Didn't he prove that large lumbering relegation fodder could gradually acclimatise to its new surroundings, and by shedding its redundant leeches and growing a strong spine, gradually evolve into something that could go on to thrive in a new environment? (I think he might also have espoused a theory about coaching and motivating a small squad on a sensible budget!). Buried in Downe village to boot.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]The developer of "the most powerful idea ever to occur to the human mind" and a Bromley resident to boot
Presented by Richard Dawkins so unlikely to pull any punches when taking on the fundamentalists.
I recommend the "God Delusion" for those interested and a lot of Dawkin's other stuff on evolutionary biology - The Selfish Gene and the Blind Watchamker etc are also very readable. But thanks for the reminder - I've got my folks to record the programme. From reading the reviews he does get stuck into the creationists and believers in intelligent design so the fundamentalists are likely to get upset.
Technically Darwin was really only a London Borough of Bromley resident than a Bromley resident - Downe or Biggin Hill have a greater claim to his residency than Bromley.
[cite]Posted By: Paddy7[/cite]Didn't he prove that large lumbering relegation fodder could gradually acclimatise to its new surroundings, and by shedding its redundant leeches and growing a strong spine, gradually evolve into something that could go on to thrive in a new environment? (I think he might also have espoused a theory about coaching and motivating a small squad on a sensible budget!). Buried in Downe village to boot.
I bow to your superior knowledge. Apparently his family had lined up a grave in Downe prior to the Westminster burial, and I think there must be some marker there I remember seeing as a kid.
[cite]Posted By: Paddy7[/cite]"He was buried in Westminster Abbey".
I bow to your superior knowledge. Apparently his family had lined up a grave in Downe prior to the Westminster burial, and I think there must be some marker there I remember seeing as a kid.
I think that was the idea and there might be a marker and/or a general Darwin family plot, but he was definitely planted in Westminster Cathedral.
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Think the "the most powerful idea ever to occur to the human mind" might be a tie with Einstein and The Special Theory of Relativity.....Maybe.
Interesting. I was quoting Dawkins but I feel Darwin pips Einstein as Charlie explain what we are as human beings and how.
Would be good to have a CL poll on which scientific theory is the most powerful. Copernicus saying the earth revolves around the sun or the two above
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Think the "the most powerful idea ever to occur to the human mind" might be a tie with Einstein and The Special Theory of Relativity.....Maybe.
But who's ideas had the greatest effect on the average person?
In terms of influence Darwin was probably the greater of the two in that when the "Origin of Species" was published in 1859 the worldview of most people revolved around the prevailing theory that the earth was around 6,000 years old and had created by God in a week as set out in Genesis. Darwin pointed out that creation, as described in the Bible and the origin accounts of other cultures, was contradicted by almost any aspect of the natural world. Philosophically the belief of the era was that our fate was pre-determined, Darwin contradicted this pointing out that natural selection was responsible for the difference in species and that gradual changes over time and in reaction to local circumstances were the driving factor.
Essentially Darwin founded a new branch of science - evolutionary biology that was revolutionary for its era and is still controversial today with many religions still refusing to believe in anything other than some variation on the creationist myth. As we discover more about genetics and even other scientific areas such as geology everything he set out has been proven to be correct. I wonder how much influence Einstein has had on the way we perceive our planet? A lot for sure but maybe Darwin's was greater and more revolutionary.
Good point BFR. I wonder if there is a more generally popular feeling for Darwins theory over Einsteins purely on the basis that for most of us The Special Theory of Relativity is impossible to understand whereas The Origin of the Species is very basic although of course with startling insight. ?
[cite]Posted By: Paddy7[/cite]"He was buried in Westminster Abbey".
I bow to your superior knowledge. Apparently his family had lined up a grave in Downe prior to the Westminster burial, and I think there must be some marker there I remember seeing as a kid.
I think that was the idea and there might be a marker and/or a general Darwin family plot, but he was definitely planted in Westminster Cathedral.
Westminster Abbey, not Cathedral (quite an important difference in the circs).
[cite]Posted By: Paddy7[/cite]"He was buried in Westminster Abbey".
I bow to your superior knowledge. Apparently his family had lined up a grave in Downe prior to the Westminster burial, and I think there must be some marker there I remember seeing as a kid.
I think that was the idea and there might be a marker and/or a general Darwin family plot, but he was definitely planted in Westminster Cathedral.
Westminster Abbey, not Cathedral (quite an important difference in the circs).
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Good point BFR. I wonder if there is a more generally popular feeling for Darwins theory over Einsteins purely on the basis that for most of us The Special Theory of Relativity is impossible to understand whereas The Origin of the Species is very basic although of course with startling insight. ?
I make you right.
Evolution as a theory existed before Darwin but no one could explain how it worked. Darwin's theory on origin of species showed how it worked and as BFR has said all the subsequent work on DNA and the then unknown work of Mendel show that he was right.
[cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite]Supposing Darwin was wrong ........ ?
;o)
Then Pascal's wager comes into operation...
Even though the existence of God cannot be determined you should bet on his existence. The theory being that if he does exist then you are safe in heaven for eternity after you shuffle off, if however he doesn't exist then you have lost nothing.
However you then have to guess which of the many religions is the right one...
Len - thanks for the link, intelligent design as a theory came out of the thorough demolition of creationism - to the point where there is nothing other than sheer blind faith in the face of a substantial body of growing evidence for evolution to sustain that theory. Simply there's now enough genetic, molecular, geological and other evidence that is totally consistent that proves that the earth is older than the 6,000 years claimed by creationists - for example fossils belonging to one era don't crop up before the animals from which they may evolved from - there are no inconsistencies or leaps in the imagination with evolution. Faced with this the religionists then came up with intelligent design - claiming that god had invented the fossils, the billions of years of history, the dinosaurs and other long extinct animals (no mention of them in the bible/koran is there?) as the explanation - this laughable theory of course still leaves god as the creator...
Evolution answers everything as to why and how we are here now, while intelligent design isn't just bad science, it's also bad theology.
Evolution answers everything as to why and how we are here now........ doesn't it?
If it answered everything, then there wouldn't be the inconsistancies and assumptions necessary in an attempt to provide a logical pathway. The evidence actually would be incontrovertible yet it's patently not.
Biblical creationists have their own points of view - yet also with inconsistancies of their own let alone the chronology, although we must 'assume' that's more figurative than a literal fact.
Even their own book of Genesis refers to God in the plural ...... so perhaps the god(s) in Genesis wasn't exactly the omnipresent people assume?
In fact the first 11 chapters of Genesis bear a remarkable similarity to the Sumerian 'Book of the Planets' albeit drastically abridged. References indicate that there was an awareness of looking downwards to the planet. It even refers to 'there were giants on the earth in those days' and 'the sons of God' came down and went with the daughters of men' - we might think it's just myth and fairy tales but just supposing there is no smoke without fire?
Draw your own conclusions, but some of the stuff written in Genesis and other records from ancient civilisations all over the world indicate there was knowledge available which is totally incongruent with the assumption that man was primitive and limited.
Let's face it, no matter how barbaric yet scientifically accomplished man believes himself to be, modern understanding and technology has equipped man today to be capable of creating and adapting living organisms, to the point of cloning himself and other life forms. So it's no big deal. Supposing it's all been done before?
Maybe that's why there is no missing link - it simply never existed!
So are the creationists correct or the evolutionists?
I suspect the truth, as always, is somewhere in between.
Oggy, that is good science fiction but poor science. Saying something might have happened but presenting no evidence is not science.
Len, to quote your article
"But Darwinism is no more than a theory, as yet unconfirmed by evidence,"
No, that is not true. It is not a theory it is scientific fact and it is supported by an immense amount of evidence. If anything the evince base has grown since Darwin wrote the Origin of species.
We know that species evolve. We can observe that in nature and in the breeding of dogs, race horses etc. That is not a theory it is a fact. We know that species evolve in the wild so there are many forms of similar animals that evolved from a single source. Again we have proof of this in Darwin's book from his study of finches and turtles in the Galapagos islands and now from the study of DNA
Darwin's genius was in pointing out for the first time how evolution happened eg through natural selection over many, many generations with useful mutations surviving.
I'm just suggesting that the god(s) of those first 11 chapters of Genesis, might not necessarily be the same God as proclaimed by Jesus.
Much of the biblical creation could be attempted by man today or within the reasonable future, the way knowledge and technology is rapidly progressing.
If man could do that today or soon, then just maybe it's been all done before?
Incidentally, reading the book of Genesis as a kind of 'history book' compared to a religious document provides a different perspective altogether - fascinating.
I hope I haven't come across as disrespectful of yours or anybody elses personal belief.
That wasn't my intention in any way.
Darwins theory proposed that evolution is about mutation, we live in a world today where anything outside the norm is seen as a threat. Childhood illness have to be irradicated by vaccination, yet are a major part of growing up, genetic engineering aims to create the perfect body , yet our imperfections and struggles are what we learn from. Long live an imperfect world which learns from its mistakes. Cmon you reds.
Mate my wife is a Budhist and a Thai Budhist. Tell her there is no such thing as a ghost and she would think your mad. Like saying there isnt night and day.
Never thought there was any disrespect or intention of it in your message.
I think (and note BFR i dont need some shpeal from the net) that there is a God what him/her or it is well God knows !! i know he is there tho. Dont believe in a heaven or hell , true evil exists in people as does true goodness.
Science may one day explain EVERYTHING . Faith is exactly that FAITH not certain, not an equation or in a text but a FAITH that there is something else.
Comments
I recommend the "God Delusion" for those interested and a lot of Dawkin's other stuff on evolutionary biology - The Selfish Gene and the Blind Watchamker etc are also very readable. But thanks for the reminder - I've got my folks to record the programme. From reading the reviews he does get stuck into the creationists and believers in intelligent design so the fundamentalists are likely to get upset.
Technically Darwin was really only a London Borough of Bromley resident than a Bromley resident - Downe or Biggin Hill have a greater claim to his residency than Bromley.
Very good!!
...........
He was buried in Westminster Abbey.
I bow to your superior knowledge. Apparently his family had lined up a grave in Downe prior to the Westminster burial, and I think there must be some marker there I remember seeing as a kid.
I think that was the idea and there might be a marker and/or a general Darwin family plot, but he was definitely planted in Westminster Cathedral.
Interesting. I was quoting Dawkins but I feel Darwin pips Einstein as Charlie explain what we are as human beings and how.
Would be good to have a CL poll on which scientific theory is the most powerful. Copernicus saying the earth revolves around the sun or the two above
But who's ideas had the greatest effect on the average person?
In terms of influence Darwin was probably the greater of the two in that when the "Origin of Species" was published in 1859 the worldview of most people revolved around the prevailing theory that the earth was around 6,000 years old and had created by God in a week as set out in Genesis. Darwin pointed out that creation, as described in the Bible and the origin accounts of other cultures, was contradicted by almost any aspect of the natural world. Philosophically the belief of the era was that our fate was pre-determined, Darwin contradicted this pointing out that natural selection was responsible for the difference in species and that gradual changes over time and in reaction to local circumstances were the driving factor.
Essentially Darwin founded a new branch of science - evolutionary biology that was revolutionary for its era and is still controversial today with many religions still refusing to believe in anything other than some variation on the creationist myth. As we discover more about genetics and even other scientific areas such as geology everything he set out has been proven to be correct. I wonder how much influence Einstein has had on the way we perceive our planet? A lot for sure but maybe Darwin's was greater and more revolutionary.
Westminster Abbey, not Cathedral (quite an important difference in the circs).
Yeah, he only lived in Downe. Used to catch the 146 bus every morning to work in Bromley, until he retired.
Yep, I even got the location correct up-thread...
Took him ages to finish that big Murial in market square about his life.
Charles Darwin
Lennie Lawrence
Jimmy Seed
All the greats live/lived in Bromley
I make you right.
Evolution as a theory existed before Darwin but no one could explain how it worked. Darwin's theory on origin of species showed how it worked and as BFR has said all the subsequent work on DNA and the then unknown work of Mendel show that he was right.
;o)
Then Pascal's wager comes into operation...
Even though the existence of God cannot be determined you should bet on his existence. The theory being that if he does exist then you are safe in heaven for eternity after you shuffle off, if however he doesn't exist then you have lost nothing.
However you then have to guess which of the many religions is the right one...
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XFGrQMD6Uqc
Might as well put a cat amongst the pigeons....
Evolution answers everything as to why and how we are here now, while intelligent design isn't just bad science, it's also bad theology.
If it answered everything, then there wouldn't be the inconsistancies and assumptions necessary in an attempt to provide a logical pathway. The evidence actually would be incontrovertible yet it's patently not.
Biblical creationists have their own points of view - yet also with inconsistancies of their own let alone the chronology, although we must 'assume' that's more figurative than a literal fact.
Even their own book of Genesis refers to God in the plural ...... so perhaps the god(s) in Genesis wasn't exactly the omnipresent people assume?
In fact the first 11 chapters of Genesis bear a remarkable similarity to the Sumerian 'Book of the Planets' albeit drastically abridged. References indicate that there was an awareness of looking downwards to the planet. It even refers to 'there were giants on the earth in those days' and 'the sons of God' came down and went with the daughters of men' - we might think it's just myth and fairy tales but just supposing there is no smoke without fire?
Draw your own conclusions, but some of the stuff written in Genesis and other records from ancient civilisations all over the world indicate there was knowledge available which is totally incongruent with the assumption that man was primitive and limited.
Let's face it, no matter how barbaric yet scientifically accomplished man believes himself to be, modern understanding and technology has equipped man today to be capable of creating and adapting living organisms, to the point of cloning himself and other life forms. So it's no big deal. Supposing it's all been done before?
Maybe that's why there is no missing link - it simply never existed!
So are the creationists correct or the evolutionists?
I suspect the truth, as always, is somewhere in between.
Ask darwin to explain evil and goodness how does evolution explain that.
Len, to quote your article
"But Darwinism is no more than a theory, as yet unconfirmed by evidence,"
No, that is not true. It is not a theory it is scientific fact and it is supported by an immense amount of evidence. If anything the evince base has grown since Darwin wrote the Origin of species.
We know that species evolve. We can observe that in nature and in the breeding of dogs, race horses etc. That is not a theory it is a fact. We know that species evolve in the wild so there are many forms of similar animals that evolved from a single source. Again we have proof of this in Darwin's book from his study of finches and turtles in the Galapagos islands and now from the study of DNA
Darwin's genius was in pointing out for the first time how evolution happened eg through natural selection over many, many generations with useful mutations surviving.
I'm just suggesting that the god(s) of those first 11 chapters of Genesis, might not necessarily be the same God as proclaimed by Jesus.
Much of the biblical creation could be attempted by man today or within the reasonable future, the way knowledge and technology is rapidly progressing.
If man could do that today or soon, then just maybe it's been all done before?
Incidentally, reading the book of Genesis as a kind of 'history book' compared to a religious document provides a different perspective altogether - fascinating.
I hope I haven't come across as disrespectful of yours or anybody elses personal belief.
That wasn't my intention in any way.
Ask darwin to explain evil and goodness how does evolution explain that.[/quote]
Darwin's dead so not really able to answer the question
More importantly evil and good are human concepts so you need to ask a philosopher rather than a biological scientist.
Never thought there was any disrespect or intention of it in your message.
I think (and note BFR i dont need some shpeal from the net) that there is a God what him/her or it is well God knows !! i know he is there tho. Dont believe in a heaven or hell , true evil exists in people as does true goodness.
Science may one day explain EVERYTHING . Faith is exactly that FAITH not certain, not an equation or in a text but a FAITH that there is something else.