Comments on: A review of “On the Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/22/a-review-of-on-the-origin-of-species-by-charles-darwin/ Skepticism. Critical thinking. Podcast. Community. Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:46:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Stephen B Lyndon http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/22/a-review-of-on-the-origin-of-species-by-charles-darwin/comment-page-1/#comment-5487 Stephen B Lyndon Sat, 06 Mar 2010 22:47:27 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1662#comment-5487 My blog: www.evillusion.net My blog: http://www.evillusion.net

]]> By: Stephen B Lyndon http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/22/a-review-of-on-the-origin-of-species-by-charles-darwin/comment-page-1/#comment-5486 Stephen B Lyndon Sat, 06 Mar 2010 22:46:41 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1662#comment-5486 Not believing is still in the "believing category". I believe that evolution is hogwash. So that is a belief. My best answer for you would be to have you give the first page of my blog a look. If you are really curious. And discuss if you like. I ask evos to tell me where I am wrong. And I am sincere.  I haven't had much luck with that yet. I am completely fascinated with this subject. The greatest Puzzle ever.  Ever. I was an enthusiastic evolution supporter for many years. Just like you. Until I did some objective study on the subject triggered by a visit the the Field Museum in Chicago. Which is why I commented on this blog.  It is titled "Skeptic" , but it is not skeptical.  I consider myself a full skeptic. The skeptics here are selective.  Skeptic there, not here. Religion, not evolution. Right? Anyway, the first page of my blog will be much better than trying to detail an answer.   Not believing is still in the “believing category”. I believe that evolution is hogwash. So that is a belief. My best answer for you would be to have you give the first page of my blog a look. If you are really curious. And discuss if you like. I ask evos to tell me where I am wrong. And I am sincere.  I haven’t had much luck with that yet.
I am completely fascinated with this subject. The greatest Puzzle ever.  Ever. I was an enthusiastic evolution supporter for many years. Just like you. Until I did some objective study on the subject triggered by a visit the the Field Museum in Chicago. Which is why I commented on this blog.  It is titled “Skeptic” , but it is not skeptical.  I consider myself a full skeptic. The skeptics here are selective.  Skeptic there, not here. Religion, not evolution. Right? Anyway, the first page of my blog will be much better than trying to detail an answer.
 

]]> By: Gerald Guild http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/22/a-review-of-on-the-origin-of-species-by-charles-darwin/comment-page-1/#comment-5485 Gerald Guild Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:28:13 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1662#comment-5485 Stephen, You wrote: "What I believe: That organisms selectively dying or being killed, selectively procreating, and Non-Occurring Good Mutations,ones that can form healthy utilitarian cells, and tissues, in just the right location, in just the right amount, in just the right shape, cannot possibly form all of nature and it’s incredible systems." This is more of a statement of what you don't believe.  I am curious to know what you do believe accounts for the vast diversity of life. Not ID, not evolution.  Then what???? Stephen,
You wrote:
“What I believe:
That organisms selectively dying or being killed, selectively procreating, and Non-Occurring Good Mutations,ones that can form healthy utilitarian cells, and tissues, in just the right location, in just the right amount, in just the right shape, cannot possibly form all of nature and it’s incredible systems.”
This is more of a statement of what you don’t believe.  I am curious to know what you do believe accounts for the vast diversity of life. Not ID, not evolution.  Then what????

]]> By: Stephen B Lyndon http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/22/a-review-of-on-the-origin-of-species-by-charles-darwin/comment-page-1/#comment-5483 Stephen B Lyndon Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:56:21 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1662#comment-5483 Roger that. I came to your site because of the photo of "Origin" from google images. I wasn't out looking for a fight. I have a blog on this subject as well, and I enjoy respectful comments from any side. Regards Steve Roger that. I came to your site because of the photo of “Origin” from google images. I wasn’t out looking for a fight. I have a blog on this subject as well, and I enjoy respectful comments from any side.
Regards
Steve

]]> By: Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/22/a-review-of-on-the-origin-of-species-by-charles-darwin/comment-page-1/#comment-5482 Andy Kaiser Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:50:05 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1662#comment-5482 <p>Stephen,</p> <p>Fair enough. While I only agree with your last point, I respect your opinion. Thank you for giving the detail.</p> <p>Andy</p> Stephen,

Fair enough. While I only agree with your last point, I respect your opinion. Thank you for giving the detail.

Andy

]]> By: Stephen B Lyndon http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/22/a-review-of-on-the-origin-of-species-by-charles-darwin/comment-page-1/#comment-5481 Stephen B Lyndon Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:34:16 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1662#comment-5481 What I believe: That organisms selectively dying or being killed, selectively procreating, and Non-Occurring Good Mutations,ones that can form healthy utilitarian cells, and tissues, in just the right location, in just the right amount, in just the right shape, cannot possibly form all of nature and it's incredible systems. That people, including scientists, who think it can have lost their ability to be skeptical and reason objectively. Like you. You think you are skeptical, but you got suckered by this absurd "science." You are a religion skeptic, and not an evolution skeptic. So, not a skeptic at all. That religion cannot be part of a scientific discussion, so any religious argument is moot. If you wish to respond, please don't waste any time on religion. What I believe:
That organisms selectively dying or being killed, selectively procreating, and Non-Occurring Good Mutations,ones that can form healthy utilitarian cells, and tissues, in just the right location, in just the right amount, in just the right shape, cannot possibly form all of nature and it’s incredible systems.
That people, including scientists, who think it can have lost their ability to be skeptical and reason objectively. Like you. You think you are skeptical, but you got suckered by this absurd “science.” You are a religion skeptic, and not an evolution skeptic. So, not a skeptic at all.
That religion cannot be part of a scientific discussion, so any religious argument is moot. If you wish to respond, please don’t waste any time on religion.

]]> By: Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/22/a-review-of-on-the-origin-of-species-by-charles-darwin/comment-page-1/#comment-5480 Andy Kaiser Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:06:47 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1662#comment-5480 <p><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; line-height: 22px; color: #333333;"><em>>You wouldn’t fall for either: religion or Darwin</em>.</span></p> <p>Interesting opinion, Stephen. It's one thing to come on to a site and just say "everyone's wrong". Now that you've made that clear, tell us: what do *you* believe?</p> >You wouldn’t fall for either: religion or Darwin.

Interesting opinion, Stephen. It’s one thing to come on to a site and just say “everyone’s wrong”. Now that you’ve made that clear, tell us: what do *you* believe?

]]> By: Stephen B Lyndon http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/22/a-review-of-on-the-origin-of-species-by-charles-darwin/comment-page-1/#comment-5478 Stephen B Lyndon Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:03:37 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1662#comment-5478 You call yourself a skeptic, while you show you are not in the least. You have fallen for a hoax. Your skepticism means you are a religious skeptic, not a real skeptic. If you looked a Darwin's stuff, and the current non-evidence for evolution, and were truly skeptical, you would be like me. You wouldn't fall for either: religion or Darwin. You call yourself a skeptic, while you show you are not in the least. You have fallen for a hoax. Your skepticism means you are a religious skeptic, not a real skeptic. If you looked a Darwin’s stuff, and the current non-evidence for evolution, and were truly skeptical, you would be like me. You wouldn’t fall for either: religion or Darwin.

]]> By: Gerald Guild http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/22/a-review-of-on-the-origin-of-species-by-charles-darwin/comment-page-1/#comment-5114 Gerald Guild Mon, 04 Jan 2010 02:28:30 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1662#comment-5114 I too recently finished reading this remarkable book.  I was overwhelmed by the breadth and depth of Darwin's knowledge as he put forth his evidence.  He saw evidence for mechanisms not established for many decades to come (e.g., DNA, plate techtonics).  I was also struck by his humility as he DETAILED his theory. Nice review! I too recently finished reading this remarkable book.  I was overwhelmed by the breadth and depth of Darwin’s knowledge as he put forth his evidence.  He saw evidence for mechanisms not established for many decades to come (e.g., DNA, plate techtonics).  I was also struck by his humility as he DETAILED his theory. Nice review!

]]> By: Ryan http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/22/a-review-of-on-the-origin-of-species-by-charles-darwin/comment-page-1/#comment-5038 Ryan Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:33:20 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1662#comment-5038 "This can be answered much more simply by stating that the ToE does not support <em>homo sapiens</em> coming from monkeys. the ToE is about common ancestry…in fact there is new evidence suggesting that chimps (which are actually apes) have w/ respect to their previous form evolved just as much as humans  since the split ~ 6.5 mya. the LCA is beginning to take a much different morphology than previously thought, and it decidedly less apelike." In a sense that is correct. Human beings, of course, did not evolve from any modern day species or any species that lived within the past few thousand years. However, what humans did ultimately evolve from is a quadrupedal, small brained, hairy primate, which most folks would label a "monkey". I agree that it is not clear that the savannah story is true (I think most recent evidence suggests that is not). However, it is useful to illustrate the main point, which is, as you stated: "It is clear that in the present day humans and chimps occupy separate and distinct niches and your point is still intact that different selective pressures must have been operating on each to cause this. what is not longer so clear is what happened in the distant past to bring us to our current 'standing'." Anyway, thanks for the comment and I hope you enjoyed the review! “This can be answered much more simply by stating that the ToE does not support homo sapiens coming from monkeys. the ToE is about common ancestry…in fact there is new evidence suggesting that chimps (which are actually apes) have w/ respect to their previous form evolved just as much as humans  since the split ~ 6.5 mya. the LCA is beginning to take a much different morphology than previously thought, and it decidedly less apelike.”

In a sense that is correct. Human beings, of course, did not evolve from any modern day species or any species that lived within the past few thousand years. However, what humans did ultimately evolve from is a quadrupedal, small brained, hairy primate, which most folks would label a “monkey”.

I agree that it is not clear that the savannah story is true (I think most recent evidence suggests that is not). However, it is useful to illustrate the main point, which is, as you stated:

“It is clear that in the present day humans and chimps occupy separate and distinct niches and your point is still intact that different selective pressures must have been operating on each to cause this. what is not longer so clear is what happened in the distant past to bring us to our current ‘standing’.”

Anyway, thanks for the comment and I hope you enjoyed the review!

]]> By: nate http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/22/a-review-of-on-the-origin-of-species-by-charles-darwin/comment-page-1/#comment-5034 nate Tue, 08 Dec 2009 19:59:05 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1662#comment-5034 overall nice review...two quick pts though: "Take the old creationist chestnut, “If people came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”" this can be answered much more simply by stating that the ToE does not support <em>homo sapiens</em> coming from monkeys. the ToE is about common ancestry...in fact there is new evidence suggesting that chimps (which are actually apes) have w/ respect to their previous form evolved just as much as humans  since the split ~ 6.5 mya. the LCA is beginning to take a much different morphology than previously thought, and it decidedly less apelike.   "Chimps and humans are different because their ancestors lived in different environments and were subject to different selective pressures." w/ the publication of the analysis of the <em>ardipithecus ramidus </em>remains recently in <em>Science </em>this "just so" story is undergoing an overhaul. anatomical features of ardi suggest bipedality was already in an advanced form ~4.5 mya. this infers that the common ancestor between us and chimps was likely bipedal. furthermore, faunal and floral remains found in context, as well as anatomical traits suggest a part time arboreal creature...a far cry from the savannahs that were once thought to be exclusive breeding grounds for modern humans. chimps are being thought of as sharing a bipedal or partially bipedal common ancestor w/  humans and having more recently developed their present locomotion. in a reversal it's beginning to look more like the chimps took to the trees rather than the humans to the ground. it is clear that in the present day humans and chimps occupy separate and distinct niches and your point is still intact that different selective pressures must have been operating on each to cause this. what is not longer so clear is what happened in the distant past to bring us to our current "standing".   overall nice review…two quick pts though:
“Take the old creationist chestnut, “If people came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?””
this can be answered much more simply by stating that the ToE does not support homo sapiens coming from monkeys. the ToE is about common ancestry…in fact there is new evidence suggesting that chimps (which are actually apes) have w/ respect to their previous form evolved just as much as humans  since the split ~ 6.5 mya. the LCA is beginning to take a much different morphology than previously thought, and it decidedly less apelike.
 
“Chimps and humans are different because their ancestors lived in different environments and were subject to different selective pressures.”
w/ the publication of the analysis of the ardipithecus ramidus remains recently in Science this “just so” story is undergoing an overhaul. anatomical features of ardi suggest bipedality was already in an advanced form ~4.5 mya. this infers that the common ancestor between us and chimps was likely bipedal. furthermore, faunal and floral remains found in context, as well as anatomical traits suggest a part time arboreal creature…a far cry from the savannahs that were once thought to be exclusive breeding grounds for modern humans. chimps are being thought of as sharing a bipedal or partially bipedal common ancestor w/  humans and having more recently developed their present locomotion. in a reversal it’s beginning to look more like the chimps took to the trees rather than the humans to the ground.
it is clear that in the present day humans and chimps occupy separate and distinct niches and your point is still intact that different selective pressures must have been operating on each to cause this. what is not longer so clear is what happened in the distant past to bring us to our current “standing”.
 

]]> By: Jason http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/22/a-review-of-on-the-origin-of-species-by-charles-darwin/comment-page-1/#comment-5013 Jason Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:54:03 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1662#comment-5013 Great review.  I read it earlier this year, in time for his 200th birthday on Feb 12.  The prose was somewhat meandering (normal for the time of course), but the thoroughness of the argument and evidence he put forth were remarkable.  I think it's rather funny that creationists flock toward Chapter 6: Difficulties on Theory, and quote-mine the heck out of that, while completely glossing over the rest of the text.  But then, if they were willing to read, they wouldn't be creationists.. Great review.  I read it earlier this year, in time for his 200th birthday on Feb 12.  The prose was somewhat meandering (normal for the time of course), but the thoroughness of the argument and evidence he put forth were remarkable.  I think it’s rather funny that creationists flock toward Chapter 6: Difficulties on Theory, and quote-mine the heck out of that, while completely glossing over the rest of the text.  But then, if they were willing to read, they wouldn’t be creationists..

]]> By: Brigitte http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/22/a-review-of-on-the-origin-of-species-by-charles-darwin/comment-page-1/#comment-5006 Brigitte Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:31:20 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1662#comment-5006 I won't believe my eyes.  I prefer to believe that we descend from sculpted clay and a rib ;-) I won’t believe my eyes.  I prefer to believe that we descend from sculpted clay and a rib ;-)

]]>