Calico Site (California, +/- 200K Ago)

[uniface]

Darwin, IMHO, isn't so much the issue as the behavior of those to whom he's the Moses-like Lawgiver.

Darwin the theorist is fine. Theories stand, are modified or fall on evidence. It doesn't get sticky until he's beatified into "Saint Darwin," as it were.

[Digit]

It's an unfortunate fact Min that most of Darwin's diciples and detractors have never actually read what he wrote, usually quoting what later people claim he 'meant!'

Roy.

[uniface]

But Darwin, writing 150 years ago, predicted what the fossil record would show. Museums are now full of the results.

[I won't be ducking out of this interesting discussion -- I'm due 100 miles from here in a few hours. Will return tonight or tomorrow]

Yes and No, Min. Much can be said in support of the Yes side. But in fairness, "transitional forms" are conspicuous by their absence.

The more intelligent, knowledgeable and honest creationists have covered this sort of thing fairly well.

Can creationists point to the same museum-housed evidence in support ? Unfortunately, not, given the strange tendency of evidence contradicting the ruling dogma donated to museums to disappear without a trace. And worse ; to never be published at all, lest the wrath of das club be kindled against the investigator. E.g. : the stockbroker of a friend was one of the excavators at Russell Cave. Where he saw a seven foot skeleton turn up. (There have been a surprising number of these over the years).

[Digit]

"transitional forms" are conspicuous by their absence.

Depends on what is meant by transitional forms.
Some time ago, in a well reported experiment, scientists, by a single genetic change, changed a twin chambered heart in a Sea Cucumber? to a much more efficient three chambered heart.
If it had been released into the wild its ability to reproduce would not have been affected, some of its offspring would have had the same adaption, had there then been a reduction in the oxygen content of it environment, for example, those with the three chamber heart would have had an edge.
The difference would not have fossilised, but over time it would have superseeded its twin chambered predecessors, and we would not know the difference.

Roy.

[hardaker]

Hi Min,
HSS at 400k, Tanzania? Can you give me a link? I'd heard of 190k from Omo (?), but this doubles that. Is it a tech designation, or are there bones? Both? As a cheerleader for Valsequillo, it sure would help if Saps are that old; Lake Chappala as well, (the prounounced orbit frag).

[Minimalist]

Hi Min,
HSS at 400k, Tanzania? Can you give me a link? I'd heard of 190k from Omo (?), but this doubles that. Is it a tech designation, or are there bones? Both? As a cheerleader for Valsequillo, it sure would help if Saps are that old; Lake Chappala as well, (the prounounced orbit frag).

I may have missed by 100,000 years or so...told you that Ny Quil messes me up. This contains a reference to a find in Tanzania in the 300,000 ypb range.

http://australianmuseum.net.au/Homo-sap ... ern-humans


Still on the far side of Valsequillo, though again I don't see why it matters. HE had tools, too.

[Minimalist]

Darwin, IMHO, isn't so much the issue as the behavior of those to whom he's the Moses-like Lawgiver.

Darwin the theorist is fine. Theories stand, are modified or fall on evidence. It doesn't get sticky until he's beatified into "Saint Darwin," as it were.

Certainly no one could argue with that but just because someone is a "founder" does not mean that their original work is still relevant to the discussion. Lots of Syro-Palestinian archaeologists pay homage to Robinson and Albright while at the same time distancing themselves from their early assertions. What relevance do the Wright Brothers have to space flight? Darwin is in the same boat. He had a great idea but events and subsequent finds have passed him by.

[Digit]

Certainly no one could argue with that but just because someone is a "founder" does not mean that their original work is still relevant to the discussion.

True. But despite all the hype I have yet to see one piece of evidence that dents Darwin.
Till I do I must accept that he was broadly correct.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

"Broadly" being the keyword. As Darwin noted in his recapitulation:

That many and grave objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through natural selection, I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give to them their full force. Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following propositions, namely, -- that gradations in the perfection of any organ or instinct, which we may consider, either do now exist or could have existed, each good of its kind, -- that all organs and instincts are, in ever so slight a degree, variable, -- and, lastly, that there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of each profitable deviation of structure or instinct. The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed.

Did he understand or even suspect the mechanism for genetic transmission? I doubt it. Mendel's work was only published in 1865 and not widely known for another 25 years. But does it even matter? The name "Darwin" makes a useful slogan for the nutjobs to rail against. However the science and the technology has moved far beyond his initial vision.

[Digit]

Mendels work was unkown to Darwin, he used the term 'variation' to describe what we would call genetic differences.
And there is no need for these variations to grant any advantage to a species or a specimen. These changes are simply 'waiting in the wings' till their time is come.

Roy.

[JSteen]

I don't understand the fixation on Charles Darwin. The point is the scientific theory of evolution. Either a person accepts that it explains life and speciation as understood by science today or they don't. Of course there are issues in the details, there is so much left to learn, but in main, does one accept evolution or not?

Those that fixate on Darwin - are they saying something else? That they accept evolution but not something Darwin wrote about it? Or are they saying they reject evolution and for some reason are using the word "Darwinism" instead of "evolution?" And if so, why make it about Charles Darwin?

[Digit]

but in main, does one accept evolution or not?

That sums up my argument on Ishtar's forum, there may be problems with the small print, but that's all. But then that also applies to many scientific theories, right or wrong, it's the best we have to date,

Roy.

[Minimalist]

The point is the scientific theory of evolution. Either a person accepts that it explains life and speciation as understood by science today or they don't.

Thank you for succinctly putting the question, J.

[Minimalist]

I've currently got a debate going on Darwin with Ish, and others as well.
Poor old Darwin gets the blame for everything, mostly things he never claimed I might add.

I took a peek at it, Dig. I see what you mean.

So...when exactly did Charles Darwin discover DNA? I always thought that he'd been dead for quite a while before that little gem came out?

[uniface]

Some time ago, in a well reported experiment, scientists, by a single genetic change, changed a twin chambered heart in a Sea Cucumber? to a much more efficient three chambered heart.
If it had been released into the wild its ability to reproduce would not have been affected, some of its offspring would have had the same adaption, had there then been a reduction in the oxygen content of it environment, for example, those with the three chamber heart would have had an edge.

Interesting that you go to intervention by a higher life form. I love it ! We're on the same page, then (?)

As I see it, we were released into the wild.