunders
The problem with the theory is that it became the religion of the atheists, namely that nothing created everything ie their God is nothing.

Because it is treated as a religion by the scientific atheists it became an unassailable gospel even when confronted by some contrary evidence, such as a lack of transitional forms for some major changes (e.g. vertebrates to invertebrates, single cell to multicell etc.) and issues such as certain periods when species seemed to proliferate and appear all at once, etc.

As a consequence other theories such as Biblical creationism, intelligent design, panspermia etc. etc. are not even considered, even though they also offer rational explanations for the same phenomenon.

Most theories throughout science's history have had to change when presented with contradictory evidence. Darwinism stubbornly (and wrongly IMHO) remains.

There is a lot of Evidence to support evolution. Before you gripe at me, you can beleive in Evolution and god at the same time!

I know, I know it sounds crazy but wrap your mind around it. The bible does say to explore and question your environment after all.

You may say that I underestimate god when I say that he did not necessarily create everything there ever was ever in 7 days. I'm actually giving him more credit. All he would have to do is pull the trigger and start up the universe. Sort of "Let there be light" BOOOM! Maybe he created everything to evolve, to adapt, to become something else. Perhaps he arranged for a history so that we may be suited to our new environment. Sure creating an entire perfect universe in 7 days is all fine and good, but doing it the other way would be more spectacular imo.

I know this picture of the universe doesn't fit with some people's closed minded view of god. Never limit what god can do or what he did. God has no limits, and whatever method he used we are here and that is all that matters.

If you look at Genesis and compare it to our current knowledge of evolutionary history they tend to coincide very nicely with each other. Either way, whether we where created, whether we evolve, or both at the same time (which I think is more likely) you should never limit god.

reply to post by DaMod


Well actually I agree with you philosophically inasmuch as God could certainly have done things that way and young earth creationists do get a bit uptight about their interpretation, which also is quite wrong, ignoring what the Bible itself says about creation.

In fact the Bible teaches that we are still in the 7th day of creation and have been for a long long time. Thus the Bible has already disproved a literal 24 hour 'day' in creation. However a literal fulfillment is also true. It turns out that the gravity well that must have existed in the singularity at the big bang was so large, that time with respect to that frame would be so slowed down that 1 day would be several billion years. In fact the age of the universe and 7 days wrt to that frame is just about right, but that's another thread.

No I came to the conclusion that evolution was simply too flawed in it's own right to be a viable theory for all of life's creation. It is true that God built natural selection into the gene pool as an adaptive mechanism, but by itself it can not explain the diversity and the complexity of life nor does the fossil record support it. Thus I believe that God created a vast array of lifeforms and allowed many of them to die out over time and others to modify slightly via the built in adaptation mechanism, but I certainly do not believe in evolution.

reply to post by SevenThunders


Thanks for the sensible post.

Disregarding theological anwers, would you agree that evolution is the best interpretation of what we see in the animal kingdom? Or do you know of a better answer?

reply to post by LightFantastic


Yes and no. I do not believe that evolution is adequate to explain the diversity and complexity of life. I do believe in natural selection however. The system is self adjusting, so that within reasonable bounds, generations can adjust to changing conditions in the environment.

This speaks more to the genius of the designer than to the genius of evolution. The fact that patterns repeat is simply design reuse, much the same way my computer looks somewhat similar to my old IBM Xt that ran on a floppy disk over 20 years ago.

However if you told me that you had found a perfectly formed intel core i7 in the silicon sands of a beach, formed by pure happenstance or by some natural selection process, I would call you insane. In the same way to say that the much greater complexity of a human being formed by pure accident or even from a much lower life form, like an amoeba, I have the same incredulity.