Philosophy Discussion Forums

The idea of evolution predates Darwin by centuries. Darwin’s contribution was the theory of Natural Selection - this encompasses numerous factors not merely some simplistic “survival of thr fittest” principle (which Darwin NEVER actually said). Happenstance is the driving force of natural selection. Sometimes species aquire attributes that eventually lead to their demise, it is certainly not the case that “better” species survive (as many like to claim).

Arjen -

Honestly it doesn’t appear you understand the basic mechanisms. If you wish to look you can go and listen to Dawkins on youtube explaning in very simple terms the evolution of the eye - a much more complex part of the anatomy of the body with plenty of examples of the evolutionary process that exist today.

Failing that simply look at the development of fetuses and how “claws” develop. They are very good at showing a kind of mini snapshot of evolutionary processes and how morphological development happens over generations (I always find it intriguing to see how most species look identical during the intial steps of fetal development.)

Eduk & Burning ghost I did read the origin of the feces uuh species a long time ago. He does make a point of a struggle for survival that ensues (inference). I am not sure if it is only that people misrepresent him in saying a struggle for survival between species, or that he is actually saying it. Regardless, it is this that is debated on. In this day and age, there is not much debate on it and Darwin is taken as being correct. In the 19th and early 20th century, however, there was debate on it. Pjotr Kropotkin was one of those individuals. Apologies for making a short and unclear statement concerning that. I guess I needed you 2 to refresh my memory. I want to mention another point about Darwin that people often misinterpret: He speaks of evolution in an existing model. He is a creationist.

I do know the snapshots of the embryo's. I have also understood them as you do. That is not the thing that I am talking about. I am questioning how the 'blueprints' for various body parts ended up in the DNA. Who or what wrote the DNA? Who or what gave DNA it's properties? etc. It was just for fun. But I agree that I am no DNA specialist. So, if you feel like it, feel free to educate me in words or by pointing me to one of those Dawkin's video's. I am no big fan of the man, by the way, except for how he ridicules creationists.....by misusing Darwin most of the times, because Darwin was a creationist...

Dawkin's book the Selfish Gene is excellent. His criticism of creationists is better expressed there (in a single sentence) than in any of his longer attempts, indeed I would say his ridicule of Creationists is amongst the worst thing he has done (that I know of).
To call Darwin a creationist would require explicitly not reading the origin of species (clue is in the title) and would be the kind of simplification (to the point of plain old incorrectness) that you seem to be making a habit of in this topic. Five minutes on google should be enough for you to work this out for yourself.
Not sure what your beef with Darwin is but I suggest taking a leaf out of his book and try to slow down the conclusions and rely on evidence coupled with careful thought.

It is Dawkins that is doing the simplification. I am specifying that Darwin is talking about evolution after creation. That is the same as 2nd order logic and the same as explaining things as existential quantifications from within universal quantifications: a major and a minor premisse, if you will. A correct and complete thought. Dawkins is pretending that Darwin did not address the creation in itself. Because that suits Dawkins' purposes.It is a simplification to dismiss creationists on the basis of Darwin's work. It is probably due to not reading Darwin. All throughout the origin of the species he mentions God and the origin of life itself. After the creation comes evolution. Leaving out creation is as claiming that the egg and the chicken just *poof* appeared without questioning where it came from and subsequently claiming that people who actually address it (be it correctly or incorrectly) are at fault. That is a major lapse in judgment. And it is one that Dawkins makes constantly.

Eduk, I think that you didn't read the origin of the species, right?

You are an excellent advert against free will Arjen.

Creationist doesn't typically mean simply that someone believes in a God or Gods who created the universe (although it technically can mean this). The normative use is much more specific than that. Using the normative use the title origin of species and all the subsequent controversy with creationists makes sense (using your definition it does not). If you aren't using the normative use you need to be a lot clearer.
When Dawkins says creationist he is using the normative definition so to compare that with a much more general definition is to compare apples with pears.
You didn't seem to trouble google with a quick search on Darwin's religious views? It may shock you to learn that people's religious views are not simple and nor are they set in stone and they can evolve (pardon the pun).
Personally I always took Darwin to be a religious man who constantly used reason and evidence to slowly but surely whittle away many (if not all) of the random unsubstantiated unreasonable religious beliefs foisted upon him. To be honest this is likely a romantic notion of mine which may not really stack up to reality. But either way Darwin's religious views cannot be summarised (with any accuracy) in a single word, or even a whole sentence.
Oh and if you address something incorrectly then yes you are at fault. That's the definition of fault and incorrect.
And no biologists and scientists (as a whole) don't 'leave out' anything. Thanks to science (in general) we understand the nature of reality much better than we did (as a species) two thousand years ago. It is just that the nature of reality is a somewhat formidable challenge which throws up natural barriers which no human (so far) has managed to clamber over. If I said I didn't want to jump from a high building due to the natural barrier of the floor you probably wouldn't grumble about 'alternative' theories not being given their due.

oh and no I have not read the origin of species (a fact which has no influence on biologists). I hear it is rather well written so it is on the list but there is only so much time and all that. I've not read lots of excellent books.

Eduk The thing is that Dawkins needs to be more specific. He is, in fact, not even specific about Darwin. Darwin, on the other hand, is Specific. It is why I often make the pun Dawkins' Delusion.

Anyway, I am not a creationist. I am following Plato, Kant and eastern mythology in saying that somehow the universe is eternal and without time. In the sense of a quatum field as a mist. And our brains creating the phenomenon that exists within space and time, thus requiring a beginning. The noumenon likely does not. So, you judged too quickly on a number of matters. Please do ask before you judge. I feel unjustly belittled by you.

I didn't say you were a creationist.
By the way there is a compulsion called consistency. As in if you say X then you should carry on saying X. This can be a very strong compulsion but it shouldn't override reality.

I am going to stop trying to get through to you. I don't like namecalling, nor dogma's. Have a nice day Eduk.

Sure. Just trying to help.
I guess I'm just trying to say that you don't have to have an opinion. And if you do have an opinion then you are allowed to change it. Probably worth adding that your opinion almost certainly doesn't matter, this is not an insult by the way, I just want to juxtapose this idea with the more popular everyone is empowered (and things like surveys matter) idea. In my opinion the idea that your uniformed random opinion actually matters is much more worrying than your uninformed opinion really doesn't matter. If you think about it the only way in which your opinion (on things you have no expertise in) matters is in how far it can be manipulated by others (be that adverts or politicians).
I mean logic isn't for everyone, nor does it need to be.

*fingers crack*
"Yawn... time for yet another successful chicken and egg smackdown"
Okay folks. Egg argument: The first entity to be evolutionarily viable as a chicken must have been compromised of a concomitant already existing egg and other such things. This egg can also be identified as having genetic material passing as that of a chicken because it collectively with other materials made the first chicken. This egg came first. Anti-egg argument (correct): This could not have possibly been material that is valid as chicken material BECAUSE it with other things collectively made a chicken, the only thing viably capable of producing a chicken egg. If not evolution, we cannot know which the creator made first, but surely no chicken egg could have survived without a mother chicken, so the chicken must have existed at the time simply to make more of itself. Egg-pro counterargument (wrong ): The chicken could not have possibly existed not containing the necessary eggs to create more chickens, however, these very eggs are passed from mother to daughter with the eggs existing before the chicken was born. Thus, if these eggs are not definable as chicken eggs already, the defining factor of the egg was sperm. Hence, these eggs, the very eggs that will be hatched by the chicken and counted as chicken eggs already existed before the chicken was ever born. Chicken Argument: These eggs were never and even as they are passed along will never be chicken eggs, only those produced by the newly evolved chickens can be counted as chicken eggs. We rest our case. (for context, mothers are given by their mothers alot of eggs not produced by themselves. Thanks RadioLab!) I think we can all agree that everybody who disagrees with us on this specific case is stupid until proven otherwise. Please prove me wrong, I always swap my opinion as I am met with new information!!! This is surely the age-old philosophy 101 question for everybody of all ages and interest. Keep Debating!!!

Haha, nice Intellectual_Savnot. I think this is where Burning ghost and I still agreed. We left off at this precise point. I took it a step further, saying that the egg and the chicken are an unshakeable union. Where the new species exists, the new egg and the new chicken both exist. Then we started talking about how the complete new genetic traits of the complete new species come into being in the DNA. Because there are no cases of half grown limbs throughout a species, or half grown organs. It never occurs. Either it is there, or it is not. When an individual within the species has a half grown limb or organ, it is due to a genetic mistake (a handicap, if you will). For this reason I wanted to take the conversation to another point, asking if this is an argument for intelligent design. Something that I do not believe in, but given the observations, I thought it was an interesting path to take the discussion in. What do you think about that?

One of the first points I made involved “zygote”.

A none chicken can birth a chicken and if the chicken possesses dominant genes then the “chicken” will birth more chickens. If not then chickens (in this specific case) last a single generation and cannot be classed as a species only a one-off mutation of the species that spawned it.

Anything else you can study or ask about on a science forum or learn about in your own time.

How come you are not interested in talking about intelligent design Burning Ghost?