Epigenetics News

Epigenetics: Ghosts in the genome?

Spread the love

Well, that’s how The Scientist describes it:

How one generation’s experience can affect the next

Caution! The article begins by denouncing the crackpot theories of Lysenko along these lines, and piously informs us that “science” has since discovered that there is something in epigenetics after all.

Any history that leaves out the ridicule to which Lamarck was routinely subjected, without justification, by Darwin’s followers is revisionism, pure and simple.

But then, the people responsible have some butt to cover, right?

Meanwhile,

Not only is epigenetic information inherited during cellular division, but it can also be passed from one generation to the next in multicellular organisms, a phenomenon known as transgenerational epigenetics. This requires that epigenetic information be carried in the gametes—sperm and eggs—and be maintained throughout the dramatic changes that occur during gamete production, fertilization, and early development. While researchers once considered this unlikely, recent studies have begun to demonstrate that parents can and do pass on epigenetic information to their children.

Okay, Lamarck was right. And reading the brief, potted history, evidence that supported him began to be available in the 1950s.

Spin continues:

This idea, often referred to as the inheritance of acquired characters, was one aspect of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck’s early evolutionary theories. But the current use of “Lamarckian inheritance” to refer to transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is something of a misnomer. In fact, the inheritance of acquired characters was hardly the defining feature of Lamarck’s beliefs. His evolutionary theory did not include the basic concept of natural selection, and did not have a place for phenotypic variation existing prior to environmental challenges. Moreover, both Darwin and Lamarck believed that traits acquired in one’s lifetime could be passed on. Famously, Darwin even developed a model of inheritance that invoked “gemmules,” which carried information from all parts of the body to alter the characteristics of the next generation.

Not a misnomer. Lamarck was right.

It’s not clear that natural selection is anything other than Darwin’s tautology, under the circumstances. The survivors survive.

And yes, Darwin personally grew favourable over time to Lamarck’s ideas, but his followers did not.

But its father’s diet is not the only environmental factor that can affect the biology of a rodent: stress experienced by fathers can also negatively impact future offspring. A number of studies from Tracy Bale’s lab at the University of Pennsylvania have shown that prospective mouse fathers subjected to stressful environments, such as separation from their mothers at a young age, have offspring that exhibit altered cortisol release in response to stress.8 Similarly, Mount Sinai neurobiologist Eric Nestler and his colleagues have shown that male mice subjected to social defeat sire offspring with altered anxiety- and depression-related behaviors, such as decreased time spent in exposed areas. More.

In short, Lamarck was right, as regards his most important (rejected) idea, inheritance of acquired characteristics. Recipe for further success faster: Quit listening to the Darwin lobby and stuff the revisionism about what really happened on their watch. And get on with actual science.

See also: Epigenetic change: Lamarck, wake up, you’re wanted in the conference room!

Follow UD News at Twitter!

64 Replies to “Epigenetics: Ghosts in the genome?

  1. 1
    ppolish says:

    I’m a Trinity guy who believes God the Father is not of this world. Jesus the Christ was of this world, and the Holy Ghost is of this world. Could the Holy Spirit have an epigenetic effect? A guiding purposeful effect in other ways too? I’d argue yes.

    Lots of studies and evidence that humans are born spiritual. Not so sure about other parts of nature being spiritual though. A Native American belief there:)

  2. 2
    Andre says:

    I’ve always said Jean Baptiste Lemarck was right. I’ll say it again….

    Jean Baptiste Lemarck was right.

  3. 3
    bornagain says:

    of related interest to this quote:

    Epigenetics: Ghosts in the genome? – December 8, 2015
    Excerpt: But its father’s diet is not the only environmental factor that can affect the biology of a rodent: stress experienced by fathers can also negatively impact future offspring. A number of studies from Tracy Bale’s lab at the University of Pennsylvania have shown that prospective mouse fathers subjected to stressful environments, such as separation from their mothers at a young age, have offspring that exhibit altered cortisol release in response to stress.8 Similarly, Mount Sinai neurobiologist Eric Nestler and his colleagues have shown that male mice subjected to social defeat sire offspring with altered anxiety- and depression-related behaviors, such as decreased time spent in exposed areas.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....he-genome/

    Are these notes:

    Plant’s Epigenome as Varied as Their Environments – Cornelius Hunter – March 24, 2013
    Excerpt: epigenetics would involve literally hundreds (and that is conservative) of changes required before any benefit would be realized.
    The tagging machines not only need to be built, or adapted from other machines, but they need to know where in all the genome to place the tags. Likewise for the machines that remove and move the tags. In other words, it is not good enough merely to evolve the machines. They somehow must know where to place the tags given a spectrum of environmental signals.
    And then the machines that interpret the tags would have to do so correctly. They would have to know what the tag means. So again, not only must these machines have evolved or adapted, but they must know what they are doing.
    That is astronomically unlikely to occur according to our knowledge of science.
    But that is not all. For even given such a miracle, such epigenetic tags would not be inheritable. And yet they are. So there are even more machines that must have arisen by chance to preserve the tags when the cell divides.
    This brings us to yet another set of problems with epigenetics: the machinery described above is not inheritable unless is evolves in the germline. But in the germline it doesn’t do anybody any good. Only when it is a passed on to the progeny can it help.
    But even then the epigenetics capability likely won’t help because this capability gives the organism the ability to respond to a wide range of environmental conditions—conditions that probably won’t even occur in the organism’s lifetime.
    In other words, we must believe that an astronomically unlikely capability arose by chance and though most of it wasn’t helpful, it was preserved anyway. Then, in future generations, when a particular environmental shift occurred, the epigenetics came to the rescue.
    These problems are highlighted by the new research discussed above, showing how the epigenetic tagging can be so different in the same species of plant, in different locations around the world.,,,
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....their.html

    Seasonal immunity: Activity of thousands of genes differs from winter to summer – May 12, 2015
    University of Cambridge
    Summary: Our immune systems vary with the seasons, according to a study that could help explain why certain conditions such as heart disease and rheumatoid arthritis are aggravated in winter while people tend to be healthier in the summer. The study shows that the activity of almost a quarter of our genes (5,136 out of 22,822 genes tested) differs according to the time of year, with some more active in winter and others more active in summer. This seasonality also affects our immune cells and the composition of our blood and adipose tissue (fat).
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....112356.htm

    Epigenetics: Feast, Famine, and Fatness – Helen Kollias – December 25th, 2009
    Excerpt: In the last five to ten years, there has been more and more evidence showing there is a non-genetic part that can be passed down to children and even grandchildren. As of this summer there are over 100 scientific articles documenting non-DNA inheritance, also called transgenerational epigenetics (1).
    http://www.precisionnutrition......nd-fatness

    Grandma’s Experiences Leave a Mark on Your Genes By Dan Hurley|Tuesday, June 11, 2013
    Excerpt: Your ancestors’ lousy childhoods or excellent adventures might change your personality, bequeathing anxiety or resilience by altering the epigenetic expressions of genes in the brain.
    http://discovermagazine.com/20.....your-genes

    Anxiety May Shorten Your Cell Life – July 12, 2012
    Excerpt: These studies had the advantage of large data sets involving thousands of participants.
    If the correlations remain robust in similar studies, it would indicate that mental states and lifestyle choices can produce epigenetic effects on our genes.
    http://crev.info/2012/07/anxie.....cell-life/

    Scientists Finally Show How Your Thoughts Can Cause Specific Molecular Changes To Your Genes, – December 10, 2013
    Excerpt: “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,”,,,
    “Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,”,,,
    the researchers say, there was no difference in the tested genes between the two groups of people at the start of the study. The observed effects were seen only in the meditators following mindfulness practice. In addition, several other DNA-modifying genes showed no differences between groups, suggesting that the mindfulness practice specifically affected certain regulatory pathways.
    http://www.tunedbody.com/scien.....ges-genes/

    The health benefits of happiness – Mark Easton – 2006
    Excerpt: “It’s not just that if you’re physically well you’re likely to be happy but actually the opposite way round,” said Dr Cox.
    (Extensive studies show that) “If you are happy you are (much more) likely in the future to have less in the way of physical illness than those who are unhappy”.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/pro.....924180.stm

    Proverbs 17:22
    A cheerful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones.

  4. 4
    Mapou says:

    Of course, Lamarck was right and this is what is killing them. It is killing them because, if Lamarck was right, nobody needs any of that RM+NS BS for adaptation or survival. So, if Lamarck was right (and he was), nothing remains of evolutionary theory and their entire little castle in the air.

  5. 5
    Dionisio says:

    While researchers once considered this unlikely, recent studies have begun to demonstrate that…

    That kind of sentence seems to pop up frequently in biology articles these days.

    Any idea why?

  6. 6
    Andre says:

    It pips up because science advances one funeral at a time.

  7. 7
    goodusername says:

    News,

    Any history that leaves out the ridicule to which Lamarck was routinely subjected, without jutification, by Darwin’s followers is revisionism, pure and simple.

    Any history that leaves out Creationists and ID proponents ridiculing Darwin for his support of inheritance of acquired characteristics is also revisionism.
    ( Here’s an article on discovery.org – from 2013 – saying that if not for Darwin that “Lamarckianism would likely have died a quicker and more merciful death.”)

    Not a misnomer. Lamarck was right.

    If it’s not a misnomer than Darwin was a Lamarckist. But there’s a reason he was never known as such.

    It’s not clear that natural selection is anything other than Darwin’s tautology, under the circumstances. The survivors survive.

    Is “artificial selection” a tautology also?

    And yes, Darwin personally grew favourable over time to Lamarck’s ideas, but his followers did not.

    Over time? Support for the inheritance of acquired characteristics is right there in the first edition of Origin.

  8. 8
    Mapou says:

    goodusername,

    There is no point in you arguing that the Darwinist method of survival and adaptation is not RM+NS as Darwinists have preached for ages. There is no room in Darwinism for non-stochastic adaptive mechanisms, which is what Lamarckism/epigenetics amount to.

    Soon you people will be screaming that you knew it all along and that Darwin invented ID. Sheesh.

  9. 9
    goodusername says:

    Mapou,

    There is no point in you arguing that the Darwinist method of survival and adaptation is not RM+NS as Darwinists have preached for ages. There is no room in Darwinism for non-stochastic adaptive mechanisms, which is what Lamarckism/epigenetics amount to.

    You’re right, there would be no point in me arguing such a thing, and I wouldn’t. I’m arguing that Darwin believed that there were other mechanisms other than RM+NS (i.e. other mechanisms than Darwinism) involved in evolution; including the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

  10. 10

    Which other mechanisms weren’t involved in evolution? Is there a scientific litmus test which one can use to verify and establish it???

  11. 11
    Alicia Cartelli says:

    “Okay, Lamarck was right.”

    -“…the inheritance of acquired characters was hardly the defining feature of Lamarck’s beliefs. His evolutionary theory did not include the basic concept of natural selection, and did not have a place for phenotypic variation existing prior to environmental challenges.”

    “Not a misnomer. Lamarck was right.”

    -“Famously, Darwin even developed a model of inheritance that invoked “gemmules,” which carried information from all parts of the body to alter the characteristics of the next generation.”

    -“In short, Lamarck was right”

    Notice how impervious someone’s mind can be to information.
    Or maybe it’s just a complete lack of reading comprehension.

  12. 12
    Virgil Cain says:

    Yes, Alicia Cartelli, YOU are a perfect example of how impervious someone’s mind can be to information.

    Nice own goal

  13. 13
    Mung says:

    Wow. RDFish was right. There really are little spirits moving things around!

  14. 14
    Andre says:

    Wow Darwin just about predicted everything according to some people…

  15. 15
    Zachriel says:

    News: Okay, Lamarck was right.

    It’s not clear that epigenetic changes become a permanent part of the inheritance of an organism. However, it can provide a “look ahead”, and so can be preferentially incorporated into the genome over time, similar to how mutations during protein synthesis can provide a “look ahead” and be preferentially incorporated.

    Andre: Wow Darwin just about predicted everything according to some people

    Darwin was a careful scientific observer, and his scientific work encompassed many areas of biology.

  16. 16
    Andre says:

    Zahriel
    Darwin was an angry old coot upset with God at the death of his daughter. And he was a plagiarist to boot.

  17. 17
    Mapou says:

    Croteau the Troll:

    Darwin was a careful scientific observer

    Darwin was a mental midget, a moron. 😀

  18. 18
    Vy says:

    Darwin was a careful scientific observer, and his scientific work encompassed many areas of biology.

    You’re kiddi…er, I just remembered that’s standard Zachriel.

    The only thing that matches your incredulous description exists only in your jumbled brain reactions, certainly not Darwin The Theologian.

    Charles Darwin the Darwinist didn’t even get his finches right:

    In fact, Darwin didn’t come up with these ideas about finches. Far from identifying 14 species of finches, Harvard Darwin historian Frank J. Sulloway explains how badly Darwin botched his analysis of these birds:

    Just how greatly Darwin was misled by certain of the Galapagos finches is poignantly illustrated by his misclassification of the warbler finch as a “wren,” or
    warbler.
    As for the remarkable woodpecker finch, thought by many to have stimulated Darwin’s greatest evolutionary curiosity, this species was not even collected by Darwin; and its unusual tool-using behavior was not reported until 1919. Darwin collected, in fact, only nine of the present thirteen species of “Darwin’s finches.” Of these, he properly identified as finches only six species – less than half the present total – placing them in two separate groups, large- and small-beaked Fringillidae.

    And what about the claim that Darwin studied differences in finch beaks to determine that they evolved their differences to become “adapted to a particular diet?” Here, Sulloway says:

    To establish a presumption that his Galapagos finches had indeed evolved such divergent forms through adaptive radiation, it was first necessary to show that the different shapes of their beaks were in some way effective in reducing competition. But Darwin lacked precisely this information. According to his own testimony, the several species of Geospiza were “indistinguishable from each other in their habits,” feeding together on the ground in large irregular flocks. These observations were not only incomplete but also incorrect. … Darwin failed to correlate feeding habits in the Galapagos finches with their diverse beaks, and partly for this reason most subsequent ornithologists thought that there was no relationship.

    Darwin was far from “careful” (seriously, how could an idea that rivals Norse Mythology be derived from carefulness???) much less “scientific”.

    His mythological work encompassed many regurgitations of his grandfather’s babble with a severe misunderstanding of God and the Bible.

  19. 19
    Zachriel says:

    Andre: Darwin was an angry old coot

    Darwin was a scientist of the first rank, even before publishing his theory of evolution.

  20. 20
    Mapou says:

    Darwin was a scientist of the first rank

    Darwin was superstitious dirt worshipper. 😀

  21. 21
    Vy says:

    Darwin was a scientist of the first rank, even before publishing his theory of evolution.

    LOL. Straight up blinding fanboyism, or fan-legion/them-ism.

    It’s nice to see what passes for “scientist” in your brain.

  22. 22
    Andre says:

    Zachriel

    Only to feeble minded wil Darwin ever be considered a scientist of the first rank.

  23. 23
    Zachriel says:

    Vy: You’re kiddi…er

    Your entire argument seems to hinge on Darwin’s misidentification of Galápagos finches. Darwin wasn’t an ornithologist, which is why he brought specimens back to Britain for expert analysis by the famous ornithologist, John Gould, who found “a series of ground Finches which are so peculiar”, they formed “an entirely new group, containing 12 species”.

    That some species were difficult to identify as finches is actually evidence in favor of evolution.

    Z: Darwin made an historic circumnavigation of the Earth collecting evidence nearly thirty years before he published Origin of Species — one of the greatest scientific adventures of all times! Then he spent years collecting and publishing additional evidence to support and develop his nascent theory, long before he was willing to put the theory before his peers. Darwin’s incremental approach allowed him to build and refine his argument, on a solid evidentiary basis.

    Darwin’s intensive, multi-year study of barnacles was sufficient to establish his reputation among scientists, while his study of earthworms was sufficient to establish his public reputation; and the sheer volume of his scientific studies, including observations of moths, orchids, bees, beetles, coral reefs, as well as related studies of geology, made him one of the most important scientists of his age even without including Origin of Species.

    Here is a list of Darwin’s primary scientific output:

    * The zoology of the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle
    * Natural history and geology of the countries visited during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle
    * The Breeding of Animals
    * The structure and distribution of coral reefs.
    * Fertilisation of British orchids by insect agency
    * On the agency of bees in the fertilisation of papilionaceous flowers
    * Phototropism in plants

    As well as published observations on living and fossil Cirripedia, animal intelligence, insectivorous plants; cross breeding hybrid dianths; the effects of cross and self fertilisation in the vegetable kingdom; the different forms of flowers on plants of the same species; the effect of seawater on seeds; mouse-coloured breed of ponies; bees and the fertilisation of kidney beans; cross-breeds of strawberries; flowers and their unbidden guests; the power of movement in plants; the formation of vegetable mould, through the action of worms; nectar-secreting organs of plants, Rhea americana, Chiasognathus Grantii, Carabus, Geospiza, Camarhynchus, Cactornis and Certhidea, Sagitta, planaria; Lizard’s eggs; observations of proofs of recent elevation on the coast of Chili; the geology of the Falkland Islands; on certain areas of elevation and subsidence in the Pacific and Indian oceans, as deduced from the study of coral formations; on the connexion of certain volcanic phenomena, and on the formation of mountain-chains and volcanoes, as the effects of continental elevations; vincas, frogs, rates, geese, butterflies, teasel, ants, holly berries and their bees, primrose, black sheep, mosquitoes, cherry blossoms, gladioli, penguin ducks, fumariaceae, influence of pollen on the appearance of seed, etc.

    Darwin’s most popular book wasn’t even Origin of Species, but The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms.

    Without the Theory of Evolution, Darwin was one of the greatest empirical scientists of his age. With the Theory of Evolution, he revolutionized biology, a revolution which is still spawning entire new areas of research today.

    http://darwin-online.org.uk/

  24. 24
    Andre says:

    Zahriel you are right of course he was not an ornithologist he was also not a biologist then.

  25. 25
    Zachriel says:

    Andre: you are right of course he was not an ornithologist he was also not a biologist then.

    Even a cursory look at his curriculum vitae offers clear contradiction to your statement.

  26. 26
    Andre says:

    OK I’ll give it to you he was a crappy biologist. Happy?

  27. 27
    Zachriel says:

    Andre: OK I’ll give it to you he was a crappy biologist.

    Darwin published in the most prestigious British journals, and was well-respected by his peers. Darwin’s eight year study of barnacles is considered a classic in the field. His work with phototropism in plants seems pretty interesting. His insights into fertilisation of orchids is especially keen. And The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms With Observation of Their Habits transformed gardening.

  28. 28
    Mapou says:

    Darwin never understood that the combinatorial explosion kills his little conjecture dead before it was born. Compared to real thinkers like Newton, Leibniz, Descartes, Planck and others, Darwin was a mental midget.

  29. 29
    goodusername says:

    Only to feeble minded wil Darwin ever be considered a scientist of the first rank.

    That’s what his scientific peers thought of him. He was a member of the most prestigious scientific organization, the Royal Society, and was awarded their most prestigious award – the Royal Medal – in 1853 for his work in geology and on barnacles. Not to mention he was perhaps the top botanist of his time.

  30. 30
    Vy says:

    Your entire argument seems to hinge on …

    And your confusion between what’s an example that contradicts your claim and the “only” argument is not my problem.

    That some species were difficult to identify as finches is actually evidence in favor of evolution.

    Thank you for illustrating my point. Darwin was neither careful nor a scientist (at least not in the light you portray him to be).

    And a Darwinist baselessly claiming x is evidence for evodelusion is as sensible as saying poop is evidence for evodelusion, useless, and in this case, it is just as false (read my post before you make silly responses).

    Darwin’s most popular book wasn’t even Origin of Species, but The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms.

    LOL.
    *facepalm*

  31. 31
    Vy says:

    Without the Theory of Evolution, Darwin was one of the greatest empirical scientists of his age

    This is false as Darwinian evolution wasn’t Charles’s idea:

    This article examines the influence of Erasmus Darwin on Charles’s evolutionary thought and shows how, in many ways, Erasmus anticipated his much better-known grandson. It discusses the similarity in the mindsets of the two Darwins, asks how far the younger Darwin was exposed to the elder’s evolutionary thought, examines the similarities and differences in their theories of evolution, and ends by showing the surprising similarity between their theories of inheritance. Erasmus’s influence on Charles is greater than customarily acknowledged, and now is an opportune time to bring the grandfather out from behind the glare of his stellar grandson

    And it’s existence wasn’t dependent on him, enter Alfred Wallace.
    Without ToE, Darwin would be the greatest Sharwin of all time, practically nonexistent. Even more in favor of this is the fact that (as I said earlier), Darwin’s mythological work encompassed many regurgitations of his granfather’s babble:

    One of Charles’s chief arguments for evolution is based on the shape of the beaks of finches in response to the types of food available that he saw in the Galápagos Islands in 1835. Is it credible to think that he had not been influenced by what Erasmus had written on the subject? Namely: ‘Some birds have acquired harder beaks to crack nuts, as the parrot. Others have acquired beaks adapted to break the harder seeds, as sparrows. Others for the softer seeds of flowers, or the buds of trees, as the finches. Other birds have acquired long beaks … and others broad ones … . All … gradually produced during many generations by the perpetual endeavour of the creatures to supply the want of food (I:504).’

    Almost every topic discussed, and example given, in Zoonomia reappears in Charles’s Origin. In fact, all but one of Charles’s books have their counterpart in a chapter of Zoonomia or an essay-note to one of Erasmus’s poems. And Charles’s own copies of Zoonomia and The Botanic Garden are extensively marked and annotated.

    Darwin published in the most prestigious British journals

    Care to mention a few?

    and was well-respected by his peers

    ‘Cause he was. The Brits and the French (initially) were mighty uninterested though.

  32. 32
    goodusername says:

    Vy,

    Thank you for illustrating my point. Darwin was neither careful nor a scientist (at least not in the light you portray him to be).

    Huh? He wasn’t “careful” for not recognizing that many of the birds he collected were finches? You’re just being silly. No one suspected that they were finches until Britain’s leading ornithologist studied and dissected them.

    The mockingbirds of the Galapagos were perhaps what got Darwin thinking about evolution. He noted that the various mockingbirds on each island seemed to be closely related species or variations and wondered if they had a common ancestor. He was perhaps wondering how far such variations could go when he was hit with the bombshell regarding the finches.

    This is false as Darwinian evolution wasn’t Charles’s idea:

    Where in the writings of Erasmus do you see any Darwinism?

  33. 33
    Vy says:

    He wasn’t “careful” for not recognizing that many of the birds he collected were finches? You’re just being silly.

    Take your time, now go and read my post before posting nonsense.

    Where in the writings of Erasmus do you see any Darwinism?

    Do you have reading comprehension issues? Read the post!

  34. 34
    goodusername says:

    Vy,

    I have read your posts. Such as your response to Darwin being described as a careful scientific observer, where you respond that “Charles Darwin the Darwinist didn’t even get his finches right” – yes, it took a world class ornithologist with time to study and carefully dissect them to discern that some of the birds were finches.

    Also, the knowledge we have about the finches – the number of species, their feeding habits, the relationship between their beaks and diet, etc, took many years – decades – of study by teams of ornithologists spending long periods there specifically to study the finch.

    Darwin was there for a relatively short period, landing at only a few spots of the many islands, busily trying to collect samples of the THOUSANDS of species before having to leave.
    And the finches didn’t particularly grab his attention – he was much more interested in the mockingbirds, turtles, plants, etc. And you think he wasn’t a careful observer cause he didn’t get the “finches right”? Go ahead if you makes you feel better, but it makes you look silly.

    For the record, his peers back home were awestruck as the job he did aboard the Beagle. He became well known among the scientific leaders in Great Britain and was roundly praised. Adam Sedgwick said, “if God spares his life he will have a great name among the naturalists of Europe.” And William Whewell declared that we have “reason to rejoice that this lot fell to a gentleman like Mr. Darwin, who possessed the genuine spirit and zeal, as well as the knowledge of a naturalist; who had pursued the studies which fitted him for this employment.” And as a result of his work aboard the Beagle he was invited to become Secretary of the Geological Society, and was elected into the Royal Zoological Society. But, yeah, real sloppy work.

    And yes, I read what you typed about Erasmus and read the links you provided. Where do you see Darwinism in the writings of Erasmus? All you’ve provided evidence for is that he’s an evolutionist – which everyone already knows.

  35. 35
    Vy says:

    I have read your posts.

    So you’re selectively blind. Hmm …

    Such as your response to Darwin being described as a careful scientific observer, where you respond that “Charles Darwin the Darwinist didn’t even get his finches right”

    Case in point. My post:

    Charles Darwin the Darwinist didn’t even get his finches right

    Darwin was far from “careful” (seriously, how could an idea that rivals Norse Mythology be derived from carefulness???) much less “scientific”.

    His mythological work encompassed many regurgitations of his grandfather’s babble with a severe misunderstanding of God and the Bible.

    yes, it took a world class ornithologist with time to study and carefully dissect them to discern that some of the birds were finches.

    Looks like the Zachs need to be reminded:

    Andre: you are right of course he was not an ornithologist he was also not a biologist then.

    The Zachs: Even a cursory look at his curriculum vitae offers clear contradiction to your statement

    Go ahead if you makes you feel better, but it makes you look silly.

    You can go ahead spouting this nonsense.

    For the record, his peers back home were awestruck …

    Awwwwwwwww!

    Where do you see Darwinism in the writings of Erasmus?

    The fact that you asked this a second time makes “And yes, I read what you typed about Erasmus and read the links you provided” a vacuous claim.

    For the umpteenth time:

    His mythological work encompassed many regurgitations of his grandfather’s babble

    Do you need to repost my entire posts for you to understand that?

  36. 36
    goodusername says:

    Vy,

    So you’re selectively blind. Hmm …

    If I’m missing something, or there’s something you’d like me to address that I haven’t, feel free to point it out.

    For the umpteenth time:

    His mythological work encompassed many regurgitations of his grandfather’s babble

    That’s the problem… you just keep making the vacuous assertion without answering the question.

    Do you need to repost my entire posts for you to understand that?

    No, it would be more helpful if you could point out which parts you think sound like Darwinism.

    Do you mean stuff like this? “Some birds have acquired harder beaks to crack nuts…”?

    Or worse, do you mean stuff like this? “gradually produced during many generations by the perpetual endeavour of the creatures to supply the want of food”?

    Hint: There’s a reason he’s remembered as a type of forerunner to Lamarck.

  37. 37
    Vy says:

    That’s the problem… you just keep making the vacuous assertion without answering the question.

    And you keep asking that silly question without understanding it makes no sense.

    Asking what part of Erasmus’s work included Darwinism is like asking what part of Newton’s work was Newtonian, just plain strange.

    No, it would be more helpful if you could point out which parts you think sound like Darwinism

    Hmm, this is quite interesting. What do you mean by Darwinism? I’m starting to think you’re not referring to Darwinian evolution.

    Do you mean stuff like this?

    You see, you ask questions like this and still claim you read my post. Sheesh!

    Here it is, again:

    Almost every topic discussed, and example given, in Zoonomia reappears in Charles’s Origin. In fact, all but one of Charles’s books have their counterpart in a chapter of Zoonomia or an essay-note to one of Erasmus’s poems. And Charles’s own copies of Zoonomia and The Botanic Garden are extensively marked and annotated.

    Clear enough?

    Hint: There’s a reason he’s remembered as a type of forerunner to Lamarck.

    Relevance? Whether or not he was considered a forerunner of Larmarck does not change the fact that Charles’s work was in many places, rehashed from Erasmus’s work.

    It discusses the similarity in the mindsets of the two Darwins, asks how far the younger Darwin was exposed to the elder’s evolutionary thought, examines the similarities and differences in their theories of evolution, and ends by showing the surprising similarity between their theories of inheritance. Erasmus’s influence on Charles is greater than customarily acknowledged

  38. 38
    Zachriel says:

    goodusername: He was a member of the most prestigious scientific organization, the Royal Society, and was awarded their most prestigious award – the Royal Medal – in 1853 for his work in geology and on barnacles.

    Notably, that was before he publicly introduced his theory of evolution in 1858.

    Vy: Thank you for illustrating my point. Darwin was neither careful nor a scientist (at least not in the light you portray him to be).

    Not a scientist? That’s just silly. Darwin certainly wasn’t a perfect observer, and made many mistakes. Nonetheless, he was considered by his peers a scientist of the first rank.

    Vy: LOL.

    Yes, it’s quite amusing. It just goes to show the extent of Darwin’s contributions. @23

    Zachriel Without the Theory of Evolution, Darwin was one of the greatest empirical scientists of his age

    Vy This is false as Darwinian evolution wasn’t Charles’s idea:

    You realize that your statement doesn’t even follow.

    Vy Erasmus anticipated his much better-known grandson.

    Charles Darwin was certainly aware of evolutionary ideas of the time. Your own citation refers to “similarities and differences in their theories of evolution”, so while Charles may have built on the work of Erasmus (and others), the theories are not identical. Charles Darwin provided a comprehensive theory of evolution.

    Vy Care to mention a few?

    Proceedings of the Royal Society, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, among others.
    http://darwin-online.org.uk/contents.html

    Vy Cause he was.

    @29

    Vy Looks like the Zachs need to be reminded:

    Please read more carefully. In reply to YOU @23: “Darwin wasn’t an ornithologist, which is why he brought specimens back to Britain”. The question concerned whether Darwin was a biologist, which, of course, he was. His eight-year study of barnacles alone demonstrates that. And that’s just the tip of Darwin’s scientific output. He was a very busy scientist.

  39. 39
    Virgil Cain says:

    Zachriel:

    Notably, that was before he publicly introduced his theory of evolution in 1858.

    Darwin didn’t propose a scientific theory of evolution. His concept lacked quantification which is the foundation of science.

  40. 40
    goodusername says:

    Vy,

    Asking what part of Erasmus’s work included Darwinism is like asking what part of Newton’s work was Newtonian, just plain strange.

    No, it would be like claiming that someone who lived a couple of generations prior to Newon was a Newtonian, and when asked to back the assertion, mostly giving quotes about things moving and falling. As if people didn’t believe that that happened prior to Newton. And even the few times that the person does gives quotes that hint at a mechanism for why things move and fall, he sounds like an Aristotelian.

    Hmm, this is quite interesting. What do you mean by Darwinism? I’m starting to think you’re not referring to Darwinian evolution.

    I am referring to Darwinian evolution – as opposed to other forms of evolution, or merely evolution in general. The quotes you gave could have just as easily came from Lamarck. Specifically I was looking for something suggesting a common descent of life via random variation and natural selection.

    Here’s another quote from Erasmus: “all animals undergo transformations which are in part produced by their own exertions in response to pleasure and pain, and many of these acquired forms or propensities are transmitted to their posterity.” That’s not what I would consider Darwinism.

    (There are a couple places where Erasmus arguable comes close to describing natural selection for small scale change and keeping a population healthy, but such a belief was pretty widespread.)

    You see, you ask questions like this and still claim you read my post. Sheesh!

    Here it is, again:

    If I hadn’t read your post, I wouldn’t be asking the questions.
    You don’t seem to understand that difference between making an assertion and backing the assertion.

    Erasmus was a prolific writer – it would be very difficult to talk about something in the natural world that Erasmus doesn’t discuss or touch upon in some way. But looking at the chapters of Zoonomia, I don’t see much resemblance to Darwin’s books.

    Relevance? Whether or not he was considered a forerunner of Larmarck does not change the fact that Charles’s work was in many places, rehashed from Erasmus’s work.

    It would be trivially simple to make a long list of important contributions from Charles that aren’t found anywhere in Erasmus. Obviously they often touch upon many of the same subjects, and Charles may have been influenced by Erasmus (so what?) but that doesn’t make it a “rehash”. In that case everything from Newton to Einstein would be a “rehash”.

  41. 41
    Vy says:

    No, it would be like claiming that someone who lived a couple of generations prior to Newon was a Newtonian, and when asked to back the assertion, mostly giving quotes about things moving and falling. As if people didn’t believe that that happened prior to Newton.

    Strawman and false analogy.

    And even the few times that the person does gives quotes that hint at a mechanism for why things move and fall, he sounds like an Aristotelian.

    Perhaps it might be time to do something about your reading comprehension issues?

    I am referring to Darwinian evolution – as opposed to other forms of evolution, or merely evolution in general. The quotes you gave could have just as easily came from Lamarck.

    . . .

    Here’s another quote from Erasmus …

    Wow!

    The fact that you’ve deluded yourself into believing I was ever quoting Erasmus makes it pretty clear that either you’ve not been reading my posts or you have some serious reading comprehension issues.

    Specifically I was looking for something suggesting a common descent of life via random variation and natural selection.

    I don’t know how else to get you to comprehend my posts and quotes (from articles which you clearly haven’t read or don’t understand) but here’s one:

    Erasmus Darwin also anticipated natural selection in Zoönomia mainly when writing about the “three great objects of desire” for every organism: “lust, hunger, and security. Another remarkable foresight written in Zoönomia that relates to natural selection is Erasmus’ thoughts on how a species propagated itself. Erasmus’ idea that “the strongest and most active animal should propagate the species, which should thence become improved” was almost identical to the future theory of survival of the fittest

    And another:

    Darwin and evolution go together like Newton and gravity or Morse and code. The world, he wrote, resembles ‘one great slaughter-house, one universal scene of rapacity and injustice.’ Competitive natural selection in a nutshell? Yes – but that evocative image was coined not by Charles Darwin (1809-1882), but by his grandfather Erasmus (1731-1802).

    Towards its end, [Erasmus] Darwin dared to formulate an early version of evolution, suggesting “that in the great length of time, since the earth began to exist…warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament.”

    Clear? Maybe your excuse is “those ideas were popular then”? Or perhaps “it doesn’t mean anything”

    How about this:

    In his most contentious poem, The Temple of Nature (1803), Darwin developed his controversial ideas still further. This manifesto for progressive evolution reveals him to be a materialist who believed in natural laws of creation. To the horror of his critics, he insisted that life stemmed originally not from some divine spark infused by God, but directly from matter. His account shocked his readers but now sounds familiar: first appearing deep in the ocean, over successive generations living organisms gradually grew larger, acquiring new forms and functions until whales governed the seas, lions the land, and eagles the air. Human beings appeared last, the culmination of continuous development, related to lowly worms and insects as well as to apes.

    Still not clear enough?

    – Warm little pond/ocean: NOT Charles.
    – Abiogenesis/Spontaneous generation: NOT Charles.
    – Common descent from some simple microbe/cell/filament: NOT Charles.
    – Natural selection: NOT Charles.
    – Sexual selection: NOT Charles.
    – God not needed: NOT Charles.
    “Evolution” over deep time: NOT Charles.

    Any better?
    Perhaps you need me to use crayons and glitter.

    If I hadn’t read your post, I wouldn’t be asking the questions.

    Considering that’s exactly what the Zachs do, this is a vacuous claim.

    You don’t seem to understand that difference between making an assertion and backing the assertion.

    *facepalm*
    You don’t seem to understand English when it’s used to as a medium to contradict your claims.

    Erasmus was a prolific writer – it would be very difficult to talk about something in the natural world that Erasmus doesn’t discuss or touch upon in some way

    Irrelevant and never said otherwise.

    Obviously they often touch upon many of the same subjects, and Charles may have been influenced by Erasmus (so what?)

    You and Zach are trying so hard to downplay Erasmus’ influence on Charles. It’s not working.
    It’s not “Charles may have been influenced by Erasmus”, it’s “Charles WAS HIGHLY influenced by Erasmus”.

    Brownie points for your subtle bait-and-switch though.

    but that doesn’t make it a “rehash”

    Except when …

    Almost every topic discussed, and example given, in Zoonomia reappears in Charles’s Origin. In fact, all but one of Charles’s books have their counterpart in a chapter of Zoonomia or an essay-note to one of Erasmus’s poems. And Charles’s own copies of Zoonomia and The Botanic Garden are extensively marked and annotated.

    … and when, as clearly shown above, a majority (all?) of your key ideas weren’t yours to begin with. Like Charles, you and Zach are trying to deny Erasmus’ influence:

    In public, Charles Darwin denied his grandfather’s influence, but he read Zoonomia during his short-lived spell as a medical student at Edinburgh University. A decade later, after returning from his voyage around the world, he bought a small leather-bound notebook for jotting down his nascent ideas on transformation – and at the head of the first page, he underlined his title: Zoonomia. Over twenty years after that, he eventually released On the Origin of Species (1859), his landmark account of evolution by natural selection. Can it be mere coincidence that the sub-title of his grandfather’s book on evolution was The Origin of Society?

    In that case everything from Newton to Einstein would be a “rehash”.

    Enough with the strawmen and horribly false analogies.

  42. 42
    Vy says:

    Not a scientist? That’s just silly.

    The only thing silly here is your initial portrayal of Charles.

    Darwin certainly wasn’t a perfect observer, and made many mistakes.

    Finally, the truth!

    Yes, it’s quite amusing. It just goes to show …

    …that you’ve got a very funky definition of “popular”

    You realize that your statement doesn’t even follow.

    You claimed that “Without the Theory of Evolution, Darwin was one of the greatest empirical scientists of his age” and I made it clear that there’s no “Without the ToE” because that’ll mean “Without Erasmus Darwin” whose ideas were monumental to him becoming interested in the natural sciences.

    Charles Darwin was certainly aware of evolutionary ideas of the time. Your own citation refers to “similarities and differences in their theories of evolution”

    There’s the selective blindness again. Read it, with your eyes this time:

    This article examines the influence of Erasmus Darwin on Charles’s evolutionary thought and shows how, in many ways, Erasmus anticipated his much better-known grandson. It discusses the similarity in the mindsets of the two Darwins, asks how far the younger Darwin was exposed to the elder’s evolutionary thought, examines the similarities and differences in their theories of evolution, and ends by showing the surprising similarity between their theories of inheritance. Erasmus’s influence on Charles is greater than customarily acknowledged, and now is an opportune time to bring the grandfather out from behind the glare of his stellar grandson

    so while Charles may have built on the work of Erasmus (and others), the theories are not identical. Charles Darwin provided a comprehensive theory of evolution.

    Nice bait-and-switch.

    I said “His mythological work encompassed many regurgitations of his grandfather’s babble”, and you and guser spent the last umpteen posts trying to say that’s not the case. Now, the tune is changing to:

    “ya know, Erasmus may have influenced Charles, and they may have both talked about the same things, and Charles may have built on the work of Erasmus, and blah blah blah …

    Bravo!

    Please read more carefully

    Follow your advice:

    Andre: you are right of course he was not an ornithologist he was also not a biologist then.

    The Zachs: Even a cursory look at his curriculum vitae offers clear contradiction to your statement.

    The question concerned whether Darwin was a biologist

    What question? All I see is a statement.

    which, of course, he was

    More like “geologist” at best.

  43. 43
    goodusername says:

    Vy,

    The fact that you’ve deluded yourself into believing I was ever quoting Erasmus makes it pretty clear that either you’ve not been reading my posts or you have some serious reading comprehension issues.

    Umm, the quotes from Erasmus I was discussing are right there in your post #31.

    The world, he wrote, resembles ‘one great slaughter-house, one universal scene of rapacity and injustice.’ Competitive natural selection in a nutshell? Yes

    That sounds like natural selection in a nutshell to you?

    That explains a lot.

    You and Zach are trying so hard to downplay Erasmus’ influence on Charles. It’s not working.
    It’s not “Charles may have been influenced by Erasmus”, it’s “Charles WAS HIGHLY influenced by Erasmus”.

    It makes no difference to me if he was “highly” influenced by Erasmus or not. But from what I’ve read by Darwin and his grandfather, the suggestion sounded strange. He’s universally known as a type of proto-Lamarckist for obvious reasons (well, usually obvious). I think I understand now – thanks for the, uh, interesting discussion.

  44. 44
    Zachriel says:

    Vy: “Darwin and evolution go together like Newton and gravity or Morse and code. The world, he wrote, resembles ‘one great slaughter-house, one universal scene of rapacity and injustice.’ Competitive natural selection in a nutshell? Yes – but that evocative image was coined not by Charles Darwin (1809-1882), but by his grandfather Erasmus (1731-1802).

    No. That’s not natural selection. Death can occur without natural selection.

    Vy: You and Zach are trying so hard to downplay Erasmus’ influence on Charles.

    Not at all. Charles Darwin had many influences, however, as your own citation points out, he proposed a theory which was distinct from any before him.

    Vy: Finally, the truth!

    Huh? Who said Darwin was a perfect observer?

    Vy: …that you’ve got a very funky definition of “popular”

    We used the standard definition — book sales.

    Vy: You claimed that “Without the Theory of Evolution, Darwin was one of the greatest empirical scientists of his age” and I made it clear that there’s no “Without the ToE” because that’ll mean “Without Erasmus Darwin” whose ideas were monumental to him becoming interested in the natural sciences.

    Please note that “Theory of Evolution” was capitalized, a proper term referring to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.

    Vy: Read it, with your eyes this time

    We read it correctly the first time. In the learned opinion of the author, Charles Darwin’s theory is not the same as Erasmus Darwin’s theory, and while Charles was “stellar”, Erasmus’s “influence on Charles is greater than customarily acknowledged”.

    Vy: I said “His mythological work encompassed many regurgitations of his grandfather’s babble”

    In other words, you prefer rhetoric to content.

    Vy: ya know, Erasmus may have influenced Charles, and they may have both talked about the same things, and Charles may have built on the work of Erasmus

    Erasmus and many others did influence Charles, many naturalists of the period had been talking about evolutionary ideas, and Charles built on the work of Erasmus and many others. Not sure what your point might be. Charles Darwin proposed a comprehensive theory that has largely stood the test of time.

    Vy: More like “geologist” at best.

    Darwin won the Royal Medal for geology (Geological Observations on Coral Reefs, Volcanic Islands, and on South America) and for biology (Fossil Circhipeda of Great Britain, Section Lepadidae, Monograph of the Circhipeda. Again, Darwin was already a foremost biologist of his time, even before he published his Theory of Evolution. Even a cursory look at his scientific output would confirm that, @23.

  45. 45
    Vy says:

    Umm, the quotes from Erasmus I was discussing are right there in your post #31.

    Yeah, quotes from an article quoting Erasmus to make the point that Charles was mostly regurgitating his work, which is why “The quotes you gave could have just as easily came from Lamarck.” is beyond absurd.

    That explains a lot.

    Likewise.

    It makes no difference to me if he was “highly” influenced by Erasmus or not.

    ‘Course not.
    *double facepalm*

    But from what I’ve read by Darwin and his grandfather, the suggestion sounded strange.

    It would be strange to hear say it didn’t say sound strange considering the nature of your posts.

    He’s universally known as a type of proto-Lamarckist for obvious reasons (well, usually obvious).

    And the numerous articles I cited didn’t make you think twice before making such an inane comment, TWICE?

    I think I understand now

    I wish I could say the same but you present quite an interesting example of what not to expect when debating a “Zachrielien” Darwinist.

    You can’t prepare for that.

  46. 46
    Zachriel says:

    Vy: Yeah, quotes from an article quoting Erasmus to make the point that Charles was mostly regurgitating his work

    While evolutionary ideas were current in Charles Darwin’s time, he proposed a comprehensive theory. Nothing you have posted undermines that conclusion, indeed, many tend to contradict your stance.

  47. 47
    Vy says:

    Lemme get this straight, you saw:

    Erasmus Darwin also anticipated natural selection in Zoönomia mainly when writing about the “three great objects of desire” for every organism: “lust, hunger, and security. Another remarkable foresight written in Zoönomia that relates to natural selection is Erasmus’ thoughts on how a species propagated itself. Erasmus’ idea that “the strongest and most active animal should propagate the species, which should thence become improved” was almost identical to the future theory of survival of the fittest

    . . .

    Darwin and evolution go together like Newton and gravity or Morse and code. The world, he wrote, resembles ‘one great slaughter-house, one universal scene of rapacity and injustice.’ Competitive natural selection in a nutshell? Yes – but that evocative image was coined not by Charles Darwin (1809-1882), but by his grandfather Erasmus (1731-1802).

    . . . and the best excuse you could come up with is:

    No. That’s not natural selection. Death can occur without natural selection.

    ???
    Wow! Gobsmackingly pathetic.

    Not at all.

    Riiiiight.

    Charles Darwin had many influences, however, as your own citation points out, he proposed a theory which was distinct from any before him.

    You’re gonna have to do better than a hand-waving assertion that there’s “a” citation that claims Charles theory was distinct. In case your blinders were on the first time, here it is again:

    – Warm little pond/ocean: NOT Charles.
    – Abiogenesis/Spontaneous generation: NOT Charles.
    – Common descent from some simple microbe/cell/filament: NOT Charles.
    – Natural selection: NOT Charles.
    – Sexual selection: NOT Charles.
    – God not needed: NOT Charles.
    – “Evolution” over deep time: NOT Charles.

    Huh? Who said Darwin was a perfect observer?

    Ponder that. However, when you try to go out of your way to “demonstrate” that he was some “careful”, “scientific” uber observer, with statements that sound like what you’d expect from an Apple fanboy when yapping about an iPhone like some piece of tech from heaven, you might wanna take a minute and rethink your approach.

    We used the standard definition — book sales.

    Like I said, funky definition.

    We read it correctly the first time.

    Hmm, we did? That must be the problem.

    In the learned opinion of the author, Charles Darwin’s theory is not the same as Erasmus Darwin’s theory

    You saw “… and ends by showing the surprising similarity between their theories of inheritance. Erasmus’s influence on Charles is greater than customarily acknowledged …” and got “not the same”?

    Wow! Just wow.

    In other words, you prefer rhetoric to content.

    Are you daft? Wait, you are. Forget I asked that.

    Don’t foolishly chop pieces of my statements and twist them out of context hoping to make a point other than the fact that you enjoy inanity:

    Nice bait-and-switch.

    I said “His mythological work encompassed many regurgitations of his grandfather’s babble”, and you and guser spent the last umpteen posts trying to say that’s not the case. Now, the tune is changing to:

    “ya know, Erasmus may have influenced Charles, and they may have both talked about the same things, and Charles may have built on the work of Erasmus, and blah blah blah …”

    Erasmus and many others did influence Charles, many naturalists of the period had been talking about evolutionary ideas, and Charles built on the work of Erasmus and many others. Not sure what your point might be. Charles Darwin proposed a comprehensive theory that has largely stood the test of time.

    Regurgitated babble dealt with above.

    Again, Darwin was already a foremost biologist of his time, even before he published his Theory of Evolution. Even a cursory look at his scientific output would confirm that, @23.

    Again and again, you keep this up. Lol.

  48. 48
    Zachriel says:

    Vy: And the numerous articles I cited didn’t make you think twice before making such an inane comment, TWICE?

    Erasmus Darwin, Zoonomia: Would it be too bold to imagine, that in the great length of time, since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind, would it be too bold to imagine, that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which THE GREAT FIRST CAUSE endued with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements by generation to its posterity, world without end!

    Improvement “by its own inherent activity” is not natural selection, but something akin to Lamarckianism. While Darwin certainly built on the work of others, he did far more than simply ‘regurgitate’ Erasmus Darwin.

  49. 49
    Vy says:

    While evolutionary ideas were current in Charles Darwin’s time, he proposed a comprehensive theory. Nothing you have posted undermines that conclusion, indeed, many tend to contradict your stance.

    And so far, all you’ve done to prove that is chop, paste, and extrapolate out of context.

    Like I call it, babble.

  50. 50
    Virgil Cain says:

    Zachriel:

    While evolutionary ideas were current in Charles Darwin’s time, he proposed a comprehensive theory.

    His concept and ideas are too vague to be “comprehensive”.

  51. 51
    Vy says:

    Improvement “by its own inherent activity” is not natural selection, but something akin to Lamarckianism.

    Oh my goodness, what a straw to grapple at.

    While Darwin certainly built on the work of others, he did far more than simply ‘regurgitate’ Erasmus Darwin.

    Lol!

    Like I said:

    Nice bait-and-switch.

    I said “His mythological work encompassed many regurgitations of his grandfather’s babble”, and you and guser spent the last umpteen posts trying to say that’s not the case. Now, the tune is changing to:

    “ya know, Erasmus may have influenced Charles, and they may have both talked about the same things, and Charles may have built on the work of Erasmus, and blah blah blah”

    Now it’s no longer “may have built on”, oh no, you’ve gone to “certainly built on” and “more than simply ‘regurgitated'”.

    Adorable.

  52. 52
    Zachriel says:

    Vy: Wow!

    That is correct. Pointing out that death is a part of life is not the same as natural selection.

    Vy: Not at all.

    Our position is quite clear. Erasmus and many others did influence Charles, many naturalists of the period had been talking about evolutionary ideas, and Charles built on the work of Erasmus and many others.

    Vy: You’re gonna have to do better than a hand-waving assertion that there’s “a” citation that claims Charles theory was distinct.

    It’s YOUR cited authority!

    Vy: Like I said, funky definition.

    How else would you judge the popularity of a book, but by book sales?

    Vy: Again and again

    No problem. When you make demonstrably false statements, we’re more than happy to issue the correction with the appropriate citations. Darwin’s work, including his scientific circumnavigation of the globe, plant phototropism, orchids and their pollinators, barnacles, and earthworms, were more than enough to make him one of the foremost biologists of his day. Most scientists would consider just one of those to be a lifetime’s scientific contribution. And he was just getting started.
    http://darwin-online.org.uk/contents.html

  53. 53
    Vy says:

    That is correct. Pointing out that death is a part of life is not the same as natural selection.

    Take the blinders off!

    Lemme get this straight, you saw:

    Erasmus Darwin also anticipated natural selection in Zoönomia mainly when writing about the “three great objects of desire” for every organism: “lust, hunger, and security. Another remarkable foresight written in Zoönomia that relates to natural selection is Erasmus’ thoughts on how a species propagated itself. Erasmus’ idea that “the strongest and most active animal should propagate the species, which should thence become improved” was almost identical to the future theory of survival of the fittest

    . . .

    Darwin and evolution go together like Newton and gravity or Morse and code. The world, he wrote, resembles ‘one great slaughter-house, one universal scene of rapacity and injustice.’ Competitive natural selection in a nutshell? Yes – but that evocative image was coined not by Charles Darwin (1809-1882), but by his grandfather Erasmus (1731-1802).

    . . . and the best excuse you could come up with is:

    No. That’s not natural selection. Death can occur without natural selection.

    ???
    Wow! Gobsmackingly pathetic.

    Our position is quite clear. Erasmus and many others did influence Charles, many naturalists of the period had been talking about evolutionary ideas, and Charles built on the work of Erasmus and many others.

    Indeed.

    Nice bait-and-switch.

    I said “His mythological work encompassed many regurgitations of his grandfather’s babble”, and you and guser spent the last umpteen posts trying to say that’s not the case. Now, the tune is changing to:

    “ya know, Erasmus may have influenced Charles, and they may have both talked about the same things, and Charles may have built on the work of Erasmus, and blah blah blah”

    Now it’s no longer “may have built on”, oh no, you’ve gone to “certainly built on” and “more than simply ‘regurgitated’”.

    Adorable.

    It’s YOUR cited authority!

    You do realize that I’ve cited no less than 5 articles all pointing that stark similarities between Erasmus and Darwin’s ToE, right?

    So next time you wanna claim I cited “a” thing, SHOW IT!

    How else would you judge the popularity of a book, but by book sales?

    Which of these books are the first 50 people you meet on 50 random sites likely to recognize:
    – Origin of Species
    – Whatever the name of that botany book is
    ?

    Keep in mind that popular Atheopath and horseman, Richard Dawkins, couldn’t even cite the full name of the first book.

    No problem. When you make demonstrably false statements

    Such inanity requires a LOL

  54. 54
    Zachriel says:

    Vy: “the strongest and most active animal should propagate the species, which should thence become improved”

    We quoted Erasmus Darwin stating a position which is consistent with a form of Lamarckianism. You quote Wikipedia, which indicates that Erasmus “anticipates” natural selection. Then you quote an historian who incorrectly equates “one great slaughter-house, one universal scene of rapacity and injustice” with natural selection.

    Erasmus made important contributions. Charles Darwin was influenced by Erasmus Darwin, but also by de Buffon, Cuvier, Hooker, Hutton, Lamarck, Lyell, Malthus, Spencer, among others.

    Not even sure your point. Even if Erasmus Darwin proposed the exact same theory as Charles Darwin (he didn’t), a theory is judged on its merits, not its origin. On that basis, the Theory of Evolution revolutionized biology, and its fundamentals still form the basis for modern biological theory.

    Vy: You do realize that I’ve cited no less than 5 articles all pointing that stark similarities between Erasmus and Darwin’s ToE

    According to your own citation, there are similarities and differences.

    Vy: – Origin of Species
    – Whatever the name of that botany book is

    It’s about earthworms. Fact is that when first published The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms outsold Origin of Species. When people propagate earthworms in their gardens, it’s because of Darwin’s insights in that book.

    “To begin with it sold far faster than The origin of species had.”
    http://darwin-online.org.uk/Ed.....Worms.html

  55. 55
  56. 56
    EugeneS says:

    Vy,

    “Like I call it, babble.”

    Indeed. As my maths professor used to say, the art of making no mistakes consists in formulating as general statements as possible.

    All this theory nicely packs itself in this formula:

    P v ¬(P)

    In usual parlance, anything may happen. A scientific theory indeed. And, not to forget, supported by mathematics! Absolutely true at all times. Its merits by all accounts greatly outweigh its single slight disadvantage of producing zero predictions.

  57. 57
    Vy says:

    We quoted Erasmus Darwin stating a position which is consistent with a form of Lamarckianism.

    I hope you know the title of this article and how fast you Darwinists were to “point out” that Charles had no problem with Lamarck.

    Drop the straws.

    You quote Wikipedia, which indicates that Erasmus “anticipates” natural selection.

    I quoted Wiki because in a moment of weakness, the Darwinists there let reality shine through the fogma.

    Their just-so-story that Erasmus’s description is merely an “anticipation”/“almost exactly” the same as Charles’s regurgitation of an idea that was never his was just that, a just-so-story.

    Then you quote an historian who incorrectly equates “one great slaughter-house, one universal scene of rapacity and injustice” with natural selection.

    You seem to think your opinion that the historian incorrectly did anything is worth more than a stain on a the wall. In case you’re that deluded (you ARE), let me remind you, it ISN’T.

    And if you think that historian is the only “incorrect” one, observe:

    Even Darwin’s commonly alleged major contribution to evolution, natural selection, was developed earlier by others including William Charles Wells in 1813, and later Alfred Russell Wallace. Wallace sent Darwin a copy of his paper describing his independently developed theory of evolution by natural selection in 1858. De Vries noted that some critics have concluded that Darwin actually made no major new contributions to this theory.

    I do find it quite interesting that your whole denial of the fact that Erasmus DID talk about natural selection is based on an incredulous presumption that that particular description of NS is wrong because it’s not exactly what Charles said (have you googled the term recently???), especially when considering the fact that Darwinists fail to realize their own description of the term and the powers they ascribe to it is wrong.

    Erasmus made important contributions. Charles Darwin was influenced by Erasmus Darwin, but also by de Buffon, Cuvier, Hooker, Hutton, Lamarck, Lyell, Malthus, Spencer, among others.

    Yes, and evolution is an ancient idea that rivals Norse mythology in absurdity.

    Not even sure your point.

    I don’t speak gibberish.

    Even if Erasmus Darwin proposed the exact same theory as Charles Darwin (he didn’t)

    Your repeatedly failed attempts to show that prove otherwise.

    a theory is judged on its merits, not its origin.

    Evolution has even less merit than phlogiston theory and Platonic geocentricity.

    On that basis, the Theory of Evolution revolutionized biology, and its fundamentals still form the basis for modern biological theory.

    It certainly won’t be the first time a field of science and “scientists” would wholeheartedly promote absolute rubbish.

    According to your own citation, there are similarities and differences.

    Thank you for demonstrating how daft you are.

    I’d say take your blinders off but it’s becoming increasingly clear that it’s glued on but anyways, for anyone with clear sight:

    This article . . . discusses the similarity in the mindsets of the two Darwins, asks how far the younger Darwin was exposed to the elder’s evolutionary thought, examines the similarities and differences in their theories of evolution, and ends by showing the surprising similarity between their theories of inheritance. Erasmus’s influence on Charles is greater than customarily acknowledged . . .

    It’s about earthworms.

    Thank you for demonstrating my point.

    Fact is that when first published The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms outsold Origin of Species.

    And that means it was more popular???

    When people propagate earthworms in their gardens, it’s because of Darwin’s insights in that book.

    I see, the whole world of gardeners from 4000+ B.C. to 18xx A.D. were waiting for Darwin to come riding by with his unique wisdom about earthworms.

    And in the era of the internet and DIY videos, you have some obscure book about some worms hardly anyone has heard of to thank for your gardens.

    I have a mythology regurgitator and his book I’d never heard of until yesterday for the garden out in front.

    A normal person would see how foolish that comment is.

    To begin with it sold far faster than The origin of species had.

    Again, so that makes it more popular?

    And in case you thought your hedging was successful, you did not answer my question.

    Which of these books are the first 50 people you meet on 50 random sites likely to recognize:
    – Origin of Species
    – Whatever the name of that botany book is
    ?

    Keep in mind that popular Atheopath and horseman, Richard Dawkins, couldn’t even cite the full name of the first book.

  58. 58
    Vy says:

    EugeneS, that’s why the only place on the surface of this earth you find evidence for evolution is in the theory itself.

    It’s nothing but a mutant blob of vague shape-shifting assertions that can be twisted to fit anything whether it’s impossibly fast evolution (e.g. whales, dinos etc.), no evolution (stasis) or seemingly intelligent evolution (convergence).

    It’s the single most useless and absurd idea humans have come up with (sort of). But hey, “the SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS AGREES WITH IT AND IT’S SUPPORTED WITH MULTIPLE LINES OF EVIDENCE FROM [MYTHOLOGY TO MATERIALISM], YOU SCIENCE DENYING IDiot/CREATIONIST!!!”, so it must be all good. 😀

  59. 59
    goodusername says:

    I hope you know the title of this article and how fast you Darwinists were to “point out” that Charles had no problem with Lamarck.

    Darwin had major issues with Lamarck – just not with the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics.

    The view of evolution for Darwin and Lamarck were very different.

    Lamarck believed that evolution occurred primarily through inheritance of acquired characteristics and an innate tendency of species to progress, and that organisms adapted by their drive for food and sex, etc.
    (These are all also things that Erasmus believed)

    Darwin, btw, believed that that was all “nonsense”, “absurd”, and “veritable rubbish” (other than the inheritance of acquired characteristics, which he downplayed compared to Natural Selection).

    Also, because of the innate tendency to progress up the Chain of Being (something Lamarck and Erasmus believed), the bottom rungs of the ladder (the simpler organisms) had to keep being replenished, and so Lamarck believed in spontaneous generation, where life continually forms from non-life. (I think Erasmus believed in this process as well, but I’m not positive). Lamarck therefore didn’t believe that all life was related, i.e. the universal common descent of life.

    Darwin, in contrast, believed that populations evolve rather than species – and that they don’t “progress”, they diverge, in a process going back to the first life form. Some may diverge to become more complex, but some may not, and others can even simplify.

  60. 60
    Zachriel says:

    Vy: I hope you know the title of this article and how fast you Darwinists were to “point out” that Charles had no problem with Lamarck.

    Charles Darwin proposed a (poorly supported) Lamarckian theory of genetics, Pangenesis. However, the primary mechanism of adaptation in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is natural selection, even if some inherited traits are acquired.

    Vy: You seem to think your opinion that the historian incorrectly did anything is worth more than a stain on a the wall.

    Notably, you didn’t argue the point, but just waved your hands. It’s not natural selection, unless reproductive potential (or, in this case, death in the “one great slaughter-house, one universal scene of rapacity and injustice”) is due to heritable traits.

    Goodusername @59 addressed your other points.

  61. 61
    Vy says:

    Charles Darwin proposed a (poorly supported) Lamarckian theory of genetics, Pangenesis. However

    Enough with the bait-and-switch. It just makes you look desperate.

    Notably, you didn’t argue the point, but just waved your hands.

    You had no point. All you’ve done so far is bait-and-switch, display a high level of selective blindness (as usual), show your undying fanboyism for Charlie, ignore my question, incessantly repeat the same inane comments, quote-mine my comments, and show you have reading comprehension issues.

    It failed.

  62. 62
    Vy says:

    The view of evolution for Darwin and Lamarck were very different.

    And the view of evolution for Erasmus and Charles were very similar.

    Lamarck believed that evolution occurred primarily through inheritance of acquired characteristics and an innate tendency of species to progress, and that organisms adapted by their drive for food and sex, etc.
    (These are all also things that Erasmus believed)

    Erasmus said:

    . . . in the great length of time since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the beginning of the history of mankind … all warmblooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which THE GREAT FIRST CAUSE endued with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements by generation to its posterity

    That sounds a lot like “organisms evolve in response to environmental changes” so the “innate tendency for species to progress” taken in that context doesn’t present any problem.

    And whether or not Charles publicly endorsed it, it can certainly be inferred.

    After all, it’s not called “molecules-to-man” for nothing.

    I think Erasmus believed in this process as well, but I’m not positive

    He didn’t. Very clearly seen in #41 and #47.

    Lamarck therefore didn’t believe that all life was related, i.e. the universal common descent of life.

    Erasmus did, he also had the “warm pond/ocean”, “all life from one filament/cell/whatchamacallit” crap.

    Darwin, in contrast, believed that populations evolve rather than species – and that they don’t “progress”, they diverge, in a process going back to the first life form.

    They very well do “progress” depending on the context.

  63. 63
    Zachriel says:

    Vy: @61

    Your comment had no content. Your signal-to-noise ratio is of negligible magnitude. You might want to check your rationalization filters.

    Vy: That sounds a lot like “organisms evolve in response to environmental changes” so the “innate tendency for species to progress” taken in that context doesn’t present any problem.

    No. An “innate tendency” to progress is not natural selection.

  64. 64
    Vy says:

    Your comment had no content. Your signal-to-noise ratio is of negligible magnitude. You might want to check your rationalization filters.

    The guy that believes a blindly selective purposeless random process created his 3 pound meat is yapping about lack of content. LOL!

    Why exactly did your jumbled neurons delude you into believing that you could find content in what contradicts your inane comments?

    No. An “innate tendency” to progress is not natural selection.

    Thanks yet again for proving my point. Go and have your spaghetti neurons checked, you’re more puppet than usual.

    Your Yoda Complex posturing might impress your delusional multiple selves but in here it’s just hot air.

Leave a Reply