Schroedinger told us that a cat could be both dead and alive at the same time, and we were fine with that.
Einstein told us that light can bend and that gravity can slow down time, and we just shrugged and said, OK, that's cool.
Jenner told us we could fight a disease by injecting a little bit of it into our bodies and we were A-OK with that one too; well, some of us still struggle with that one, but you get my point.
However when Darwin tells us that every living being on the planet didn't just magically appear, but rather came to be via an achingly slow process of gradation and . . . woah! Hold on justa cotton-picking-minute! You're crazy, it's obviously not a slow process, it's divine magic I tells ya!
Common Arguments
I truly believe that the theory of evolution would actually be more widely accepted if more people had actually read Darwin's first book on the subject; On The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, referred to hereafter as, Origins.
The internet is rife with various questions and arguments that are meant to put doubt on the theory of evolution; or show that the theory is somehow just opinion, rather than stone cold fact.
There is nothing wrong with questioning evolutionary theories, the only problem is, these questions have been answered, however they are postulated as if they are somehow still a great mystery.
One particular question I've seen repeated is:
How can the theory of evolution deal with something so complex as an eye? That's like asking me to believe a hurricane could blow through a junkyard and create a perfectly working aeroplane. Plus, an eye is only useful as an eye, how could you possibly survive with an incomplete visual system?
So, now let us see how the author of the theory himself answered these and many more questions.
Darwin's Gambit
~ Extract Origins, Chap VI.
Origins of extreme perfection and complication. - 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 possible degree.
So as we can see from above, Darwin himself asked the question long before anybody on Youtube did. The eye is absolutely perfectly suited for the job, and is multi-faceted. Even to Darwin, this at first seemed to big a question for natural selection to answer.
~ Extract Origins, Chap VI. cont.
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be show to exist....then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.
So what Darwin is saying here, is that if we find simpler and simpler versions of the eye, going back gradually from complex to basic. Then that would hold in line with the theory, and our preconceived ideas would be wrong.
At this point Darwin points out that finding such eyes in the fossil records would be next to impossible, seeing as such creatures would have lived such a long time ago as to be buried far deeper than we could ever venture.
So he says that we are stuck with looking at creatures from similar genus that are around today. This wasn't a problem for Darwin, as he had plenty of sea specimens from the same evolutionary branch to observe.
~ Extract Origins, Chap VI. cont.
In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a cdouble cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens-shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by exuding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance.
With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct.
I can see no very great difficulty in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class.
Here Darwin is talking about the eyes he has observed in certain simple sea creatures of the same genus. He talks about how he has seen with his own eyes, different stages of an eye in different species.
After viewing many such examples, he came to the conclusion that if there are living examples of one type of eye getting slowly more complex. Then it only logically follows that there would have been many examples of the same thing in slowly evolving, now extinct, vertebrate species.
The Wonder Of Isolation
So we can see that Darwin himself, observed that the eye did not just pop into existence, rather it slowly developed from one species to the next.
These Letters From Darwin, have been inspired by some of the great comments I got on one of my recent posts: Surviving A Post Truth World - Fighting A War Between Reason And Superstition.
While replying to one of the comments, I came up with an analogy that I feel is very useful when pondering the ins and outs of natural selection, so I'd like to share the slightly modified version with you in an up coming article I have entitled Letters From Darwin - An Evolutionary Coin Flip .
Further reading:
Surviving A Post Truth World - Fighting A War Between Reason And Superstition
LETTERS FROM DARWIN WILL ATTEMPT TO CONVEY THE MAIN MESSAGE AT THE HEART OF CHARLES DARWIN'S ON THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION. IT IS A SUBJECT CLOSE TO MY HEART AND I BELIEVE THERE IS A LOT OF MISINFORMATION AND MISUNDERSTANDING SURROUNDING THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
IN MY OWN SMALL WAY I HOPE TO CLEAR UP SOME OF THAT MISUNDERSTANDING.
IF YOU FEEL THERE ARE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS OR WOULD JUST LIKE TO VENT YOUR FEELINGS ON THE SUBJECT, PLEASE LET ME KNOW BELOW!
Darwin said that it represented a significant problem for his theory. This has been recognized, and a large amount of research has been done over the century and a half since he wrote that. We now regard the problem as solved.
@cryptogee,
Thank you.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@quillfire/cryptogee-thank-you
The eye did not just pop into existence rather it slowly developed from one species to the next.
You've posted an educational post. It's great to read your post. If you did not actually post a very important one, you can not understand that many educational sentences you shared with us all that we can understand and apply in our lives. Then we can do a lot of things in life so much for the important post for you Thank you for your next post
Nothing in life came by chance this we are know, even Darwin knows that his birth was a product of an intelligent design. But he dare the sensibility of the whole world to promote the theory of evolution, which runs in complete antithesis to the fact that all living things were created by God. But when a person knows the truth that knowledge will set him free from the philosophies of men.
Just saying things doesn't make them true, this is a complete and utter falsehood. Darwin 'knew' nothing of the sort.
Cg
In my opinion, every single theory of Darwin is a hoax! I believe that my existence did not just evolved in this world, I was meant to be created to have a purpose! and to prove how I was created is written in GENESIS 1:27, 'God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them'! Thanks for sharing!
It is also written in Genesis that he created light after the sun, and that stars are just pretty lights for us to look at.
It is not god who made us in his image; it is us who made god in ours.
Cg
It only says that if you take it out of context and jump to a conclusion . The same jumping to a conclusion has to take place with the theory of evolution .
Nope, stone cold, provable, undeniable fact, on both counts.
Cg
Plus of course, that's the beauty of science, you don't have to understand which context to take it in, because it is about universal, objective truths.
Cg
Books can be wrong.
Not this one.
Cg
@cryptogee,
Good article, and as always, well-written.
I couldn't agree with you more about people irrationally resisting the existence, despite the evidence, of Evolution. But, whenever you step on sacred belief, the prefrontal cortex shuts down and the amygdala takes over.
Yeah, I guess we put a lot of stock in beliefs, too much if you ask me!
Cg
And I believe all good people would discard anything from Darwin out of hand if they actually read his second book.
But really, what evolutionists try to disprove is God. That, all of this could happen without their being a divine creator.
The trouble with this tact is that they miss the very element that would help them prove that macro-evolution can be and is a thing.
So far we have witnessed species disappearing. But, we really haven't been aware of species appearing. Fortunately, scientist will be around to witness them this time.
The thing that "modern darwinists" have thrown out is basically metaphysics. If it is not physical, it is not to be studied. It is superstition. But, superstition came form somewhere, and many modern scientists have found the real, heretofor only in the realm of the spirit, causes of that superstition.
Imagine that scientists are only working with one of 24 layers. So, they are trying to muck around with DNA, thinking that they are seeing the whole thing, when in fact, they are seeing only a minuscule portion of it. They don't even talk about the divine ratios found in the form, like that can't have anything to do with it. They haven't even noticed that humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. They are poking around blind, and refuse to open their eyes.
For what they will find is that the eye, as it is, is merely a DNA switch. Turn it on, and bam, eye. But then, when they find out how that switch gets set, bam, spirituality.
Erm, why? I've read The Descent Of Man, and apart from being a lot more of a slog than Origins, it is based on the same unchangable facts.
Not really, what we try and disprove is a divine creator making everything at once.
Groan, science is the antithesis of superstition.
Are you basing any of this on anything other than guess work; or the guess work of others?
No, no, and no.
These articles wouldn't be the same without a comment from you :-)
Cg
No, my comments come from ancient Tibetan texts and black-balled scientists who perform incredible feats and experiments. There are ancient codexes that describe the helical properties. Form, angle, vibration (musical notes) That DNA is a perfect magnetic and electrical antenna. Too me, these things are obvious and important. I do not understand why "modern scientists" aren't working with these theories. Studying DNA should start with sacred geometry.
Or, in other words, the term "junk DNA" should never have been uttered.
Probably because the theories are unworkable, you can talk about musical notes and vibrations all you like. But if you can't articulate it, in a way that is useful for another scientist to use, then it falls into the category of bunkum.
Cg
Some people seem to think that only a fully developed eye can be useful. Beeing able to differentiate between light and darkness without the ability to see shapes can be very useful, for example if you need to hide. If you make a little hole in a box, you got a camera. Is it as good as a DSLR? No! Does it work? Yes!
if it was fact then it would not be a Theory , now would it .
One might be able to to justify evolution within a species . There is zero evidence of of cross species or the creating of life .
Yes it is, the definition of a scientific theory is something that has been proven to be true as far as we know it. We leave room for modification as in Newton's theory of gravity was modified by Einstein, however the fundamental principle did not change.
Before theory we have the hypothesis, which is essentially the guess; once the hypothesis is proved it become theory, which is scientific fact. look it up if you don't believe me.
There is a mountain of evidence, it's called fossil record, look it up if you don't believe me.
Cg
thanks for taking the time for a dialog .
It seem that we have hit the wall of Religion vs Evolution . I personally have respect for the people who hold views on both sides . I do not think that it is a either or problem . One does not have to prove Religion is wrong for Evolution to be correct , or the opposite . Each one should stand or fall on its own merit . One is scientific and the other is faith based .
Fact and Theory .
This is one that concerns me . If an understanding of this is not understood then the whole conversation falls .
A Fact is a thing that is indisputable the case .
What we believe to be or wish has nothing to do with making something a Fact . We must agree that Evolution is a Theory and not indisputable . To this date Evolution is the best scientific explanation as far as we know it , But it is not absolute or fact at this time .
I made the mistake in being vague in my response to your post . It is a subject that you are compassionate about . A subject that should be discussed in good faith and not avoided .
cdouble???