Did Charles Darwin believe in his theory?

Mar 2017
873
Colorado
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.
Yes, you can follow the fossil skeletons from the time there was a not-a-primate which evolved into a proto-primate which split off into the branches we see today.

The Krakatoa volcano erupted in 1883. I wasn't there, but I can prove that it happened. There is volcanic ash and other volcanic fallout distributed all over the world which can chemically be identified as part of that volcano. You don't have to witness something with your own two eyes to prove that it happened if you have evidence ... ESPECIALLY in the rocks.

Humans are subject to the evolutionary mechanism of mutation, STILL. Why don't we change to something else? Because many babies that would have died in the past live long enough to have children and pass on their "bad" genes. Modern medicine defeats natural selection. Why do you think the Danes are pale, and Africans in the interior are dark? They started out that way? It has been demonstrated multiple times that at one time all humans were dark, migrated from the African continent, and natural selection acted on random mutations to favor lighter skin in the northern races.

Again, while medicine defeats natural selection, mutations still occur at a statistically predictable rate:
Siamese twins
Extra limbs, extra fingers, amount of hair
The BRCE mutation is carried by many Ashkenazi Jews, which tends to kill women with various cancers after their childbearing years
Sickle cell anemia is a genetic mutation causing various heart/blood problems, but it evolved on the African continent through natural selection because it gives some resistance to malaria
Thalassemia is a similar mutation, at one time present in all Mediterranean races ... again providing some resistance to malaria while causing blood problems.
Something like 20% of all human pregnancies are terminated by the mother's body because some chemical signals didn't match correctly (some of this is due to mutation).
The Pima Native Americans are one of the races/ethnicities that carry the "thrifty" gene ... evolved to a feast-or-famine environment, they turn every spare calorie into fat to carry them over periods of starvation (no longer a part of their culture, so the gene works against them making them "naturally" tend towards obesity).

Evolution is the only theory that explains all the evidence: not paper, not stuffy scholars harrumphing in cozy chairs ... evidence preserved in hard rocks. Evolution continues at this current time and can be observed in other species. Humans are the only animals that defeat evolution by using medical science.

There is a family of Mexican circus performers that all share an inherited gene mutation for being hairy ... all over ... it never stops growing. There's no advantage to it ... and one can argue that people are repulsed by it ... so natural selection filters it out.


This same mutation has appeared sporadically through history, indicating that some mutations may be random, but some are more likely to happen than others. This is not a "disease", it's an inheritable genetic mutation.

Jojo the Dog Faced Boy (Russian)


Lionel the Lion-Faced Man (USA)


T'ai Djin, Kung Fu Master (China)


Evolution is the best explanation of the past, and can be currently observed.

What would happen if modern medicine and others didn't step in to help the Pima's with their obesity? They would eventually die out from obesity related problems. This would be natural selection at work. An inherited trait that actually harms individuals would be filtered out of the world population. When they lived primitively in a resource scarce area, this exact trait is what let them survive when others did not.
 
Last edited:

ameteurhistorian

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
2,512
USA
You did not answer my question did you see the change within the species.
Humans and other primates are different species that came about from a common ancestor.

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.
You know what you're talking about here. Darwin first of all didn't talk about human evolution but focused primarily on birds and reptiles; only later with sufficient evidence did people extend that model to our own species.

We don't need to observe something for it to exist. We've never seen a star become black hole but we know how black holes form. We've never seen the universe expand by we know how and why the universe is expanding, and so on.
 

Angelica

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,753
Angel City
Yes, you can follow the fossil skeletons from the time there was a not-a-primate which evolved into a proto-primate which split off into the branches we see today.

The Krakatoa volcano erupted in 1883. I wasn't there, but I can prove that it happened. There is volcanic ash and other volcanic fallout distributed all over the world which can chemically be identified as part of that volcano. You don't have to witness something with your own two eyes to prove that it happened if you have evidence ... ESPECIALLY in the rocks.

Humans are subject to the evolutionary mechanism of mutation, STILL. Why don't we change to something else? Because many babies that would have died in the past live long enough to have children and pass on their "bad" genes. Modern medicine defeats natural selection. Why do you think the Danes are pale, and Africans in the interior are dark? They started out that way? It has been demonstrated multiple times that at one time all humans were dark, migrated from the African continent, and natural selection acted on random mutations to favor lighter skin in the northern races.

Again, while medicine defeats natural selection, mutations still occur at a statistically predictable rate:
Siamese twins
Extra limbs, extra fingers, amount of hair
The BRCE mutation is carried by many Ashkenazi Jews, which tends to kill women with various cancers after their childbearing years
Sickle cell anemia is a genetic mutation causing various heart/blood problems, but it evolved on the African continent through natural selection because it gives some resistance to malaria
Thalassemia is a similar mutation, at one time present in all Mediterranean races ... again providing some resistance to malaria while causing blood problems.
Something like 20% of all human pregnancies are terminated by the mother's body because some chemical signals didn't match correctly (some of this is due to mutation).
The Pima Native Americans are one of the races/ethnicities that carry the "thrifty" gene ... evolved to a feast-or-famine environment, they turn every spare calorie into fat to carry them over periods of starvation (no longer a part of their culture, so the gene works against them making them "naturally" tend towards obesity).

Evolution is the only theory that explains all the evidence: not paper, not stuffy scholars harrumphing in cozy chairs ... evidence preserved in hard rocks. Evolution continues at this current time and can be observed in other species. Humans are the only animals that defeat evolution by using medical science.

There is a family of Mexican circus performers that all share an inherited gene mutation for being hairy ... all over ... it never stops growing. There's no advantage to it ... and one can argue that people are repulsed by it ... so natural selection filters it out.


This same mutation has appeared sporadically through history, indicating that some mutations may be random, but some are more likely to happen than others. This is not a "disease", it's an inheritable genetic mutation.

Jojo the Dog Faced Boy (Russian)


Lionel the Lion-Faced Man (USA)


T'ai Djin, Kung Fu Master (China)


Evolution is the best explanation of the past, and can be currently observed.

What would happen if modern medicine and others didn't step in to help the Pima's with their obesity? They would eventually die out from obesity related problems. This would be natural selection at work. An inherited trait that actually harms individuals would be filtered out of the world population. When they lived primitively in a resource scarce area, this exact trait is what let them survive when others did not.
Hair is natural if they sprout feathers I'll be forced to rethink it.
 
Mar 2017
873
Colorado
Were you there did anyone witness it.
You know that no humans were around to watch humans evolving. That's a contradiction. Darwin was trying to explain how living breathing birds in front of his eyes had possibly come about ... sometime in the past.

If you get a job at this place, you can watch evolution happening before your eyes.
Fruit fly mutation foretells 40 million years of evolution - Florida State University News

If evolution is possible *NOW* ... while you watch it with your own two eyes ... it's reasonable to accept that it might have happened in the past.
 

Angelica

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,753
Angel City
Humans and other primates are different species that came about from a common ancestor.



You know what you're talking about here. Darwin first of all didn't talk about human evolution but focused primarily on birds and reptiles; only later with sufficient evidence did people extend that model to our own species.

We don't need to observe something for it to exist. We've never seen a star become black hole but we know how black holes form. We've never seen the universe expand by we know how and why the universe is expanding, and so on.
You observe for confirmation...you don't know if an apple is sweet unless you taste. Of course you may infer however there is no surety until you taste it. Extrapolation does not provide certainty it gives way to speculation.

Each species is bound to its consistency and never beyond it. Science cannot assert when it started they merely extrapolated and formed a theory based on modern study. Despite the fact they alluded to millions of years prior. Their theory ought to be furnished by concrete proof not conjectures.

The law of physics suggest every action produces a action for every tree there is a seed. If man came from primates who created the primate show the proof of change of kind and not textbook theories. A primate is still a primate there is no change of kind. Why aren't apes still evolving into humans? As stated there is no proof merely theories.
 
Last edited:

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,309
You observe for confirmation...you don't know if an apple is sweet unless you taste. Of course you may infer however there is no surety until you taste it. Extrapolation does not provide certainty it gives way to speculation.

Each species is bound to its consistency and never beyond it. Science cannot assert when it started they merely extrapolated and formed a theory based on modern study. Despite the fact they alluded to millions of years prior. Their theory ought to be furnished by concrete proof not conjectures.

The law of physics suggest every action produces a action for every tree there is a seed. If man came from primates who created the primate show the proof of change of kind and not textbook theories. A primate is still a primate there is no change of kind. Why aren't apes still evolving into humans? As stated there is no proof merely theories.

Physics breaks down at infinity, a.k.a, singularities. So your analogy does not say what you are trying to say.

We don't prove theories. We try to refute them.

Most people have the concept of how science operates entirely backwards.

BTW, the mode of questioning that you have been engaged in is "verificationism." Karl Popper showed that verificationism is inclined toward false assumptions.

As Popper said, there are superstitious beliefs and popular almanacs that have more to do with observation and induction than some popular and well accepted theories of science.

I posit that no one has proven the ToE yet. However, it has been a 150 years and the ToE has fallen in line with every advancement of science from genetics to fetal development to DNA dynamics.

Darwins theory is so powerful that it anticipated methods of refutability that Darwin did not know even existed.

Personally, I think your questions are spot on. You have an understanding of what science is and you are going to keep pushing until you get the answer that makes sense to you. That is how science works. Just be careful that you don't overlook or dismiss responses that actually address your questions.
 

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,309
You observe for confirmation...you don't know if an apple is sweet unless you taste. Of course you may infer however there is no surety until you taste it. Extrapolation does not provide certainty it gives way to speculation.
Speculation, yes, but better, is a systematic theory. All the while, keeping in mind that during the observational stage of our inquiry, we may not be interpreting what we see correctly.

Because also, let's be honest, we are going to try and attempt to find out answers to things that we will not be able to observe.

For instance, we can't observe gravity. But we can damn sure test it.

So, we don't "observe" for confirmation, we "observe" to refute some part of a theory.

Again, WE DO NOT SEEK TO PROVE THEORIES. We seek to destroy them. We want to rip their guts out and stomp on them.

So, then, there is this theory of evolution that is just hanging around for over a century that we just cannot refute no matter how hard we try.

If you can get that part highlighted above, you will be in the top 1% of all the human beings on earth who understand how science works. Well, at least according to K. Popper. Who, I might add, is our state of the art guide to the philosophy of science.

Okay, I made the 1% thing up.
 

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,309
Their theory ought to be furnished by concrete proof not conjectures.
There is no such thing as a concrete proof when it comes to a scientific theory.

All scientific theories are conjectures just waiting to be refuted.

"Conjectures"

Interesting that you use that word.

RE: Conjectures and Refutation: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, Karl Popper, first edition 1963.
 

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,333
Dhaka
.
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

On DNA level, a change from toe-ed feet to webbed feet would require coordinated changes in dozens (if not hundreds) of nucleotides spaced millions of base-pairs away from each other in the DNA strand. Chances of happening that thru random SNP mutations is probably 1 in one million-trillion or any such absurd number.
 

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,309
As stated there is no proof merely theories.
BINGO ! You are 100% correct !

I could not have said it better.

And, when we prove a theory wrong we will move on to the next theory, or, we will just be without a theory.