Evolutionist, please answer?

Question

...is there any of you here with a brain, I meen a real working one, because yet again I got the answers you will get from an ape on my previous question. Here is something Darwin said, was he also stupid?

“As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?”—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1866), p. 139.

"Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."—*Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.

Answer 1

Jeanne, this question has been asked and answered so many times in this forum, all you need to do is go to "resolved questions" and type in any of the key words like "Darwin," or "evolution."

Seriously, I respect your right to ask whatever question you wish, but I don't feel like answering it again, and again.

Answer 2

If Darwin were alive today he would not make such a statement because today we know of many transitional forms that have been discovered since Darwin's time. Darwin lived during the infancy of paleontology. At that time the most renowned physicians would have told you that malaria was caused by breathing vapors from a swamp - "bad air", which is what "malaria" means. And a biologist would have told you that maggots spontaneously arise out of dead meat. The fact that Darwin didn't know as much about evolution as modern scientists is not a discredit either to Darwin or to the subject of his research. It is simply the way science works. It is in fact what anyone with a real working brain would expect. Also, anyone with a real working brain would not attack a sound scientific theory unless they were prepared to offer an alternative scientific theory that explains the known facts at least equally well.

Answer 3

We have found them embedded in the crust of the earth since Darwin's time. Remember--archeology was not really a science until after Darwin's time. And we can't PROVE that we are direct descendants of the ones who came before us, but it sure is odd that they share so many similarities with us, and when one species of man dies out, the next appears--where did they come from? Don't forget, Darwin knew that the Theory of Evolution flew in the face of religion. That's why he didn't publish it for many years after he had made his discoveries on the Beagle. He waited until he was already considered an elder statesman in the scientific community before he published.

Answer 4

Charles Darwin wrote his views 150 years ago when there was far less fossil evidence revealed by modern archaelogy than exists now. Creationists like to make a straw man out of Darwinism being ignorant of the fact that he was one man with a point of view who provided a working theory describing the mechanism whereby evolution occurs-evolution doesn't depend on Darwin. Darwin's personal viewpoints are based on the limited evidence he had at his disposal-his being wrong or ill informed means nothing and evolution is an indisputable fact regardless of his views.

Answer 5

One of these days I'm just going to ask how many people have actually sat down and read The Origin of Species, or how many people know who Thomas Huxley is. There is a vast difference between what Darwin wrote and what is attributed to him.

Please, someone else read the book. Thus far I'm the only person I've met who has. It's actually quite good and readable.

Answer 6

This quote proves Darwin was an honest man. He saw the results of evolution, but knew the limits of the facts. Since then transition creatures (e. g. archeopteryx) have been identified.

Answer 7

Are not Neanderthal Man, Java Man and Cro-Magnon Man evidence of the evolution of the brain? The study of evolution has expanded greatly since Darwin. Scientists aren't taking his words as gospel, just a starting point.....

Answer 8

Answer what? Please, please try to understand that we cannot have a meaningful exchange of ideas if you limit yourself to convenient quotes about issues that in fact have been addressed time and time again. I grant that it's is not your fault if the state of education in the U.S. is such that these elementary concepts, (genetics, mutations, alleles, etc.) are not part of pre-college curricula. But even a cursory glance at the material (outside of the zealot web-sites) would have permitted you to see the TOMES on this issue.

In any case, please understand that evolutionary theory has not stood still since Darwin's first proposal. It underwent a major revolution when it incorporated genetics and more advanced methods for evaluating the fossil record.

So no, he wasn't stupid. In the same way that Newton wasn't stupid in his theorizing about gravity - even if Einstein and others would later expand the theory so that Newton's proposals became subsumed into relativity. Science grows, dogma cannot.

Answer 9

"Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."

READ THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH ... you pulled out a part of a quote to make it say something else ... darwin was posing argument, as if someone else were asking it... he did that a lot ..., google it ... read it YOURSELF!

if i were to guess, i'd say you already KNEW this.... you guys are ***** pathetic ... do you have ANY ethics AT ALL?

YES... there are transitional fossils in museums all over the world ... in spite of what "answersingenisis" claim ...GO BACK TO SCHOOL

Answer 10

You know, this is ironic that you asked this, just last night I was thinking about it. But just for the record, I genuinely believe in God, but if we "derived" from monkeys ~ then how can there still be monkeys? Why would only SOME of them had stayed monkeys??
But those passages you found are very..... contradictory to himself aren't they?