Did Darwin plagiarize the Theory of Evolution?

[phank]

I would very much like to hear Harestone's speculations as to why Bergman would have written such a book in the first place. What could POSSIBLY have been his motivation?

[Harestone]

I would very much like to hear Harestone's speculations as to why Bergman would have written such a book in the first place. What could POSSIBLY have been his motivation?

I have not read the book and am trying to decide if it is worth buying. I looked it up on Amazon and found he had looked to the likes of woodmorappe well known for his inaccuracies and rave reviews by Morris, Mortenson and geisler - no recommendation.

A quick look at the bits availabale on amazon shows it to be a shoddy book full of errors distortions and simply trying to rubbish Darwin

As for motivation, well creationists need to rubbish all they can of proper science and people like Darwin

I think Bergmann is a fraud

[Harestone]

I should have added that I do have and have studied at length most of Darwin's books and articles as well as most of his letters. I suppose I could have gone into the next room and picked up the correct volume of his Correspondence or a book and expalined in depth why Bergmann is wrong, but I need to finish some more important writngs on Darwin and evolution, which must be ready before the magi arrive on 6th Jan

[phank]

As for motivation, well creationists need to rubbish all they can of proper science and people like Darwin

I think Bergmann is a fraud

Well, I was trying to get a bit beyond this. Why bother to attack Darwin? After all, his ideas are of only historical interest anymore. The evidential foundation on which today's theory of evolution rests, is many many orders of magnitude more complete and accurate than it was in Darwin's day, and the resulting theory is that much broader and deeper. So Darwin today is viewed by modern biologists about the same way that Euclid is viewed by modern mathematicians. And attacking Darwin's character (rightly or wrongly) has as much effect on our understanding of biology as claiming that Euclid molested children would have in disproving topology. It's a basic category error.

My question was, what would lead creationists to make such a blatant category error? And my speculation is that since their entire whacko theology rests on boneheaded misinterpretations of holy texts, they are projecting that all of biology rests on equally boneheaded misinterpretations of equally sacred texts. And THEREFORE if the author of the sacred texts can be discredited, then the text themselves lose credibility, demonstrating that faith based on those texts must be misplaced. I referred to this as a religious orientation, but perhaps creationists carry it to such lengths as to make it qualitatively different from most religious sects. Certainly this line of attack has nothing to do with the evidence on which any scientific theory rests - and seems to reflect no concept of what evidence MEANS.

And in this context, Bergman is not a fraud, he is a careful, deliberate propagandist. He's working hard to place the battle on an entirely emotional playing field.

[OmniSkeptical]

Have you considered that gamete cells may suffer mutations? Think things through a little more.

I forgot a number of things, but I believe you see less evolution as variation in species which don't need there offspring altered.

What does that have to do with your previous statement that evolution happens "only on insects, bacteria, and other species which don't protect their offspring with an egg[shell] or a womb"?

I don't recall saying that. I believe I merely said it has only been demonstrated on these species of life. And even this doesn't convince me of transpeciation as a concept.

[phank]

I forgot a number of things, but I believe you see less evolution as variation in species which don't need there offspring altered.

I confess I can't parse this sentence. What does it mean?

I don't recall saying that. I believe I merely said it has only been demonstrated on these species of life. And even this doesn't convince me of transpeciation as a concept.

Uh, hopefully you understand that insects are a CLASS. Under which you have orders. Under orders, you have families, then genus, then species. So insects are FIVE LEVELS UP the taxonomic ranking. And yet in this same sentence, you say you aren't convinced of "transpeciation as a concept." Uh, you might want to memorize: species, genus, family, order, class. Insects are one of the classes within the phylum of arthropods. So you're talking about a whole LOT of different species here - not to mention a lot of different orders, families, etc. Talk about transpeciation!

[OmniSkeptical]

I think Bergmann is a fraud

He is interesting. I don't know if he is competent as a physicist, but he didn't stop at saying Darwin was disingenious about his theory, and he hasn't come close to finding out how radioactive dating finds Lambda. I believe Darwin may have been more persistent with his discoveries (whatever they can be pinned as), because of radiometric methods.

I cannot understand how an ex-JW is a offended by a Unitarian, and condemns Darwin's hunting methods which despite Bergmann's exaggerations were part of Darwin's perhaps naive character.

[pancreasman]

I forgot a number of things, but I believe you see less evolution as variation in species which don't need there offspring altered.

I don't recall saying that. I believe I merely said it has only been demonstrated on these species of life. And even this doesn't convince me of transpeciation as a concept.

I do not understand the first sentence at all.

[OmniSkeptical]

I confess I can't parse this sentence. What does it mean?

"I forgot a number of things, but I believe you see less evolution as variation in species which don't need their offspring altered."

Uh, hopefully you understand that insects are a CLASS. Under which you have orders. Under orders, you have families, then genus, then species. So insects are FIVE LEVELS UP the taxonomic ranking. And yet in this same sentence, you say you aren't convinced of "transpeciation as a concept." Uh, you might want to memorize: species, genus, family, order, class. Insects are one of the classes within the phylum of arthropods. So you're talking about a whole LOT of different species here - not to mention a lot of different orders, families, etc. Talk about transpeciation!

At least, your statement clarifies things. I confess I hate discussing biology for the reason of heresy and lack of skill at it.

[phank]

He is interesting. I don't know if he is competent as a physicist, but he didn't stop at saying Darwin was disingenious about his theory, and he hasn't come close to finding out how radioactive dating finds Lambda. I believe Darwin may have been more persistent with his discoveries (whatever they can be pinned as), because of radiometric methods.

I cannot understand how an ex-JW is a offended by a Unitarian, and condemns Darwin's hunting methods which despite Bergmann's exaggerations were part of Darwin's perhaps naive character.

I didn't say Bergman is a fraud; Harestones did. But Bergman IS a creationist, and the distinction between creationists and frauds is arguably nonexistent.

I can't make sense of the rest of your post.

[phank]

"I forgot a number of things, but I believe you see less evolution as variation in species which don't need their offspring altered."

OK, I'll give it my best shot.

1) I don't see less evolution. The more I look, the more evolution I see.
2) There is variation both between and within species. No two individuals are identical.
3) What does "offspring altered" MEAN? And in any case, we're talking not about needs, but about normal variation, and how variation arises and is selected.

[pancreasman]

"I forgot a number of things, but I believe you see less evolution as variation in species which don't need their offspring altered."

On the face of it, this sentence is not good english. I can't make head or tail of it. I know it refers to my comments. You apparently think I have a particular view of evolution but I have no idea what.

[OmniSkeptical]

OK, I'll give it my best shot. 1) I don't see less evolution. The more I look, the more evolution I see. 2) There is variation both between and within species. No two individuals are identical. 3) What does "offspring altered" MEAN? And in any case, we're talking not about needs, but about normal variation, and how variation arises and is selected.

1)Things like mold, bacteria, insects, microorganisms and amphibians need alot more evolutionary variation than mammals, reptiles and birds.
2)Perhaps breeding should not be called evolution. ?
3)Insect larvae are very susceptible to their enviroment. Fish seem to be as well, especially amphibians. Bacteria might be. I am still learning, so bacteria may not be like this though they adapt to alot of things. And Fungi are also very adaptable, but I don't know how their spores work.

Do I have to be an "evolutionist" or believe in transpeciation to be a biologist? I would hope not. The complaint where Darwin's evolutionary hypothesis is in a text is worthless. It wouldn't be the whole textbook by a longshot.

[pancreasman]

1)Things like mold, bacteria, insects, microorganisms and amphibians need alot more evolutionary variation than mammals, reptiles and birds.
2)Perhaps breeding should not be called evolution. ?
3)Insect larvae are very susceptible to their enviroment. Fish seem to be as well, especially amphibians. Bacteria might be. I am still learning, so bacteria may not be like this though they adapt to alot of things. And Fungi are also very adaptable, but I don't know how their spores work.

Do I have to be an "evolutionist" or believe in transpeciation to be a biologist? I would hope not. The complaint where Darwin's evolutionary hypothesis is in a text is worthless. It wouldn't be the whole textbook by a longshot.

1. Says who? Evidence?

2. Breeding of animals (like dogs) gives us clues as to how evolution works, although in breeding the selection process is not natural. Nevertheless, breeding does change the frequency of alleles in a population, the text book definition of evolution.

3. Here you seem to think (again) that the only time variation enters into the genome is in utero. In fact, as far as I know, all sexually reproducing species create unique offspring which vary from BOTH their parents. The environment is not the active factor here in creating mutations (although this does happen sometimes). Rather, mutations occur, and mutations which offer a reproductive advantage are selected for by the environment.

[phank]

1)Things like mold, bacteria, insects, microorganisms and amphibians need alot more evolutionary variation than mammals, reptiles and birds.

"Need" it for what? What distinction are you drawing here?

2)Perhaps breeding should not be called evolution. ?

Breeding isn't called evolution. Evolution does refer to gradual genetic and usually phenotypic change in lineages over many generations. Breeding produces those generations, but breeding by itself is certainly not evolution. For evolution you need:
a) Variation among individuals
b) Inheritance of that variation in subsequent generations
c) Too many individuals in each generation for the resources available.
That's all that's required.

3)Insect larvae are very susceptible to their enviroment. Fish seem to be as well, especially amphibians. Bacteria might be. I am still learning, so bacteria may not be like this though they adapt to alot of things. And Fungi are also very adaptable, but I don't know how their spores work.

And indeed, ALL organisms are sensitive to their environments. If it were not so, selection could not happen. No particular phylum seems more sensitive than any other.

Do I have to be an "evolutionist" or believe in transpeciation to be a biologist? I would hope not. The complaint where Darwin's evolutionary hypothesis is in a text is worthless. It wouldn't be the whole textbook by a longshot.

I don't know what this means. There's really no such profession as "evolutionist."