Charles Darwin: The True Story
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 09. 2024
- TITLE - Charles Darwin: The True Story
SPEAKER - John van Wyhe, Ph.D.
DATE - April 1, 2009
LOCATION - Kelvin Smith Library ONeill Reading Room on the campus of Case Western Reserve University
SPONSORS - The Kelvin Smith Library and the Institute for the Science of Origins
ABOUT THE SPEAKER - Wyhe is professor of history and philosophy of science at the University of Cambridge and director of The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online.
Best Darwin lecture by far.
Darwin is a great scientific hero. The people who hate him only elevate him and his work.
He was a abolitionist concerning slavery, he helped manage the funds of his hometown, he was beloved and respected by his pears, he literally made sure Alfred Wallace would get a fair retirement after Wallace went broke in old age after many financial mistakes and his door was literally open to anyone...Asa Gray, George Ramones, Ernst Haeckel, Joseph Dalton Hooker etc. all said they felt like family when visiting his home.
He was also a great father as told by his children. He was a good human being foremost and hated "offending" certain individuals with his evolutionary theory...luckily Thomas Huxley in England and Asa Gray in the US didn't have that problem.
Seriously, why would anybody actually "Hate" him?
I have seen, mostly people who respect him immensely to those that disagree with him.
I have never seen anyone "Hate" him.
eyp
@@Raydensheraj hjohvbcguy
@@canadiankewldude 😀🎉🎂🎊🎂! 🎂🎂
What a wonderful lecture! Spirited, interesting and filled with fascinating insights and trivia around a great naturalist with a complex character.
Since he had a complex character, did it evolve or did it adapt? What caused it exactly? Complexity?
Could his character adapt through other means that is not complex and could his character be as complex through non complexity?
Since a complex character would originate frim prior pre-existing complexity, why wouldn't complex organisms (both biological and non biological systems) come from a prior pre-existing complex entity?
@@davidross5593Thank you for taking the time to type up whatever that was.
@ I loled
Finches with different beaks are variants within species. They are still finches. Seeing examples of variations doesn’t explain how finches in all their complexity came about.
Precisely.
We have fossils that show the evolution of these.
@@walkergarya they do not have a complete evolution of any single species. Not one.
@@allisonharper1819 That is true, but irrelevant. We have enough from fossils and genetics that there is NO question that Biological Evolution is a FACT.
@@walkergarya Biological evolution is defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations. So by that logic then climate change is real since the weather changes. Probably why they need 5 theories evolution to attempt an explanation. Brilliant machination. 😂
Im a staunch Christian and creationist for those who are curious.
1.
32:13 he shows a screenshot of Darwin's conclusion in Origin of Species. He underlines a specific quote in the middle. But a later sentence in the same screenshot, that Darwin wrote most certainly caught my eye. "There are, however, some who still think that species have suddenly given birth, through quite unexplained means to new and totally different forms: but, as I have attempted to show, weighty evidence can be opposed to great and abrupt modifications."
Modifications caught my eye. Definitely. In a previous chapter, on a different page, in the same publication, Origin of Species, he admits "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
It is no coincidence that is exactly what we see in human male reproduction and in human female reproduction. It is no coincidence that is exactly what we see in human pregnancy. Numerous slight successive modifications exist and are supposed to exist. Otherwise human reproduction would not and could not happen. Darwin could not see the complexity of a cell. But that sentence says in a way he is not entirely convinced evolution happened, even though he had no evidence for or against.
2. The speaker says something to effect of 'is not true, no matter how often something is repeated' absolutely correct. Absolutely agree.
3. Says later in his talk about most scientists widely accepting the theory. Well what about the absolute fact stated above? Something is not necessarily true no matter how often it is repeated. That applies to the theory of evolution as well. Just cause it is widely accepted, or "a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences and tested hypotheses" (not my definition of theory, got it from a page attempting to debunk intelligent design), does not make it factual. In fact the theory has to presuppose facts and/or laws already in place, for the theory to start to exist.
Why ask why?
Darwin is the only great scientist, who you can regard as a friend, a genius who you could share a beer with...the only scientific theory most people can understand, but couldn't have come up with in 4 billion years.
In June 2007 the Council of Europe's "Committee on Culture, Science and Education" issued a report, The dangers of creationism in education, which states "Creationism in any of its forms, such as 'intelligent design', is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes."
Thank you very much,
@TheAgentdrknite007 The original word was חוּג chûg khoog >From Strong's Concordance: H2328; a circle: - circle, circuit, com passive. It does not mean a sphere. Hebrew has at least two words that mean sphere: : כדור (he) (kadúr) m., ספרה (he) (sféra).
Apparently god failed geometry as well as biology.
Lamarck shouldn't be characterized as thinking of evolution only as a moving along a single line. The appendix in Lamarck's 1809 monograph includes the first published branching evolutionary tree figure in history. This is well written about by Stephen Jay Gould in his article "Branching through a wormhole" which alludes to the 'branching' I mention. I think most historians of biology (And most biology textbooks) seem to have missed this about Lamarck.
@TheAgentdrknite007 Oh dear. I don't care if it's in the original, it's still wrong. Oh, and by the way, Eristosthanese proved the world was a sphere, and how big it was, long before any known copy of Isaiah.
So?
Regardless known scientists of that day, still did not agree or say the earth was a sphere
Great pres. Very informative. Darwin is a true legend who “had the greatest idea any person ever had”.
The greatest idea being life evolved from non life, ape evolved into man?
@@davidross5593
Yes.
Learn.
26:00 seems like a crucial moment with Malthus
@Mr88playmaker And yet you type in English, and not DNA. What prevents you from transmitting this information in DNA. a fine language, according to you.
@Mr88playmaker Do you imagine that there is something going on in dna replication that is not just chemistry? If so could you please tell the room what that might be.
Excellent point
Are ANY of your comments NOT cut/paste from other sources?
@Mr88playmaker I'm sorry, but all matter in the universe is in communication with all the rest, apart from bosons which seem to have a stunning ability to ignor each other, but femions can't ignor them.
If you think there's something going on in biology that isn't chemistry I think you're obliged to tell us what it might be.
@Mr88playmaker If you could quote a scientific paper that says 'information' could not increase perhaps I would find your arguement a little more convincing.
In the mean time, here's a scientific paper that says that information will increase. '‘Evolution of Biological Information’, Thomas Schneider, Journal of Nuclaic Acid Research, Oxford University, July 2000.' I know you didn't read it last time I mentioned it., but it's open access and available on line.
"And how come humans have not evolved into anything else since our evolution from apes according to Darwin"
We are; evolution happens all the time, even to us. All my molars have an extra root for example. This is an evolutionary mutation. It is a useless one but then most are. How do you think viruses change to cross between species? They EVOLVE. They do it quickly because they are very simple. The more complex the organism, the slower the obvious changes take place.
That is adaptation. Not evolution
Viruses that change to cross between species, are still viruses. They don't become something entirely different like an anti virus or become a higher form of being.
They're still viruses. They adapt to their environment when in a another specie.
@@davidross5593 Evolution and mutation go hand in hand: the difference between them is one of degree. Enough mutations over time and you do get a new species.
John van Wyhe asserted that Darwin's theory was well accepted within 20 years of its publication. I did not survey newspapers past that time, so he may be right. Yet, his theory was vigorously questioned in British newspapers. (See examples in www.academia.edu/12761528/Scientific_Research_and_Discovery_Stimulate_Controversy_in_Victorian_Britain.)
+MorganMarvinson As it should be! Every theory should be questioned and I hate it that nutjobs today act as if questioning means debunked.
y
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Nope. Your fairy tale bible is not a guide to what is true or real.
Dare you to prove information and complexity coming to existence and continuing to survive without a mind and prove it not be a miracle.
This is a bad assumption by creationists who do not understand Mitochondria genetics. Mitochondria eve is only the latest known common ancestor of all humans. She is not the first, just the oldest surviving woman who's genes we all have. This could actually change at any time. Its a bit complicated to explain in this limited post. I highly suggest you look it up.
How did Darwin earn a living? Did the books pay? Did he live off his inheritance? Was he a clergyman?
He had an inheritance and he lived frugally.
@Mr88playmaker Flew's descent into senility, when he couldn't even remember the names of his closest colleagues, is a tragic story. Flew's confused final ramblings were influenced by Behe, a laughing stock who couldn't even find a single supporter in his own department.
The mechanism of DNA is well understood, it's chemistry. The Logos, as you call it is also well understood, it's information theory. You don't have a case.
There's so much I want to answer you but please refer to these youtube videos about new DNA studies suggesting that all humans descended from ONE single ancestor who lived some 60,000 years ago, way after the apes.
Videos numbers (since I can't send the full link):
v=y_nNNoT4Kbg
v=mvLWpJcsEOs
@Mr88playmaker Are you suggesting God is not intelligent?
especially since Wallace had the same moment .__.
@Mr88playmaker What is happening is chemistry. Where the information arises is here, '‘Evolution of Biological Information’, Thomas Schneider, Journal of Nuclaic Acid Research, Oxford University, July 2000.' It's natural, and involves about as much Logos as the growth of a salt crystal.
1:07:15 Ever think about the wonder of Earth worms? Take a peek. PS. John Van Wyhe is that too rare PhD who is a wonderful speaker also. Great talk !
I don't wonder, the wonder of earthworms. Because i know the origin of earthworms.
probably because they used pretty lame tags.
Does the true story include, that Darwin recived a copy of a parallel work to the Origin of Species, from a man, who humbly asked him to go through his works. Darwin claimed, that he never received any works of the kind.
Incorrect.
Grossly incorrect. With all due respect, you are an ignoramus. Before making an ignorant and foolish statement like that you should get the full story. The man’s name is Alfred Russell Wallace he copublished the first paper on the theory of natural selection with Darwin before the origin of species. He also wrote a book many years later called Darwinism in respect of the fact that it was originally Darwin’s idea. Throughout his entire life he fully acknowledged and consistently stated that Darwin was well ahead of him and the originator of the idea. They remained good friends until Darwins death.
In fact if you do the maths you will realise the Darwin actually had the idea and have communicated it to very highly regarded members of the scientific community decades before the origin was published in 1859, and when Wallace was a young boy. He just didn’t publish the book because he was gathering more knowledge and evidence.
Photosynthesis.
No, I get this rude when people say clearly absurd things and try to pass themselves off a scientifically literate when they have made a point of learning nothing on the subject. It is contemptible behavior that warrants ridicule because of the danger it represents to all humanity.
no it's not.
you just type story of charles darwin then that's it !!!!
@TheAgentdrknite007 Did God have a choice?
see Roger Morneau ex Satanist pt 5
Darwin is a religion
"Same thing goes for what Darwin has come up with."
Wrong again, scientific theories are subject to rigorous experimentation and peer review. You only expose your ignorance with bullshit statements like this.
That's a lie.
There's no need to get angry and stoop low with your use of words. I presented you with my arguments and if you find them invalid so be it, you can still be civilised!
I'm a Christian I have nothing wrong to say about Darwin but many people that are fans of Darwin may not know that, he excepted jesus before he died. And not much is said about this.
Thats because it's a lie.
@@paulgarrett4474 right look into it you be surprised the one thing I can tell is he was wrong
@@HectorRodriguez-qr4dm it is a well known false story made up by a creationist relative of Darwins. All creationists have are lies and ignorance.
@@paulgarrett4474 so you think we came from monkeys? Because that is a theory 🤔 you know this right
@@HectorRodriguez-qr4dm because of the fossil evidence, because of the genetic evidence, because of the paleoanthropological evidence, because of the embryonic evidence, because of all the evidence really. It is a scientific theory, you obviously don't understand what that means so try reading a different book once in a while.
Wow, so you get this spiteful and rude when others disagree with your theory! I doubt you know much about it anyway except that it is feared or reviled by religious groups. Therefore your opinion is more an expression of cultural dislocation than a genuine interest in that theory!
Haha when they showed the front page of The Sun showing the Darwin criminal they should have turned to page 3 of that newspaper to see the REAL wonders of Evolution!! Phwoooaarr! ;-D
The Brits will know what I am talking about, the rest of you just Google The Sun Page 3 Girls! heehee!
This video is too reasoned and rational- I don't think a basic born again type who blindly worships his "creative designer" could maintain their attention for the whole video feed without getting a major anxiety attack. There should be a warning preceeding this video that narrow minded myopic morons should avoid it altogether
Boy your comment sure age horribly looking back with all the evidence we have today that Darwin was a net job you sure look ignorant
Im a staunch Christian and creationist. This is my 2nd video i have watched that was recorded at Case Western Reserve University, the 2nd day in a row. Yesterday, Wednesday 7/20/22 i did watch Kenneth Miller's lecture on the Collapse of Intelligent Design. And yes i did watch both in their entirety..... I did not have an anxiety attack, not even close to one, as you assume a Christian would.
If Christians are narrow minded myopic morons, then how are you not narrow minded for assuming Christians are? Please explain.
Well name me one specie that evolved into another specie please (what did horses and giraffes come from for instance). And how come humans have not evolved into anything else since our evolution from apes according to Darwin. Is it still to come maybe? I don't think so otherwise there would have been at least some changes but there's no bit of indication of that.
This theory served the purpose of few people at the time whether to make money or oppose religious people at the time or whatever