Your Keyword Here | (2/5) Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

(2/5) Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

Posted on March 27, 2011
Filed Under Charles Darwin | 25 Comments

1993 Documentary on Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species” Part 2 of 5. Part 3:
Video Rating: 4 / 5

No related posts.


25 Responses to “(2/5) Origin of Species by Charles Darwin”

  1. StrikaAmaru on March 27th, 2011 7:00 pm

    10 kids… Wow. And we balk at 3.

  2. AtheistEvolution on March 27th, 2011 7:55 pm

    @puncheex Exactly.

  3. puncheex on March 27th, 2011 8:35 pm

    @AtheistEvolution: Absolutely. They most certainly will not be “Brown Bears” (Ursus arctos), they’ll be tinted polar bears, U. maritimus camoflagae, or some such, and eventually U. camoflagae.

  4. AtheistEvolution on March 27th, 2011 8:44 pm

    @puncheex Just because it is possible that a small group of Polar bears (if taken out of their environment) might evolve to have darker fur, doesn’t mean that they will evolve to a brown bear. They may have brown fur, but they will never evolve to be the same as an existing species. They will evolve to a new form of it’s own species until they become so different as to be classified as a completely new one.

  5. puncheex on March 27th, 2011 9:02 pm

    The chances of your having a driving accident in a year is rather more than 1%, but you choose to do so anyway.

    If you want to make a science argument, we’re on firm ground to do that. Weighing peoples intentions, hopes and fears, particularly dead people in a different culture, is a loosing game, and there is little point to it.

  6. puncheex on March 27th, 2011 9:16 pm

    @jabrightlefthook: No, it means he knew there were risks. The estimated chance of a detectable problem in mating unrelated people is usually about 1%; there are a lot of first cousin marriages in England in the 19th century, and it was known that the rate of problems was low. He took the risk for love (I assume), and the averages went his way as far as we know; his children that died died from disease, not genetic defects. He did worry about it, though.

  7. jabrightlefthook on March 27th, 2011 10:03 pm

    @puncheex so by you saying no not true means he knew what he wass doing was wrong in terms of just a scientific perspective and still went through with it well then that just makes him even worse.

  8. puncheex on March 27th, 2011 10:27 pm

    @mbmanon: Since no one can live inside of Darwin’s brain or get him to communicate about it, you could possibly be right, but I see no necessity that you should be. I would say he began to loose his faith, perhaps as early as the time he was training for the clergy. It was certainly endemic in his family; Erasmus was very much a free thinker. I think it may have well been part of the springboard that lifted his consciousness to the ToE.

  9. puncheex on March 27th, 2011 11:06 pm

    @AtheistEvolution: I don’t see why not. It is certainly possible that a group of polar bears could find themselves without ice and snow to live on, and will adapt anew dark coloration. Of course it doesn’t do so by a reversal (except as only one of a great many low-probability events), but more likely by the development of a new series of genes for brown (or perhaps a nice forest camo design) pelt.

  10. puncheex on March 27th, 2011 11:38 pm

    @jabrightlefthook: Not true; Darwin well understood it, and, according to his biographers, often grieved that the loss of Annie was somehow because of that possibility. It is much more likely, of course, that she simply died of infectious disease, just as many, many children have over the years. We know now that marrying someone as close as your first cousin probably about doubles the normal propensity for defects.

  11. jabrightlefthook on March 27th, 2011 11:45 pm

    @StarControl69 fair enough.

  12. StarControl69 on March 28th, 2011 12:02 am

    @jabrightlefthook Well since I am only 16 and still lack university and even most of high school education, it’s pretty normal that I’m not on the level of Einstein nor Hawkins. However, I embrace reality instead of denying it, and that makes my learning possible. Not gonna comment anymore, have a nice day :)

  13. jabrightlefthook on March 28th, 2011 12:16 am

    @StarControl69 too difficult for you ?you the man of great intelligence ?…………..i think not.

  14. StarControl69 on March 28th, 2011 12:23 am

    @jabrightlefthook Playing chess on a comment section without no physical board or pawns is too difficult for me. You’re questioning proven facts, I’m, I win.

  15. jabrightlefthook on March 28th, 2011 1:00 am

    @StarControl69 I challenge you to a game of intellect then, lets play Chess whoever wins will “just go away ” as you put it. If i possess no intelligence then i shall surely lose but lets see if you are as cool as you think you are.

  16. StarControl69 on March 28th, 2011 1:25 am

    @jabrightlefthook If you truly were intelligent, your arguments would not suck so hard at least.

  17. jabrightlefthook on March 28th, 2011 2:23 am

    @StarControl69 dont hate on intelligence you loser ,you wouldnt tell me to go away if you knew me personally

  18. StarControl69 on March 28th, 2011 2:58 am

    @jabrightlefthook Just go away, your arguments suck.

  19. jabrightlefthook on March 28th, 2011 3:21 am

    @AtheistEvolution thats true that is a part of certain animal species behavior i think we take it to another level but yea i agree with you thanks for responding

  20. AtheistEvolution on March 28th, 2011 3:46 am

    @jabrightlefthook If you want to talk on an evolutionary scale…all societal animals have morality and are not purely self preservation. Social animals need each other to survive to it is in our best interest to help each other. You may be right, it IS societal pressure. But that is natural for a social animal. We seek to ensure our survival by keeping the “pack” healthy. We simply can’t do it alone.

  21. jabrightlefthook on March 28th, 2011 3:48 am

    @AtheistEvolution “why didnt you give that man that dollar you know you could have spared that dollar shame on you . I feel its societal pressure to be giving that makes people feel guilty about not giving a damn by the way thanks for responding to each individual question i know the message was i had wrote .

  22. jabrightlefthook on March 28th, 2011 4:31 am

    @AtheistEvolution the natural order is self preservation and passing on “your” own individual traits so that “your” individuality may be passed on .you dont see other animals handing out food to thier species . i feel as though self preservation should be the only goal it sounds selfish but one of the first words we learn as children is mine our possessive nature doesnt dissipate , in my belief it only gets stronger and then good old morals come walking round the corner to whisper in your ear…

  23. jabrightlefthook on March 28th, 2011 4:35 am

    @AtheistEvolution your answer was perfect and thats what i was looking for thank for your insight i feel the same way nothing is black and white there are many facets and variations to a situation and view points i agree with you 90 percent though. now i like everything you said up until “the effect that my actions have on my fellow man ” if you being an athiest like my self know nothing awaits you after death why do morals come into play we evolved from elements and seek to feed the poor when..

  24. AtheistEvolution on March 28th, 2011 4:41 am

    @jabrightlefthook Why is abortion wrong? Is it wrong if the mother will die in birth? Or if she was raped? Or if the child will be vegetable? War is wrong? Even if you are invaded? Killing is wrong? In self defence? What I am saying is that most things are not so black and white as to label them right or wrong w/o thinking. I do right because its right, not because I fear god. The punishment that awaits is in THIS life. Are you saying that without God you wouldn’t know why things are wrong?

  25. AtheistEvolution on March 28th, 2011 5:02 am

    @jabrightlefthook Of course I have morals. But they don’t come from a book that tells me that they are black and white. They dont’ come from obedience, and they don’t come from a fear of being punished by an authority figure. They come from careful consideration of the situation, the harm that might be caused, and the effect that my actions have on my fellow man. Being evolved has no bearing on how I see morality. Why would it?

Leave a Reply