Re: Darwin quote

From: Ted Davis (TDavis@messiah.edu)
Date: Mon Aug 11 2003 - 13:05:09 EDT

  • Next message: RFaussette@aol.com: "Re: Sin?"

    I've only recently returned to this list, so I may have missed an important
    earlier point or two. Let me jump in anway:

    I agree that the sentence quoted below comes from the end of the
    introduction to Darwin's first edition. Yet there is much truth in what
    Michael wrote. Darwin clearly envisioned an evolutionary process that
    involved billions of years--he thought that the erosion of southwestern
    England had taken around 300 my, the only number of that kind he offered in
    the first edition of the Origin. Darwin was nonplussed by what the
    quantitative scientists (physicists, geologists, astronomers) were coming up
    with, for upper limits on the ages of the earth and the sun. And he did
    make very significant changes in later editions of the Origin and in the
    Descent of Man. These included at least, removing his 300 my estimate and
    inventing (in the Descent) a hypothesis about "'pangenesis," a mechanism
    whereby some acquired characteristics could be inherited in the next
    generation. It is difficult not to interpret these as implicit
    acknowledgement of the force of the argument against his seat of the pants
    conception of a very old earth.

    ted

    >>> Walter Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com> 08/11/03 12:33PM >>>
    Michael,

    Both you and Glenn Morton imply that this was
    backtracking from his original position. This is
    not the case, since he was quoting his original
    contention in the first edition. I quote from the
    introduction of that first edition.

    "I am fully convinced that species are not
    immutable; but that those belonging to what are
    called the same genera are lineal descendants of
    some other and generally extinct species, in the
    same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any
    one species are the descendants of that species.
    Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection
    has been the main but not exclusive means of
    modification."

    What he did not say is that species arose from
    anything other than natural descent. That would
    apply no matter what Kelvin's time frame was.
    However, the total exclusivity of natural
    selection as a mechanism is something he dienies
    in the first edition and then emphasices in the
    6th edition.

    It is nice for mind readers to tell us what he
    really thought, but why not take him at his word?

    I really have no desire to read a complete book on
    the subject but would welcome any insights you
    could provide from your own readings.

    Walt

    Michael Roberts wrote:

    > Part of the reason Darwin back-tracked over Nat
    > Selection was the shortness of geological time
    > insisted on by Lord Kelvin and others where
    > 100my was seen as the upper limit. Thus there
    > was too little time for NS to do its work.
    > Kelvin was wrong and also Darwin in giving into
    > a mere physicist. See Joe Burchfield's books and
    > articles on this Michael

    ===================================
    Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>

    In any consistent theory, there must
    exist true but not provable statements.
    (Godel's Theorem)

    You can only find the truth with logic
    If you have already found the truth
    without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
    ===================================



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 11 2003 - 13:04:10 EDT