Did Charles Darwin believe in his theory?

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,183
Sydney
#11
.
Creationists are basically shrunk mind to fit into a bad English translation of a book written for a bunch of barely literate camel jockeys , things had to be made simple for them to gasp concepts


there is no reason to believe God made a static creation , evolution is God handy-work in progress

( I suspect He ( She..IT ) is quite slack actually , setting the ball rolling setting the environment and watching the whole thing unfold sound like much less trouble than designing all the nitty-gritty details of urinary tracks and mating behavior
 

Angelica

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,643
Angel City
#12
Charles believed his theory unfortunately he failed to prove it. Evolutionists tend to fault creationists because we believe through faith yet they believe based on theory. Who saw the dinosaur turned into a bird 6 million years ago.

According to Science Daily a scientific method is based on collecting data through observation and experimentation. Where is the data Darwin collected through scientific observation and/or experimentations 6 million years ago to prove his theory. Man can only live for a few decades so how was he able to extract data from records millions of years ago.

Darwin believed in the change (cross-over) of kinds a canine, feline. human kind etc and there is a common link of species. Did evolution stop surely the process of animals turning into human such as a fish into human ought to continue right. Where is the observatable evidence

It seems to me that Evolutionists need leave faith for Christians provde proof of Darwin's theory.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2017
801
Colorado
#13
Technically, evolution is a theory ... not a fact. Like all other scientific theories, it is the best explanation of all the facts (fossil record, observed evolution in living animals, etc.). So far, in 150 yrs, no facts have appeared which make the theory invalid. As a reader of Okasha el Daly, I feel obligated to point out the earliest recorded mention of evolution & natural selection is around 2000 BC in Egypt.

I heard a scientist explaining "theory" on NPR. "It's a theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun. I would be very much surprised if it turned out to be the other way. The current theory fits all our calculations." <-- That must've been quite a while ago. It's hard to imagine they don't have pictures by now.

I'm a Christian, but I'm not a Bible fundamentalist. I have ZERO problems with evolution.

Creationists, as pointed out before, misquote statements about the non-evolution of the eye ... "it's too complicated." Which eye? What kind? Not only is there a fossil record of eye evolution, there is a fossil record of the many kinds of eyes on the planet right now. We have rods & cones in our eyes. Mantis shrimp have 7 different kinds of cells that perceive colors outside our range. Chameleon eyes are different than either. Parietal eyes in lizards & frogs are completely different than that. Light falls on a cell which gets converted to a nerve impulse: the similarity ends there.








On the website I got the chart, it said there are no fossilized eyes. What now?
 
Last edited:
Mar 2017
801
Colorado
#14
Charles believed his theory unfortunately he failed to prove it. Evolutionists tend to fault creationists because we believe through faith yet they believe based on theory. Who saw the dinosaur turned into a bird 6 million years ago.

According to Science Daily a scientific method is based on collecting data through observation and experimentation. Where is the data Darwin collected through scientific observation and/or experimentations 6 million years ago to prove his theory. Man can only live for a few decades so how was he able to extract data from records millions of years ago.

Darwin believed in the change (cross-over) of kinds a canine, feline. human kind etc and there is a common link of species. Did evolution stop surely the process of animals turning into human such as a fish into human ought to continue right. Where is the observatable evidence

It seems to me that Evolutionists need leave faith for Christians provde proof of Darwin's theory.
Where is Darwin's evidence? Darwin taxidermied all the 14 species of finch from the Galapagos, as well as some iguanas ... as well as his drawings from life including tortoises. Sadly, 150 yrs has not treated them well, but it's still possible to observe the skeletal features (mainly beaks) that Darwin used to illustrate his theories. The Galapagos islands are in the middle of nowhere, hard to get to. The finches are all clearly related, but all clearly different based on what they eat. There's the hard evidence: stuffed birds from tiny islands that aren't all the same, but exist no where else. Darwin formulated a theory to explain it.

Evolution does continue and has been observed in species that multiply rapidly. The classic example is fruit flies: Fruit fly mutation foretells 40 million years of evolution - Florida State University News
The flu virus that travels the winds of the world constantly evolves and is different every year and needs new vaccines.
Bacteria are constantly evolving to survive attack by antibiotics.
Evolution can be observed in some tiny fish populations that breed rapidly.

Every single species alive today suffers mutation in its DNA. Most of these are harmless, some are deadly to the individual, a very few bring some advantage over other individuals. Of the good ones, only a small percentage can actually be inherited. DNA isn't simple. Because the livestock industry breeds so many animals, they see a higher number of mutations than a normal population. Google: livestock monstrosities

ONE mechanism of evolution is mutation. An individual is born with something different from their parents. MOST OF THE TIME, this makes no difference. In order to make a difference, the trait has to be inherited by children and they have to have some sort of advantage over everyone else. This is why it generally occurs so slowly. Asians are typically lactose intolerant. Western Europeans typically are not, due to a history of famine where all the people who were lactose intolerant died out and the ones that could eat dairy products survived to have more children (this is natural selection, another mechanism, but wouldn't work without a lactose TOLERANT mutation). All blue Caucasian eyes are believed to be related to a single individual from the area around Turkey.

Darwin never believed, stated, or otherwise indicated any kind of "cross over" between animal species. This is a mis-statement.

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans and great apes share a common ancestor that was something not quite either.

Reptiles did not evolve from fish. Reptiles and fish had a common ancestor.

You and your fifth cousin did not evolve from each other. You have great-great-great-great grandparents in common. If someone along that line was a different race or ethnicity, there's some evolving there and you and your fifth cousin could be quite different genetically.

All vertebrates have a skeleton where limbs are terminated with five digits. Created that way? Actually, in the Devonian, there was quite a variety. For whatever reason, the creatures with 7 and 9 digits didn't succeed. There were no mammals wandering around at that time. Where did they come from? Mammals and reptiles share a common ancestor that happened to be one with five digits ... it wasn't a reptile, and wasn't a mammal.

All vertebrates have a spinal column. It's possible to trace that through the fossil record, one stage at a time, back to this thing:

This is the kind of thing a common ancestor looks like: very little resemblance to the final animals. Now, it IS possible that instead of this being our direct ancestor, we're related to something else that hasn't been found yet ... but it would be something very, very similar because that's what the trail of fossils tells us.

It's possible to find fossil after fossil after fossil that shows just a hint of a nerve chord very slowly changing into a structure that a dinosaur could use, and that allowed little proto-mammals to scurry around.

Put your finger on the bone just above your jaw: it runs from below your eye to your ear. It's called the zigomorphic arch. It's possible to follow this single bone as it evolves through the fossil record. It can be found in every vertebrate .... sometimes it's just a bump where it's not needed, sometimes it's a huge flaring arch.

Very early in the development of life, the basic toolkit of a vertebrate was developed. They all have the same parts, just combined and modified differently. If you were to "intelligent design" any given modern day animal, you could do a superior engineering job over the way they exist. You'd get rid of stuff that's unused, and improve the stuff that is. Do you eat chicken wings? Those four little digits at the end serve no purpose whatsoever to the chicken, they're all fused.

How many digits does a horse have? One big toe? No. Five ... some are shrunken, some are recombined.
How many digits does a deer/elk have? Two? No. Five ... some are shrunken.
How many digits does a pig have? Four? No. Five .. one is shrunken & moved up.
Dogs have four claws that they walk on ... and a pesky dew claw that gets in the way and catches things, sometimes breaking.
A bat has a pretty understandable wing: 3 digits hold the wing, a thumb sticks up and the 4th digit is still there shrunken and fused.
Whales have vestigial legs (with 5 digits) buried in flesh of their back ends.

It's all the same structures ... bent, twisted, hollowed, fused, stretched, shrunken. Look at the back leg of a dog. There isn't an extra bone between the "shin" and the paw ... the ankle has been stretched WAY out to make the structure that was needed.

If you actually compare skeletons over time, you can see how bones change to suit the lifestyle of an animal. Carl Linnaeus invented the taxonomy system we use to classify animals, pretty much based on how they look. The classification details have been changed many times, adjusting to improved scientific techniques. ONE of them is skeletal features, because it's so easy to show how they evolve.

There isn't one birdlike dinosaur sitting next to a bird in the fossil record. There are a series of more and more and more birdlike skeletons stretching out over time. If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, people generally call it a duck. Eventually some bird-like dinos got so birdlike it's difficult to tell them from birds. Late in the fossil record, there's a fossil described as "chicken-like": no one says "it's a chicken", but it's very close on a lot of features.

It's not clear to me why religious faith and evolution can't exist side by side. Couldn't your Creator set the wheels in motion? Isn't that an incredibly awesome feat ... from nothing? Everything? The laws of physics? The laws of genetics & evolution? Does it really stretch your faith to say the Creator established all the rules of the game and then said, "Now deal with what I setup." Isn't that what free will is about?

I think the theory of evolution is the best explanation for the hard evidence we have sitting in museums all over the world. I have no problems saying a Creator kicked the whole thing off ... created a magnificent SYSTEM, as opposed to one thing at a time.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2017
801
Colorado
#15
Call out to "Religious Historians"

I have heard that in the 1800's some religious types looked at all the animal species around the world and came to the conclusion that a single "creation event" couldn't explain it all.

A formal theory developed, still bounded by Bible fundamentalism, which required ... 7? ... separate centers of creation. Or was it 3? I don't know if they were supposed to occur at the same instant, or if it was a serial thing.

I haven't figured out the correct search terms to find a reference.

Can anyone give me more information on this? Thanks.
 
Jul 2012
2,734
Dhaka
#16
.
the other was Lamark's ...that ultimately it is the behavior of an organism which determine and re-inforce a physical trait , both the behavior and inproved trait is passed down it's descendants
Wrong. Change in behavior doesn't make change in DNA, and thus doesn't pass down descendants.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,183
Sydney
#17
.
That's not quite this , behavior determine what changes are beneficial

a ground animal scrounging for food in shallow water would have a selective vector toward webbed feet

an herbivorous browser would have a selective direction toward longer neck

burrowing behavior doesn't favor longer limbs



the essence of the theory is that any random mutation must pass the test of usefulness in the life of the organism

In Australia feral cats have simply exploded in number but some specialize in some prey and transmit this hunting behavior to their young , there are who grow larger (much larger) while some bird hunters remain lithe , the type of food available depend on the terrain and shape the behavior
 

Angelica

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,643
Angel City
#18
Where is the proof? Show me the data that was collected millions of years ago for him to form his hypothesis.

Merely a theory yet to be proven.
 
Last edited:

Angelica

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,643
Angel City
#20
Your own DNA. We share 99% of it with other primates; evolution explains how and why. That's what theories do; explain phenomena.
You did not answer my question did you see the change within the species. Were you there did anyone witness it. I am merely looking for observatable concrete evidence. Did you witness the change or more importantly did Darwin witness the change from primate to human.