Darwin - On the Origin of Species

"Many people don't realize that there are many flaws with the theory of evolution."


"P.152: 'We are profoundly ignorant of the causes producing slight and unimportant variations'.

He doesn't say who the 'We' refers to."


"P.105: 'I believe that the nearly wingless condition of several birds, which now inhabit or have lately inhabited several oceanic islands, tenanted by no beast of prey, has been caused by disuse.'

The kiwi of New Zealand is a flightless bird that thrived until Westerners imported rats to the island. Beasts of prey existed in New Zealand before the rat arrived. So it would seem that he is wrong in his belief."

YES, ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS MAKE UP LIES ABOUT BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN NEW ZEALAND AND DARWIN'S HOUSE OF CARDS COMES TUMBLING DOWN

"On page 62 he claimed that 'the vigorous, the healthy and the happy survive and multiply'. Therefore, is he stating that the European plants and animals are happier, healthier and more vigorous than the NZ species? H.G. Wells in Mr. Blettsworthy on Rampole Island, makes the following point: 'The struggle for life can terminate in the triumph of types unfit to live, types merely successfully most noxious. In nature a relative survival of the rotten and dying is possible.' So, as the kiwi bird is exterminated by the rat, this presumably the sort of evolution that Darwin has in mind in his Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection."

THAT'S PRECISELY WHAT HE'S THINKING OF, WHICH IS WHY HE SPENDS PAGES AND PAGES TALKING ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, BECAUSE SOMETIMES THINGS THAT ARE UNPLEASANT ARE ALSO TRUE

"P.157: 'Natural selection in each well-stocked country must act chiefly through the competition of the inhabitants one with another, and consequently will produce perfection, or strength in the battle for life, only according to the standard of that country. Hence the inhabitants of one country, generally the smaller one, will often yield, as we see they do yield, to the inhabitants of another and generally larger country.'

Is he saying that perfection equals strength, or that either perfection or strength will be produced? If he is saying that strength and perfection are the same thing then this is Marxist ideology. As for the inhabitants of smaller countries yielding to those of larger ones, perhaps this is what provided some inspiration to the Nazi lebensraum program."


"It takes more faith to believe in natural selection and evolution as the origin of species than creation. A single living cell is more complex than a space shuttle , and we are naive enough to presume that random mutation lead to utter complexity& diversity. This planet is at a fixed distance from the sun, sun , moon and planets revolving at fixed speed, fixed orbits, at a fixed distance, just enough to maintain life on earth. And we still teach evolution to our kids when secant explain where are all the unevolved,partially evolved species disappear. We must have scientific and humble minds to question every thing we we're taught in high school, rather than eat everything our 'superiors' have to offer. Random chance,...........hmmmmm"


"Just a couple of things to say about this one:

1. I'm not a scientist but I know enough about science to know that this book was, admittedly (as in, the author admitted to) 70-80% speculation. That is NOT science."


"Did you know…
1. Spontaneous generation was finally disproved in multiple ways, and this book was published in the same year that Louis Pasteur performed his famous S-shaped flask experiment, demonstrating that life cannot pop out of nowhere." NOPE PASTEUR'S EXPERIMENT WAS 1864, DARWIN WAS 1859 "3. The complexity of DNA points to a Creator, not a big explosion and a random accident.

…now you know. Darwin didn't."


"Regarding the phrase 'preservation of the favoured races,' who or what is doing the favouring? Natural selection? Can a natural selection process favour anything? Really...how does it pick what to favour? By a process! What process? Natural selection of course. It's a circus wheel!"


"people of the socalled hard sciences(up until the 19!80's when physicists also started to make their science softer because of the problems they ran into), looked down on Darwinism as a soft science employing a magical struggle for existence and intuitive terms like that."


"First of all, let's quote Darwin himself from this book, page 75: 'To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.' There you have it, from Darwin himself, from his famous book."

...WHICH THEN GOES ON TO GIVE A COMPLETE HYPOTHESIS FOR HOW THE EYE IS DEVELOPED BY NATURAL SELECTION, USING THE EYES OF CRUSTACEANS AND IN PARTICULAR THE EYE OF THE CIRRIPEDE AS A CASE STUDY


"IF true we have NO hope and no future
evolution and creation CANNOT both be right!"


"'can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.'

The fact is that *all* individuals do not survive, all individuals die. Such exactness is important in science and Darwin fails this scientific standard. This seemingly insignificant error in the fundament of the theory gives a cascade of errors later on. It is really quite different to say that the chance of reproduction determines which organisms are left in the world, then to say a struggle for survival/existence determines it."

IF ONLY DARWIN HAD KNOWN THAT EVERYBODY EVENTUALLY DIES, MAYBE HE WOULD HAVE SEEN THE FOLLY OF HALUGHLAHG WAVING MY DICK IN YOUR DROOLING FACE

OKAY THAT'S ENOUGH FOR TODAY. LET'S BE STRAIGHT UP ON THIS, I AM NOT SOME KIND OF FOURTEEN-YEAR-OLD MILITANT ATHEIST -- THE BLOG WILL COVER THE BIBLE THIS MONTH AND THE KORAN AT SOME POINT THIS YEAR -- I JUST LIKE IT WHEN PEOPLE READ BOOKS INSTEAD OF FLAPPING THEIR FAT BIGOTED IGNORANCE ALL UP IN MY FAT BIGOTED SUPERIORITY COMPLEX

I MEAN HOW DARE THEY SELECTIVELY QUOTE AND CHERRY-PICK FROM A TEXT TO MAKE DARWIN LOOK DUMBER THAN HE IS

OUTRAGEOUS