Comments on: Daily Headline

By: DarwinCatholic

DarwinCatholic — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:56:19 +0000

Good quote mining.

I think I’m prepared to stand by my original point, however. Darwin didn’t have (in part because he simply didn’t have the data) an understanding of how fluid population boundaries during divergence could be. (As in of A, B, and C regionally separated populations, A and C can both produce fertile offspring with members of B, but A and C cannot produce fertile offspring.) He also lacked the modern idea of selectin for stasis, etc. Early conceptions of evolutionary theory tended to emphasize that species were always becoming more suited to their environment, though perhaps only slightly, when in fact they often simply selecting for equalibrium.

Again, not to minimize Darwin’s achievement, but it’s important not to read the insights of the last 60 years into the 1860s.

By: jolly atheist

jolly atheist — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:26:38 +0000

It is better if I quote from The Origin of Species, p.108.

“…From these remarks it will be seen that I look at the term species, as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for mere convenience sake” Charles Darwin.

By: jolly atheist

jolly atheist — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 21:58:40 +0000

“Darwin certainly had the initial insight and headed down the right path, but he did not bring the sense of species fluidity and non-directional development which we understand how”

For species fluidity in Darwin, read: Origin of Species/Variaton Under Nature (Gramercy Books, NY, pp.101-113)

By: DarwinCatholic

DarwinCatholic — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:33:33 +0000

Jolly,

Yes, of course I’ve read the Origin of Species.

But what you’re coming through with is very much a modern (post 1930s) understanding of evolution. Darwin certainly had the initial insight and headed down the right path, but he did not bring the sense of species fluidity and non-directional development which we understand how.

Seriously, re-read Darwin in both Origin and Descent of Man without the filter of a more modern understanding and you’ll see a very interesting blend of 19th century progressivism with the beginnings of modern evolutionary biology. It doesn’t diminish Darwin’s billiance to understand the limits of his thinking, and it does our understanding of science a disservice to imagine that theories spring fully grown from the minds of great men, like Athena from the brow of Zeus.

By: jolly atheist

jolly atheist — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:32:37 +0000

Skeptimal: Turkey is a laic country; that most of the population are muslims – and many of them are so-called muslims; they drink, they don’t pray five times a day,they don’t go to mosque except for funerals, they dress just like westernes; instead of sacrifice, they donate to charity organizations – doesn’t mean Islam can have any voice on my independent thought. Those that try to make you pay are really the uneducated sort, which unfortunately are quite high in number. So, actually, it is not Islam, the religion that tries its damnedest to make us pay, but muslims of an underdeveloped world. I wrote before, if the word of the religion would be the cause of violance, then OT would be the champion; however we know that Jews are just as civilized as any other westerner.

By: skeptimal

skeptimal — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 01:38:48 +0000

I’m glad to hear your life isn’t in danger every day, but I’m still impressed. It takes a lot of courage to see through any religion, but Islam tries its damnedest to make you pay for independent thought. Good on ya.

By: jolly atheist

jolly atheist — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:31:45 +0000

Skeptimal: Yes, and it doesn’t need courage. People just accept you as you are. But of course my friend circle is highly westernized, and the people among the very religious who know that I’m an atheist are university students/academicians/writers. With others, the subject doesn’t come up and they may be thinking that I’m still a muslim. I don’t go out and shout!

By: skeptimal

skeptimal — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:05:52 +0000

Jolly said: “I live in Istanbul and I’m an ex-muslim.”

Wow. Is it commonly known locally that you’re an ex-muslim? I salute your courage.

By: jolly atheist

jolly atheist — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:10:54 +0000

Lily: Thank you for the correction; indeed I didn’t mean that; may be I could have used ‘injected’ for what I meant – that is pre-determined by some MIND.

By: Lily

Lily — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 02:07:52 +0000

Jolly: Your background is so interesting; I am quite impressed! Your English is so good that I don’t think I would have guessed in a million years that it is your second language. But I don’t think you wanted to use “inflict” in the context of evolution. Inflict=impose something burdensome or unpleasant. For example, a parent might inflict a punishment, or a tornado can be said to have inflicted massive destruction of property. Did you mean something like that? I have to say that I don’t find evolution a punishent or a burden; maybe someone else might.