Are evolutionists trying to rewrite Darwins Theory for him?

Question

Charles Darwin wrote: If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed . . . The number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great . . . An interminable number of intermediate forms must have existed. {IBID., chapters 6,10,15}.


Clearly every fossils is not a transitional fossil as many claim, otherwise Darwin would not have had written the above

Note Darwin did not say, that there would be a mere handful of intermediate fossils but a 'numberless' amount.

a numberless amount of these items would certainly kill the idea of creatrionsm. Which is why the debate goes on.

Still none after 150 yrs. Darwin would have clearly rejected his theory by now;

so why do some of you insist on keeping it in their hearts?

Answer 1

It is hypocritical to accuse 'evolutionists' of trying to rewrite Darwin ... and in the same breath you literally rewrite Darwin by misquoting him.



Specifically, you dishonestly omit something from that Darwin quote. (I include the full text in Sources below, so people can see for themselves.)



You omit (in that "...") Darwin's very next sentence:

"Consequently evidence of their former existence

could be found only amongst fossil remains, which are preserved, as we shall attempt to show in a future chapter, in an extremely imperfect and intermittent record."



In other words, Darwin says precisely what you claim "Darwin did not say" ... that the fossil record is imperfect. In fact, he devotes an entire chapter to it (chapter 9).



Darwin did NOT say there would be a "numberless amount" of *fossils* ... only that "numberless" intermediate *species* (or "varieties" or "forms") must have existed. So you are apparently unable to even read the sections you did bother to quote!



This is just flat-out dishonest.



It is a waste of time to debate the merits of Darwin's words, with someone who doesn't even have the integrity to represent his words accurately.



There are few more glaring examples of Creationist deceit, than the claim that they understand Darwin more faithfully than the 'evolutionists' ... when they clearly have never actually *READ* Darwin ... other than the carefully butchered quotations they and other Creationists manufacture for each other!



P.S. ... Thanks to Michael K for adding yet another classic bit of Creationist deceit ... the "Darwin recanted on his deathbed" story. The great thing about that story is that Creationists don't even have a quote they can butcher to "support" this absurd claim ... but they say it anyways! So apparently, in creationist circles, you can simply make stuff up, and people will both believe it, and repeat it.

Answer 2

First thing, there is no such person as an evolutionist. That is a somewhat derogatory term used by certain Christians and Creationist to categorize people that accept evolution.



The term "numberless" can mean anything from 2 to unknown. That is what he meant, unknown. Remember the man was theorizing.



Science is fact based not faith based. Evolution has been proven and reproved many times. It is not in peoples hearts, that is religion, it is in their minds.



There really is NO debate. Science does not choose the battle Evangelist. Science is there, Creationist have tried and tried and never succeeded to defeat evolution. Any person of normal intellect, common sense and logic would be able to rationalize the pros and cons. Then it becomes easy to dismiss Creation as non science.



You seem to think you know a lot about Darwin and his theory. But, you seem not to understand his theory was one about natural selection. You also make other statements that clearly indicate your lack of knowledge of biology and evolution. I suggest you do more reading and study.



Understanding Evolution and Science

http://www.wiu.edu/users/mfb100/evolution.php

Answer 3

I think you misunderstand the concept of a theory. As new evidence comes out (for any theory) the theory is adjusted to accommodate the new data. It's how progress is made. Imagine the state of physics if we never went beyond the theories of Newton.



It hasn't been 'Darwin's Theory' since researcher #2 decided to continue the research. The literal word-for-word theory has been pretty much relegated to the history books, since it's been modified and elaborated upon so much. The concept remains true, and he certainly got the ball rolling, but his work is not the be-all and end-all.



It's so supported by modern science that you could strike every single bit of data that Darwin collected, and the theory would still hold.



Don't worry about shattering our 'fairy tale.' It's just as likely that I could use lies and misquotes to shatter your delusion that the sky is blue. Anyone with even a little intelligence just has to open their eyes to see the truth.

Answer 4

Foolishness.



That's the problem when arguing with a fanatic. They choose to not understand reality.



When new evidence is discovered that refutes an accepted theory, then a new theory that incorporates the new evidence must be constructed.



Thus, since Darwin's day, more and more evidence for Evolution continues to pour in. The original premise remains sound, but the specific mechanism theories are changed to reflect them.



Unlike Creationism, where the original premise changes not a whit, and any evidence to the contrary is completely ignored.

Answer 5

<>



'A numberless amount' is a contradiction in terms.



<>



Your use of the word 'none' is utterly incorrect, as lots of transitional fossils have been found, and Darwin was already aware of some when he was working on his book. He knew, for example, about the presence of Mesozoic mammal remains from Oxfordshire and Dorset, and knew they couldn't cleanly be fitted into existing categories. He was also aware of fossil forms from South America such as giant ground sloths, seeing as he'd dug some out and sent them on to London, and so called 'mammal-like reptiles' from South Africa.



The fact that you don't know about such finds as whales with legs, manatees with legs and snakes with legs doesn't mean such fossils haven't been found. Darwin didn't know about those either, but he predicted such 'missing links' would be found if his theory was broadly correct.



Such finds vindicate his theory. It's still accepted because it happens to be an excellent and well-evidenced explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.



Update

<>



Oh dear, such a poor grasp of science. Science doesn't involve proving theories to be correct. None are accepted as being proven. The method is to attempt to disprove them, to falsify them in terms of the available evidence.



After 150 years Darwinian theory hasn't been falsified, and this is despite a great increase in the amount of available evidence. Rather, it's been extended, refined and vindicated.



Update 2

<>



You're not. Rather, you've written a whole lot of things I never mentioned, and asked me to justify them in some way or other. However, as you wrote them rather than me...



What I actually wrote with regards to whales concerned legs, not pelvises. Your grasp of anatomy appears to be slippery. The legs are the two long things beneath the pelvis.



<
why did masmals never evolve feathers,>>



This would be because feathers are derived forms of reptilian scales, and they require the presence of two distinguishable forms of keratin known as alpha and beta. The keratin beta is much harder than keratin alpha. This specialisation arose with reptiles and not mammals.



With scales on mammals, for example the tails of mice, only keratin alpha is involved. This results in the scales being softer than those of reptiles. Actually, the same also applies for amphibians. That's how it's known that keratin beta scales evolved after the divergence of the lineage leading to reptiles from that which led to mammals, with the latter being the synapsids. Non-mammalian synapsid skin specimens first become available from the fossil record of the Lower Perrmian, and the imprints show the lack of hard scales.



Given that no synapsid ever appears to have formed scales involving keratin beta, it's not surprising none evolved feathers, as they also require keratin beta.



<>



This was able to happen due to the availability of keratin beta in reptile scales.

Answer 6

Charles Darwin, after a career of promoting evolution and naturalism, returned to the Christianity of his youth, renouncing on his deathbed the theory of evolution.



















18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;





19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.





20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:





21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.





22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,





23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.





24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:





25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Answer 7

You are ignorant and probably stupid.

Answer 8

If that theroy is correct: Why don't we have wings?

Man has always wanted to fly., if evolution is factual; then man should have, by now, developed wings on their bodies. Right?