Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Off Topic => Topic started by: TylerDurden on June 06, 2012, 11:27:37 am
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2154753/Myanmar-fossil-turns-human-history-head--earliest-ancestors-came-Asia-Africa.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2154753/Myanmar-fossil-turns-human-history-head--earliest-ancestors-came-Asia-Africa.html)
-
I saw an entire special on this. The documentary showed that people actually came from BOTH Asia and Africa.
-
but this is ofcourse assuming that darwin's theory of evolution is correct and that all the human race evolved from primates.
-
Or is is simply a case of parallel evolution. There are examples of this all over the world. There are at least 3 freshwater dolphin species that evolved in closed bodies of water separately yet they are remarkably similar. That is because they have the same roll in a similar ecosystem. Function dictates design and evolution is no exception. If it performs like a dolphin it MUST look like a dolphin. It is very possible the same is true for humans. In different places in the world the same or at least similar function were required for survival thus pushing evolution in the same direction. If it works for other animals it does for humans.
It is of course very much politically incorrect to ever suggest such a thing. That would mean that not all are equal. Although even a glance at the most predominantly prevailing species(yes i dare say)in different sports, sciences, and other challenges of life makes this at least a clear possibility.
-
humans didnt evolve from monkeys. otherwise there wont be monkeys or there would still be humans half-evolved between monkeys and humans, meaning evolution is still taking place.
-
humans didnt evolve from monkeys. otherwise there wont be monkeys or there would still be humans half-evolved between monkeys and humans, meaning evolution is still taking place.
Read darwin please. he clearly explains why this is NOT true.
-
What's his reason now? In a nutshell?
An asteroid had hit the earth and stopped this evolution from happening anymore due to release of kryptonite like radiation?
-
all things in nature are constantly competing. This is the basic drive behind evolution. The extinction of species due to not being able to compete with their better adapted counterpart is a rather fast (evolutionary speaking) process. when modern man came about Neanderthals quickly became extinct because they could no longer compete. again extinction is a fast process. another step in evolution takes much longer. So yes there were periods when more than one type of humans roamed the earth simultaneously, as confirmed by fossil records. We just happen to live somewhere along the evolutionary timeline where our predecessors have already become extinct while our successor has not yet come along(probably).
-
Be careful what you think you know HIR, everything might not be as you think it seems.
By all rights, we, and our civilization should be another couple million years in the making, if not more.
http://churchofcriticalthinking.org/missing_link.html (http://churchofcriticalthinking.org/missing_link.html)
You can accept the bullshit you're fed, or you can actually look at the facts and determine what seems more reasonable. All together, way more likely someone gave us our knowledge (mathematics, astronomy, etc) rather than us slowly attaining it on our own. If that is such, it's likely we were 'created' through genetic manipulation rather than gradual darwinian evolution, though darwinian evolution is certainly a big player as well, though it might not be exactly such as he conceived.
-
The Neanderthals did not die out, they interbred with modern humans(non-Africans, anyway). So far, 1-4% Neanderthal DNA has been cited, but I suspect the figure is much higher for certain populations:-
http://www.themythsandhistoryofredhair.co.uk/neanderthalman.html (http://www.themythsandhistoryofredhair.co.uk/neanderthalman.html)
-
You're right of course Tyler. I was trying to give a quick example. However the result of the interbreeding (us) did compete the neanderthals out of existence. So the analogy still holds.
-
You're right of course Tyler. I was trying to give a quick example. However the result of the interbreeding (us) did compete the neanderthals out of existence. So the analogy still holds.
Aha! So Tyler is 'right' because he goes along with the 'Orthodox Church of the Darwinian Religion' LOL
I bought into the Darwin theory as it was drilled into me at school, and I did right up to the day in my mid thirties when I heard someone right out of the blue (not a Christian BTW) say that evolution was BS. It completely threw me for a loop and I realized that there was an awful lot of reasons to doubt the theory, so I do.
I've listened to the speeches from Dawkins which convinced me even more that it was not true. Dawkins has made a career out of starting with a conclusion and working backwards, just like most people do who buy into the fantasy. Each time there is a discovery that disputes it, someone makes up another bandaid for the theory.
There are a large number of skeletins in the closet that disprove Darwinism, just like when the church tried to convince everyone about where disease came from.
It is not likely that those who buy into it will change their minds because it is a great way to justify calling some races bad names.
-
So presumably you believe that the flying spaghetti monster or whatever created fossils , the Earth etc. all out of the blue one day, perhaps in 4004 BC as Bishop Usher claimed? I am unaware of any alternative between darwinism and creationism. I agree, though, that Dawkins is a fanatic, being as bad as the Creationists he attacks.
-
So presumably you believe that the flying spaghetti monster or whatever created fossils , the Earth etc. all out of the blue one day, perhaps in 4004 BC as Bishop Usher claimed? I am unaware of any alternative between darwinism and creationism. I agree, though, that Dawkins is a fanatic, being as bad as the Creationists he attacks.
Tyler, I believe what I believe and feel no compunction to defend it or explain it or define it, as it is my own special belief and I am not trying to start up any religion.
I believe that there is a certain amount of evolution via survival of the fittest that takes place but to believe the whole enchilada is a bit of a stretch...... to me. You can believe what you wish.
So you believe in the flying spaghetti monster do you? Frankly, I'm skeptical!
-
I am a confirmed atheist who only sees religion as a useful way to add culture to society, nothing more(though I find the old pagan religions of Europe far more pleasant, culturally, than the 3 Abrahamic religions).All I want is that there is no ghastly Heaven in which I have to sing the praises of a vain Christian god. I far prefer the notion of Valhalla or, better still, Buddhist reincarnation, though I would far rather be reborn as a sentient alien thousands of light-years away or in another parallel dimension, than to be reborn as a cockroach or other animal.
-
I am a confirmed atheist who only sees religion as a useful way to add culture to society(though I find the old pagan religions of Europe far more pleasant, culturally, than the 3 Abrahamic religions).All I want is that there is no ghastly Heaven in which I have to sing the praises of a vain Christian god. I far prefer the notion of Buddhist reincarnation, though I would far rather be reborn as a sentient alien thousands of light-years away or in another parallel dimension, than to be reborn as a cockroach or other animal.
I love it! LOL
Thankfully I have to say that you do not dwell on preaching about evolution.
As a child I rebelled against Christianity. That was partly due to being stuck going to the church on Sunday. I've mellowed a bit, but still have a bit of a jaundiced view of the whole lot as you said, the 3 Abrahamic religions.
I haven't learned a lot about the old pagan religions you mention. Maybe that is my next step. I have learned a small amount about aboriginal NA Indian spirituality. There is a lot of commonality between different spiritual traditions and even current records such as NDE etc.
After studying the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, Yoga Vasista of Venkatesananda, and a number of other Vedic texts as well as a bit of Buddhism and the 'Tibettan Book Of The Dead' and a huge # of 'spiritual type books', I have maintained that there is some sort of something that set everything in motion and watches it somewhat as a child watches a creation of mud and water as it moves along. My belief follows along with a lot of what the TBOTD says.
This world of duality is a mixture of a huge amount of fun and an lesser amount of misery. The trick is to realize this and not allow it to get to you. Take it as it comes. Get the hell out of the wheel when the proper chance arrives.
BTW the TBOTD tells you how to avoid becoming a cockroach or other animal. If you get a chance check out the 'National Film Board Of Canada' film, narrated by Leonard Cohen about the TBOTD. It is very fascinating.
If my memory serves, I believe you lived there as a child.
-
Either God created me to believe in evolution, or evolution evolved me not to believe in God : )
My favorite religion is Pantheism - which believes that 'God' (or my translation 'Good') is in everything:
www.pantheism.net/ (http://www.pantheism.net/)
-
I believed completely in Darwin's theory of evolution until recently when I read the book 'Biology of Bielief', by Bruce Lipton.
Now I still believe in evolution, but not exactly how Darwin described it. This is mainly due to the increasing knowledge about epigenetics. Because environmental conditions affect gene expression in an organism throughout it's life, and these changes can then be inherited by the offspring, it resembles more the theory of evolution by the ridiculed Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.
-
I am a confirmed atheist who only sees religion as a useful way to add culture to society, nothing more(though I find the old pagan religions of Europe far more pleasant, culturally, than the 3 Abrahamic religions).All I want is that there is no ghastly Heaven in which I have to sing the praises of a vain Christian god. I far prefer the notion of Valhalla or, better still, Buddhist reincarnation, though I would far rather be reborn as a sentient alien thousands of light-years away or in another parallel dimension, than to be reborn as a cockroach or other animal.
I find the notion that heaven is a place where everyone floats around making "celestial whoopee"for all eternity; very funny.
I like the ancient Vedas belief about the universal cycles of death and rebirth. They called it the great Brahma year. They had this Idea that our universe is born and lives out its life and dies about every 100 billion years or so . Its an infinite cycle which inevitably leads to the reincarnation not only of our world, but countless other worlds and beings, within the realm of the great lotus dream.
Regarding evolution of man.
The origin of man may not ever be completely understood, but the fact that we did evolve from lower forms as did all other animals on this planet should not be up for debate.
The science now seems to be leading us to believe, that early humans evolved in Asia then moved back to Africa, then migrated to the middle east, then up to Europe and back to Africa. Somewhere in all the shuffle Modern humans emerged then spread to all corners of the earth.
-
I actually spent my very early childhood in Nepal, not Tibet. Somehow I doubt foreigners have been welcome there much since the Chinese invasion.
Interesting info re the Vedas, from what SB states, they seem to have come up with the "many worlds" hypothesis, one of the quantum theories of modern physics, thousands of years before! Personally I have found most religions to have provided something useful, Buddhism and Hinduism being good examples, it's just the 3 Abrahamic religions which I have never liked.
-
I am a confirmed atheist who only sees religion as a useful way to add culture to society, nothing more
Hear hear
I believed completely in Darwin's theory of evolution until recently when I read the book 'Biology of Bielief', by Bruce Lipton.
Now I still believe in evolution, but not exactly how Darwin described it. This is mainly due to the increasing knowledge about epigenetics. Because environmental conditions affect gene expression in an organism throughout it's life, and these changes can then be inherited by the offspring, it resembles more the theory of evolution by the ridiculed Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.
No doubt lamarck was a genius. And therefore ridiculed. You see a genius understands things nobody else does so when he speaks his mind everyone inevitably thinks hes crazy for they dont(and likely never will) understand it.
I still think Darwin's model holds for at least 90%. The basic principles he discovered are the same principles working in epigenetic evolution which is just a precursor to truly genetic evolution.
Personally I have found most religions to have provided something useful, Buddhism and Hinduism being good examples, it's just the 3 Abrahamic religions which I have never liked.
I never liked any religion at all but i agree that those 3 are by far the worst. What usefull things would you say the other religions have brought that couldn't have been acquired without belief in some higher power?
-
Well, the other religions had more of a focus on artistic objects, whereas Christianity and Islam all focused on destroying the artwork of other religions, during their heyday. Plus, most other religions worshipped many gods and goddesses, so that every role in their society had a specific patron-deity, for example, Hera for Ancient Greek wives, Ares for the military etc., rather than some vengeful single male God. Plus, the other religions were usually far more tolerant of other religions, though not always. And, in the Ancient World, there wasn't much religious belief per se, that is there were no monasteries/convents so that religion had less of a totalitarian grip on the human imagination than the 3 Abrahamic religions later on. I mean, scientists in Ancient Greece were able to come up with countless theories which were only rediscovered during the Renaissance when, finally, the Christian Churches started losing power.
-
Who can Know the origins of the world?
Carl Sagan on "God" and "gods" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E-_DdX8Ke0#)
-
Well, the other religions had more of a focus on artistic objects, whereas Christianity and Islam all focused on destroying the artwork of other religions, during their heyday. Plus, most other religions worshipped many gods and goddesses, so that every role in their society had a specific patron-deity, for example, Hera for Ancient Greek wives, Ares for the military etc., rather than some vengeful single male God. Plus, the other religions were usually far more tolerant of other religions, though not always. And, in the Ancient World, there wasn't much religious belief per se, that is there were no monasteries/convents so that religion had less of a totalitarian grip on the human imagination than the 3 Abrahamic religions later on. I mean, scientists in Ancient Greece were able to come up with countless theories which were only rediscovered during the Renaissance when, finally, the Christian Churches started losing power.
All right I get your point, and largely agree.
It was however not an answer to my question; What useful things would you say the other religions have brought that could not have been acquired without belief in some higher power?
-
Well, that's what I meant, the Greeks had their Muses and basic religious mythology which added culture to their society. Plus, the more gullible members of society could feel that their roles in society were favoured by a particular patron deity whereas a monotheistic or atheistic culture would not have been as useful. It's also interesting to note that the birth-rate seems to often go down in line with a drop in religious beliefs.
-
It's also interesting to note that the birth-rate seems to often go down in line with a drop in religious beliefs.
ah well
Mr Blackitt: Look at them, bloody Catholics. Filling the bloody
world up with bloody people they can't afford to bloody feed.
Mrs Blackitt: What are we dear?
Mr Blackitt: Protestant, and fiercely proud of it...
Mrs Blackitt: Why do they have so many children...?
Mr Blackitt: Because every time they have sexual intercourse they
have to have a baby.
Mrs Blackitt: But it's the same with us, Harry.
Mr Blackitt: What d'you mean...?
Mrs Blackitt: Well I mean we've got two children and we've had
sexual intercourse twice.
Mr Blackitt: That's not the point... We *could* have it any time we
wanted.
Mrs Blackitt: Really?
Mr Blackitt: Oh yes. And, what's more, because we don't believe in
all that Papist claptrap we can take precautions.
Mrs Blackitt: What, you mean lock the door...?
Mr Blackitt: No no, I mean, because we are members of the
Protestant Reformed Church which successfully challenged the
autocratic power of the Papacy in the mid-sixteenth century,
we can wear little rubber devices to prevent issue.
Mrs Blackitt: What do you mean?
Mr Blackitt: I could, if I wanted, have sexual intercourse with
you...
Mrs Blackitt: Oh, yes... Harry...
Mr Blackitt: And by wearing a rubber sheath over my old feller I
could ensure that when I came off... you would not be
impregnated.
Mrs Blackitt: Ooh!
Mr Blackitt: That's what being a Protestant's all about. That's
why it's the church for me. That's why it's the church for
anyone who respects the individual and the individual's right
to decide for him or herself. When Martin Luther nailed his
protest up to the church door in 1517, he may not have
realised the full significance of what he was doing. But four
hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear
whatever I want on my John Thomas. And Protestantism doesn't
stop at the simple condom. Oh no! I can wear French Ticklers
if I want.
Mrs Blackitt: You what?
Mr Blackitt: French Ticklers... Black Mambos... Crocodile Ribs...
Sheaths that are designed not only to protect but also to
enhance the stimulation of sexual congress...
Mrs Blackitt: Have you got one?
Mr Blackitt: Have I got one? Well no... But I can go down the road
any time I want and walk into Harry's and hold my head up
high, and say in a loud steady voice: 'Harry I want you to
sell me a *condom*. In fact today I think I'll have a French
Tickler, for I am a Protestant...'
Mrs Blackitt: Well why don't you?
Mr Blackitt: But they... [He points at the stream of children still
pouring past the house.]... they cannot. Because their church
never made the great leap out of the Middle Ages, and the
domination of alien episcopal supremacy!
-
No doubt lamarck was a genius. And therefore ridiculed. You see a genius understands things nobody else does so when he speaks his mind everyone inevitably thinks hes crazy for they dont(and likely never will) understand it.
I still think Darwin's model holds for at least 90%. The basic principles he discovered are the same principles working in epigenetic evolution which is just a precursor to truly genetic evolution.
I agree about the basic principles, but I don't like Darwin's idea that organisms are struggling for survival. Organisms that are adapted to their environment should be thriving, not just surviving. I think this may be because Darwin was talking about the individual rather than the species. Yes, an organism may get eaten or kill and eat something itself to survive and individual organisms need something to be able to catch prey (if it is a predator) and to escape being predated on if it is prey...all so this individual can survive. However, when taking the whole ecosystem in to account and without people to fuck things up, it should be in balance/equilibrium, but a dynamic equilibrium, due to a constant changing environment with changing environmental pressures. In a balanced ecosystem the different species of organisms thrive, rather than struggle to survive.
I haven't yet done so, but I plan to read something about Lovelock's Gaia theory in the near future.
-
I should say Gaia hypothesis, not theory.
-
I never liked any religion at all but i agree that those 3 are by far the worst. What usefull things would you say the other religions have brought that couldn't have been acquired without belief in some higher power?
HIT - Buddhism before travelling so widely and taking on some Gods along the way did not include any belief in a Gods or a "higher power".
The extraordinary usefulness of Buddhism is a systematic teaching of meditation so that one can determine for oneself if such things exist or not and how useful they are. The original, earliest Bali texts regarding meditation are a real treasure.
Buddhism is considered "blasphemous" by many because it does not teach a belief in God or Gods. I see it purely as a methodology in it's original form and have found it's instructions on meditation to be one of the most useful things I have learned in my life. Buddha was teaching a "path" a "way" to find out the workings of everything for oneself. He historically would not talk about gods. He only would talk about how one could find out for oneself. I really liked that.
-
I am so glad to have found Universalism . One of its main principles is the understanding that one can learn from the past religions regardless of the scientific validity of their particular deity.
I have learned much from studying the various religions.
I attend a Buddhist discussion group. There is real merit in finding a middle way. If you are wrapped up in the world and abandon yourself to sensuality it leads to hedonistic behavior that can never provide lasting satisfaction. On the other extreme If you renounce the world and its pleasures in order to seek transcendence, you will just be torturing yourself. The Buddha is a middle path that guides one toward equanimity.
I also studied the ancient mythological religions, and believe that their Gods were mainly expressions of different attributes of the human spirit, and may not of been meant to be taken seriously as true beings.
The ancient Hindus understood the multiplicity of the universe. That along with the idea of universal cycles gave them the belief in reincarnation. I think that this Idea has often been misinterpreted by people in the west to mean "instant Karma", the notion that when one dies that ones being is directly held accountable for ones actions and then is reincarnated as a greater or lesser being depending on some kind of cosmic justice. Reincarnation exist but I don't think its an instantaneous transmutation of the soul from one being to another. I think that its something that occurs on cosmically grand timescales. Somewhere half way from now until the end of eternity our world will be reborn and beings like ourselves will live again.
Many basic concepts were realized by the ancients, but like all religion, the kernel of truth that exist at the origin is often forgotten and obscured by time. Then generation after generation most of the original meaning is lost and or degenerated.
Other point on Evolution.
I think I am coming close to envisioning a more completed and almost religious view of Evolution. We are at the cusp of the formation of a scientifically sound unified theory of evolution that Incorporates the many different forces involved in it. It seems like all the elements are present for a breakthrough, if only there were some accredited group of scientist to bring these new revelations to the forefront.
Think about it "A unified theory of evolution" Whoever can articulate it well enough to present it to the world should deserve a Nobel prize.
Evolution is the end result of a process in which a balance is found between multifaceted forces of natural selection, sexual selection, epigenetic adaption, and mutagenesis reaction.
Its a process so complex with results so magnificent that its no wonder that more primitive ages of man believed life to be created by a God.
-
I believed completely in Darwin's theory of evolution until recently when I read the book 'Biology of Bielief', by Bruce Lipton.
Now I still believe in evolution, but not exactly how Darwin described it. This is mainly due to the increasing knowledge about epigenetics. Because environmental conditions affect gene expression in an organism throughout it's life, and these changes can then be inherited by the offspring, it resembles more the theory of evolution by the ridiculed Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.
Here is a quote from "Connecting Through the Space Between Us" "The Bond" by Lynne McTaggart- pp33
"In the mid-80's, John Cairns, a British-born geneticist at Harvard's School of Public Health, carried out an experiment that would set off on of the largest arguments in modern biology. The plan of the experiment was simple enough: to get bacteria in a tight spot. Cairns selected bacteria with a genetic defect rendering them unable to digest lactose., the sugar present in milk, then introduced them into a batch of petri dishes containing cultures whose only food source was lactose. Without any digestible food, the bacteria faced death by slow starvation.
According to orthodox science and the Neo-Darwinisits view of natural selection, the bacteria would not be able to colonize, without a food source to drive metabolic processes, they could not carry out normal reproduction. Nevertheless in every Petri dish Cairns found a goodly number of thriving colonies.
When Cairns tested for genetic changes in the colonies, he found that a single type of gene had changed: those preventing lactose metabolism.
Identical changes in just those genes had occurred within every new colony in every Petri dish. Cairns had confirmed that none of the original bacteria contained a lactose-digesting mutation prior to the experiment. Through some unknown mechanism the bacteria had activated eleventh-hour mutations in direct response to an extreme environmental crisis, and the mutations had saved their lives. The bacteria had defied the central dogma: they had evolved purposefully, not randomly, in order to restore balance and harmony with their environment. Somehow the extreme environmental conditions had caused changes in genes, enabling the bacteria to digest the only food available to them.
In 1988 Cairns published his findings in the prestigious journal "Nature" under the droll title "The Origin Of Mutants", a flippant nod to Darwin. He proposed that cells within organisms have the ability to orchestrate their own "direct mutation", rapidly adapting to a changing environment. Although Cairns, the discoverer of the structure and replication of the E. coli genome, had great standing among his peers, the Lamarckian assertion that the environment changed genes sparked a decade long protest in the medical literature. The American journal "Science" dismissed his work as tantamount to "heresy". "
So hmm looks like the spaghetti monster is running neck and neck with Darwin. ;D
-
Read darwin please. he clearly explains why this is NOT true.
Read something besides darwin please. he clearly explains why this is NOT true.
So Darwin is the absolute........ hmmmm Sounds like a religion thang.
-
all things in nature are constantly competing. This is the basic drive behind evolution. The extinction of species due to not being able to compete with their better adapted counterpart is a rather fast (evolutionary speaking) process. when modern man came about Neanderthals quickly became extinct because they could no longer compete. again extinction is a fast process. another step in evolution takes much longer. So yes there were periods when more than one type of humans roamed the earth simultaneously, as confirmed by fossil records. We just happen to live somewhere along the evolutionary timeline where our predecessors have already become extinct while our successor has not yet come along(probably).
If there was/is so much mutation going on, why is it that when humans separated and some went east and made it to North America, as some theories go and some more humans went west to Europe and eventually hopped over to North Am. and then these two human groups were able to breed successfully and studies of human psychology show that there is virtually no difference in how aboriginal NA males and females interact compared to Europeans after taking cultural norms out of the equation.
There was a huge amount of time that passed according to the theory, which would have given time for differences of some sort to crop up.
I still say Darwin's theory makes great reading, but so does the spaghetti monster deal. ;D
-
One tooth does make a scientific revolution.
-
According to orthodox science and the Neo-Darwinisits view of natural selection, the bacteria would not be able to colonize, without a food source to drive metabolic processes, they could not carry out normal reproduction. Nevertheless in every Petri dish Cairns found a goodly number of thriving colonies.
When Cairns tested for genetic changes in the colonies, he found that a single type of gene had changed: those preventing lactose metabolism.
Bacteria can evolve a LOT faster than mammals. Yes, there's such a thing as epigenetics, but it operates a LOT more slowly in mammals than in bacteria.
So yes, Darwinian evolution does indeed happen, simultaneously with Lamarckin-type epigenetics-based evolution. They can coexist, dude.
-
Read something besides Darwin please. he clearly explains why this is NOT true.
So Darwin is the absolute........ hmmmm Sounds like a religion thang.
Your automatic assumption that i meant read just Darwin is typical. Of course Darwin's teachings are not absolute. I merely suggested them because they are the starting point in understanding evolution. Of course you should also read the work of both his predecessors and his successors to appreciate the evolution of the understanding of the process of evolution. Personally i read a lot besides darwin and in the proces gaines sugnificant apreciation for the magnitute of his discoveries. His visonary mind and unique aproach presented facts more than 150 years ago that scientists today are still catching up on. Darwin was clearly aware of epigentics and if you read his unmodified manuscrips carefully you'll notice that. He just wasn't aware that some of the things he noticed through research and extrapolation were genetic and some of them were epigenetic. What he did understood was how, through the proces of natural selection, these changes were stimulated and how they were activated through adaptation(either genetic or epigenetic). If Darwin had the equipment we now have to differentiate between genetic and epigenetic evolution he would sure have adressed the issue.
@cherimoya
Off course both Darwinian genetic and epigenetic evolution take place simultaneously. Epigenetic evolution is the predecessor to genetic evolution. They are driven by the same principles, the principles of Darwinian evolution. I'm not implying that Darwin was right in an absolute sense or that the understanding of these processes hasn't evolved further through the work of fisher and others, instead by Darwinian evolution i mean the basic principles discovered by him.
-
Your automatic assumption that i meant read just Darwin is typical. Of course Darwin's teachings are not absolute. I merely suggested them because they are the starting point in understanding evolution. Of course you should also read the work of both his predecessors and his successors to appreciate the evolution of the understanding of the process of evolution. Personally i read a lot besides darwin and in the proces gaines sugnificant apreciation for the magnitute of his discoveries. His visonary mind and unique aproach presented facts more than 150 years ago that scientists today are still catching up on. Darwin was clearly aware of epigentics and if you read his unmodified manuscrips carefully you'll notice that. He just wasn't aware that some of the things he noticed through research and extrapolation were genetic and some of them were epigenetic. What he did understood was how, through the proces of natural selection, these changes were stimulated and how they were activated through adaptation(either genetic or epigenetic). If Darwin had the equipment we now have to differentiate between genetic and epigenetic evolution he would sure have adressed the issue.
@cherimoya
Off course both Darwinian genetic and epigenetic evolution take place simultaneously. Epigenetic evolution is the predecessor to genetic evolution. They are driven by the same principles, the principles of Darwinian evolution. I'm not implying that Darwin was right in an absolute sense or that the understanding of these processes hasn't evolved further through the work of fisher and others, instead by Darwinian evolution i mean the basic principles discovered by him.
Can't remember the name of the guy, but my recollection is that Darwin wrote about, but was not the originator of his brand of evolution. ie he did not 'discover' evolution.
-
Can't remember the name of the guy, but my recollection is that Darwin wrote about, but was not the originator of his brand of evolution. ie he did not 'discover' evolution.
Wallace I think
-
I thought that Wallace came up with similar things after Darwin so forced Darwin to publish before he had planned. I think originally Darwin wanted to publish post-mortem so as not to make problems with his wife and her family. That's my vague memory from a biography.
-
I thought that Wallace came up with similar things after Darwin so forced Darwin to publish before he had planned. I think originally Darwin wanted to publish post-mortem so as not to make problems with his wife and her family. That's my vague memory from a biography.
correct far as i know
there were other predecessors to darwin that mentioned the subject in one way or another, it was however darwin who first (dared) to link it to the evolution of all living things.