172 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 12 previous comments
- To be accurate, Darwin never spoke about one species turning into another. He observed "adaptation", in which one member of a species differs from other that lives in another environment, because "natural selection" makes to survive the most adapted one. The idea of trans-species evolution came later, but we use to point our finger to poor Darwin.Aug 11, 2012
- point taken, but I believe "Darwinism" is the term used to suggest that Natural Selection (which is observable) can account for the various species we have. I had thought this was Darwin's idea, hence the title of his book: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection".Aug 11, 2012
- Aug 11, 2012
- Remember my Junior High SchoolAug 12, 2012
- Dave: Natural Selection doesn't talk about your posit. Try reading it and getting your head around what he is saying in it, then look at what's been found since--rather than reading anti-evolution websites.
"Darwinism" is an 'Intelligent Design' term not a scientist's one, and reveals your agenda. It has no meaning and can't be usefully used the way you are trying to use it.
"Evolution by natural selection" is observed, is used to develop new medicines and technologies, is tried and tested. It exists, end of discussion. The /details/ of how we developed through it, however, would need a time machine to get all the details of.Aug 14, 2012
- Hey, thanks for the response. The Wiki article on "Darwinism" does suggest that creationists use the term negatively, but it also suggests that it's quite a neutral term for scientists and cites usage among scientists. I didn't mean to cause disruption by my usage of the term.
It's the "what's been found since" that I've personally wondered about. What I mean is, I've wondered not about the truth of it, but about the methodology of it. I can't imagine how something like the scientific method outlined in this post would be executed on events that take millions of years to occur.
I get it with stars, since there are relatively few types, and billions of data points to look at. You can literally see the various "transitional states", if you will, by looking around. They are also "simple" enough that we can run computer simulations with our theoretical data and prove out what happens.
Life is a bit trickier though, as it is complex enough that (again as far as I've seen) we can't model one species becoming another with computer simulation. There are also many more types of life and observing transitional states today just isn't possible.
If you could point me in the direction of "what's been found since" I'd be grateful. I really don't need evidence for it, I'm just looking for how the methodology stacks up against the post above. Again, my intention was not to bring religion into this.Aug 14, 2012