Well, I ended up doing some writing last night after all… but after my imaginary friend showed up in my writing, I thought it best to hold off a bit. I finished up during little breaks here and there at work today. This one’s kinda long, but hey, I have to make up for yesterday, right?<\/p>\n
Anyway, it’s all from The Origin of Species and I can say that I’m very happy that I’m almost done with the book.<\/p>\n
Chapter nine, \u201cOn the Imperfection of the Geological Record.\u201d I love the fact that if something doesn\u2019t corroborate Darwin\u2019s theory, he assumes other sciences are wrong. Granted, in this case, he was right to a certain extent. I don\u2019t think anyone truly knows how old the Earth is.<\/p>\n
The flaw in Darwin suggesting that the Earth was older than what was believed at the time he wrote his theory is that he based it on his theory. That is, he said the Earth was older because his theory of Natural Selection proves it to be older. Yet in order for his theory of Natural Selection to be valid, the Earth must be older than what was believed at the time.<\/p>\n
Anyway\u2026 he starts off by trying to answer the question of why there aren\u2019t very many fossils of \u201ctransitional links\u201d of species to be found in the geological layers that had thus far been dug up. His first argument is that there is, \u201cextreme imperfection of the geological record\u201d (page 292). Of course, there\u2019s no chance that there simply weren\u2019t any \u201ctransitional links,\u201d it has to be due to someone else\u2019s misjudgment.<\/p>\n
He says himself that, \u201c\u2026so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous.\u201d<\/p>\n
Then he goes on to say that the intermediate varieties aren\u2019t necessarily from any two species, but instead between one species and an unknown parent, so that the fossil records might not be recognized. But then on page 293, he says, \u201cBut the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, but differences not greater than we see between the varieties of the same species at the present day\u2026\u201d Doesn\u2019t that contradict what he just said? Later in that same paragraph, he again states that \u201cthe number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great.\u201d<\/p>\n
My common sense can\u2019t comprehend that if there was a \u201ctruly enormous\u201d number of intermediate links \u2013 so much so that it\u2019s \u201cinconceivably great\u201d\u2026 surely we\u2019d find more than a handful of fossils to prove Darwin\u2019s theory. Again, he points the finger at geology and I love how he follows it by criticizing someone\u2019s work in geology. \u201cNot that it suffices to study the Principles of Geology, or to read special treatises by different observers on separate formations\u2026 a man must for years examine for himself great piles of superimposed strata\u2026 before he can hope to comprehend anything of the lapse of time\u2026\u201d (page 293-294).<\/p>\n
One of his points tries to prove that the denudation of the Weald must have taken longer than 300 million years. His reasoning is that \u201cThe action of fresh water on the gently inclined Wealden district\u2026 could hardly have been great\u201d (page 297). He states earlier in the chapter that he doesn\u2019t think fresh water (not tainted with sediment of any type) can erode rock. Which, as we know today, isn\u2019t true. Anyway back to his reasoning. He also suggests that the surface for the Wealden district underwent level oscillations: so it spent millions of years as land, escaping the erosion action of the sea and\/or it could have been deeply submerged in which case it escaped the erosion action of the coast waves. Therefore, escaping these things, and the \u2018fact\u2019 that rain isn\u2019t going to erode anything\u2026 it must be older than 300 million years.<\/p>\n
I think it\u2019s good that he is questioning the reliability of the geological record of his time. However, to twist it so that it meets the requirements to validate his theory is wrong.<\/p>\n
On the next page he states that,\u201cOnly a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored, and no part with sufficient care, as the important discoveries made every year in Europe prove.\u201d I believe that only a small portion had been explored, but whether or not it was done with \u201csufficient care\u201d is a relative statement. They didn\u2019t have the technology our generation possesses, but at that time, they were making huge discoveries with what they had.<\/p>\n
He continues by giving other theories as to why fossils aren\u2019t found such as sediment not being sufficiently thick or solid enough to withstand erosion. I guess that\u2019s true along waterlines, but I really couldn\u2019t find anything about areas that are inland other than him suggesting that those areas used to be near waterlines but moved inland. In point of fact, the opposite is true. The Pangaea theory states that all of our current continents used to be one big landmass surrounded by ocean. Then due to the fault lines, volcanic activity, etc, they were broken up into the continents we have today. Even to this very day, they continents are still moving. (I\u2019ve been studying a lot of volcanology and have become somewhat versed in this stuff). So Darwin\u2019s theory is blown out there.<\/p>\n
But I love his statement at the end of page 301, continuing onto 302, \u201cNature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms.\u201d So we\u2019ve gone from blaming geologists to blaming nature itself. I mean, he couldn\u2019t even admit that he might just be wrong.<\/p>\n
As he continues to ramble on about how geology and nature have mistreated his theory, he says on page 307, \u201cGeological research\u2026 has done scarcely anything in breaking down the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine intermediate varieties\u2026\u201d Wait! What? Okay, again, I\u2019m no scientist, but isn\u2019t geology the study of like, well, you know, rocks? Why would a geologist be accountable for \u201cbreaking down the distinction between species?\u201d Isn\u2019t that a biologist\u2019s job? But because of this huge error on the geologists\u2019 part, it is now the \u201cgravest and most obvious of all the many objections which may be urged against my views\u201d (page 307).<\/p>\n
Oh dear!<\/p>\n
His response to these gravest of objections to his view, \u201cHence it will be worth while to sum up the foregoing remarks, under an imaginary illustration.\u201d<\/p>\n
I actually laughed out loud when I read that. Dude, seriously!? If I wanted to counter the \u201cgravest objections\u201d to something, I wouldn\u2019t just make up an imaginary illustration. Okay, here, let my imaginary friend tell you about this imaginary situation which will totally prove to you that my theory is sound!<\/p>\n
Well, that\u2019s it for the fun of chapter nine, now onto chapter 10: On the Geological Succession of Organic Beings. Let\u2019s start with the first page, paragraph two, the first sentence, \u201cNew species have appeared very slowly, one after another, both on the land and in the waters\u201d (page 317). Seems simple enough. But turn back a couple of pages to 315 and he says, \u201cThe several difficulties here discussed\u2026 the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
So if new species appear slowly why then does he state, just a couple pages before that they appear suddenly? Anyone have a headache yet? I was hoping for another imaginary illustration, but well, there wasn\u2019t one.<\/p>\n
On 318 he states, \u201cWhen a species has once disappeared from the face of the earth, we have reason to believe that the same identical form never reappears.\u201d Yet back on page 302 he states, \u201cWhen we see a species first appearing in the middle of any formation, it would be rash in the extreme to infer that it had not elsewhere previously existed.\u201d So again, I\u2019m scratching my head. He states if we find fossils in this formation during this geological time, the species must have first appeared in another previous geological time\u2026 but then he says that once a species disappears, it never reappears.<\/p>\n
(Takes an aspirin).<\/p>\n
Moving on to page 319, he says, \u201cHence we can see why all the species in the same region do at last, if we look to wide enough intervals of time, become modified; for those which do not change will become extinct.\u201d<\/p>\n
Here I raise a couple of questions, or rather point out a couple of things. First is that his theory is based on plants and animals being modified slowly generation after generation over \u201cwide enough intervals of time.\u201d In the 340 pages that I\u2019ve thus far read of this book, he has not mentioned how long that time frame is. He says over and over and over that species change at different rates in different situations in different areas in different climates etc etc etc. (Has to make sure all of his bases are covered).<\/p>\n
But how does he explain something like the horseshoe crab which, according to scientists, it has remained unchanged since the Ordovician period (approximately 445 million years ago)? Apparently we haven\u2019t looked at a \u201cwide enough interval of time.\u201d Also, according to the \u201cAnimalBytes\u201d page on the San Diego Zoo website, it says that the tapir has remained unchanged for millions of years.<\/p>\n
He does talk about the Tapir and the Horse but he fails to mention that the tapir hasn\u2019t \u201cevolved\u201d in millions of years as his theory would suggest it had.<\/p>\n
Well, you know, he hasn\u2019t found his imaginary friend to tell him what to do. So on the next page, he reverts to his talking in circles. \u201cGroups of species\u2026changing more or less quickly, and in a greater or lesser degree. A group does not reappear after it has once disappeared; or its existence, as long as it lasts, is continuous.\u201d<\/p>\n
(Grabs the bottle of Tylenol).<\/p>\n
Yup, things can change more or less quickly than others (all relative to the wide interval of time you\u2019re looking at), and a group doesn\u2019t reappear after it\u2019s disappeared or if it does still exist, it is continuous.<\/p>\n
Okay, let\u2019s see if he can make me understand this better. What does he say? \u201c\u2026it is clear that as long as any species of the group have appeared in the long succession of ages, so long must its members have continuously existed, in order to have generated either new and modified or the same old and unmodified forms.\u201d<\/p>\n
So if a species appears in a succession of ages (but only if its members have continuously existed)\u2026 wait\u2026 if they didn\u2019t continue then they wouldn\u2019t have appeared in a succession of ages.<\/p>\n
(Doesn\u2019t think the Tylenol will be strong enough).<\/p>\n
Back to the sentence, \u201c\u2026continuously existed, in order to have generated either new and modified or the same old and unmodified forms.\u201d (Imaginary friend appears) Dude, if I exist and have offspring so my species continues, my kids like, you know, have to be new and improved or be the same as me. Get it?<\/p>\n
(Looks at her imaginary friend) But I thought Darwin said all offspring inherit things that improve them in order to weed out the weak, so wouldn\u2019t all of your kids be new and improved?<\/p>\n
(Imaginary friend shrugs) I\u2019d explain, but I don\u2019t have the time to show you my research and my fact book. Gotta go play with some amoebas.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m just going leave it at that for now and move on to his discussion on the development of ancient forms. \u201cThere has been much discussion whether recent forms are more highly developed than ancient\u201d (page 336). Then he goes on to say he\u2019s not going to talk about the subject because naturalists have not defined (to each other\u2019s satisfaction) what the difference is between high and low forms.<\/p>\n
Okay, let\u2019s not discuss it. Yet he goes on for two pages as to why he\u2019s not going to discuss it.
\nIsn\u2019t this fun?<\/p>\n
Only four long chapters left to read then I can move onto something else to turn my hair gray.<\/p>\n
Happy reading.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Well, I ended up doing some writing last night after all… but after my imaginary friend showed up in my writing, I thought it best to hold off a bit. I finished up during little breaks here and there at work today. This one’s kinda long, but hey, I have to make up for yesterday, right? Anyway, it’s all from The Origin of Species and I can say that I’m very happy that I’m almost done with the book. Chapter nine, \u201cOn the Imperfection of the Geological Record.\u201d I love the fact that if something doesn\u2019t corroborate Darwin\u2019s theory, he assumes other sciences are wrong. Granted, in this case, he was right to a certain extent. I don\u2019t think anyone truly knows how old the Earth is. The flaw in Darwin suggesting that the Earth was older than what was believed at the time he wrote his theory is that he based it on his theory. That is, he said the Earth was older because his theory of Natural Selection proves it to be older. Yet in order for his theory of Natural Selection to be valid, the Earth must be older than what was believed at the time. Anyway\u2026 he starts off by trying to answer the question of why there aren\u2019t very many fossils of \u201ctransitional links\u201d of species to be found in the geological layers that had thus far been dug up. His first argument is that there is, \u201cextreme imperfection of the geological record\u201d (page 292). Of course, there\u2019s no chance that there simply weren\u2019t any \u201ctransitional links,\u201d it has to be due to someone else\u2019s misjudgment. He says himself that, \u201c\u2026so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous.\u201d Then he goes on to say that the intermediate varieties aren\u2019t necessarily from any two species, but instead between one species and an unknown parent, so that the fossil records might not be recognized. But then on page 293, he says, \u201cBut the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, but differences not greater than we see between the varieties of the same species at the present day\u2026\u201d Doesn\u2019t that contradict what he just said? Later in that same paragraph, he again states that \u201cthe number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great.\u201d My common sense can\u2019t comprehend that if there was a \u201ctruly enormous\u201d number of intermediate links \u2013 so much so that it\u2019s \u201cinconceivably great\u201d\u2026 surely we\u2019d find more than a handful of fossils to prove Darwin\u2019s theory. Again, he points the finger at geology and I love how he follows it by criticizing someone\u2019s work in geology. \u201cNot that it suffices to study the Principles of Geology, or to read special treatises by different observers on separate formations\u2026 a man must for years examine for himself great piles of superimposed strata\u2026 before he can hope to comprehend anything of the lapse of time\u2026\u201d (page 293-294). One of his points tries to prove that the denudation of the Weald must have taken longer than 300 million years. His reasoning is that \u201cThe action of fresh water on the gently inclined Wealden district\u2026 could hardly have been great\u201d (page 297). He states earlier in the chapter that he doesn\u2019t think fresh water (not tainted with sediment of any type) can erode rock. Which, as we know today, isn\u2019t true. Anyway back to his reasoning. He also suggests that the surface for the Wealden district underwent level oscillations: so it spent millions of years as land, escaping the erosion action of the sea and\/or it could have been deeply submerged in which case it escaped the erosion action of the coast waves. Therefore, escaping these things, and the \u2018fact\u2019 that rain isn\u2019t going to erode anything\u2026 it must be older than 300 million years. I think it\u2019s good that he is questioning the reliability of the geological record of his time. However, to twist it so that it meets the requirements to validate his theory is wrong. On the next page he states that,\u201cOnly a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored, and no part with sufficient care, as the important discoveries made every year in Europe prove.\u201d I believe that only a small portion had been explored, but whether or not it was done with \u201csufficient care\u201d is a relative statement. They didn\u2019t have the technology our generation possesses, but at that time, they were making huge discoveries with what they had. He continues by giving other theories as to why fossils aren\u2019t found such as sediment not being sufficiently thick or solid enough to withstand erosion. I guess that\u2019s true along waterlines, but I really couldn\u2019t find anything about areas that are inland other than him suggesting that those areas used to be near waterlines but moved inland. In point of fact, the opposite is true. The Pangaea theory states that all of our current continents used to be one big landmass surrounded by ocean. Then due to the fault lines, volcanic activity, etc, they were broken up into the continents we have today. Even to this very day, they continents are still moving. (I\u2019ve been studying a lot of volcanology and have become somewhat versed in this stuff). So Darwin\u2019s theory is blown out there. But I love his statement at the end of page 301, continuing onto 302, \u201cNature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms.\u201d So we\u2019ve gone from blaming geologists to blaming nature itself. I mean, he couldn\u2019t even admit that he might just be wrong. As he continues to ramble on about how geology and nature have mistreated his theory, he says on page 307, \u201cGeological research\u2026 has done scarcely anything in breaking down the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine intermediate varieties\u2026\u201d Wait! What? Okay, again, I\u2019m no scientist, but isn\u2019t geology the study of like, well, you know, rocks? Why would a geologist be accountable for \u201cbreaking down the distinction between species?\u201d Isn\u2019t that a biologist\u2019s job? But because of this huge error on the geologists\u2019 part, it is now the \u201cgravest and most obvious of all the many objections which may be urged against my views\u201d (page 307). Oh dear! His response to these gravest of objections to his view, \u201cHence it will be worth while to sum up the foregoing remarks, under an imaginary illustration.\u201d I actually laughed out loud when I read that. Dude, seriously!? If I wanted to counter the \u201cgravest objections\u201d to something, I wouldn\u2019t just make up an imaginary illustration. Okay, here, let my imaginary friend tell you about this imaginary situation which will totally prove to you that my theory is sound! Well, that\u2019s it for the fun of chapter nine, now onto chapter 10: On the Geological Succession of Organic Beings. Let\u2019s start with the first page, paragraph two, the first sentence, \u201cNew species have appeared very slowly, one after another, both on the land and in the waters\u201d (page 317). Seems simple enough. But turn back a couple of pages to 315 and he says, \u201cThe several difficulties here discussed\u2026 the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations\u2026\u201d So if new species appear slowly why then does he state, just a couple pages before that they appear suddenly? Anyone have a headache yet? I was hoping for another imaginary illustration, but well, there wasn\u2019t one. On 318 he states, \u201cWhen a species has once disappeared from the face of the earth, we have reason to believe that the same identical form never reappears.\u201d Yet back on page 302 he states, \u201cWhen we see a species first appearing in the middle of any formation, it would be rash in the extreme to infer that it had not elsewhere previously existed.\u201d So again, I\u2019m scratching my head. He states if we find fossils in this formation during this geological time, the species must have first appeared in another previous geological time\u2026 but then he says that once a species disappears, it never reappears. (Takes an aspirin). Moving on to page 319, he says, \u201cHence we can see why all the species in the same region do at last, if we look to wide enough intervals of time, become modified; for those which do not change will become extinct.\u201d Here I raise a couple of questions, or rather point out a couple of things. First is that his theory is based on plants and animals being modified slowly generation after generation over \u201cwide enough intervals of time.\u201d In the 340 pages that I\u2019ve thus far read of this book, he has not mentioned how long that time frame is. He says over and over and over that species change at different rates in different situations in different areas in different climates etc etc etc. (Has to make sure all of his bases are covered). But how does he explain something like the horseshoe crab which, according to scientists, it has remained unchanged since the Ordovician period (approximately 445 million years ago)? Apparently we haven\u2019t looked at a \u201cwide enough interval of time.\u201d Also, according to the \u201cAnimalBytes\u201d page on the San Diego Zoo website, it says that the tapir has remained unchanged for millions of years. He does talk about the Tapir and the Horse but he fails to mention that the tapir hasn\u2019t \u201cevolved\u201d in millions of years as his theory would suggest it had. Well, you know, he hasn\u2019t found his imaginary friend to tell him what to do. So on the next page, he reverts to his talking in circles. \u201cGroups of species\u2026changing more or less quickly, and in a greater or lesser degree. A group does not reappear after it has once disappeared; or its existence, as long as it lasts, is continuous.\u201d (Grabs the bottle of Tylenol). Yup, things can change more or less quickly than others (all relative to the wide interval of time you\u2019re looking at), and a group doesn\u2019t reappear after it\u2019s disappeared or if it does still exist, it is continuous. Okay, let\u2019s see if he can make me understand this better. What does he say? \u201c\u2026it is clear that as long as any species of the group have appeared in the long succession of ages, so long must its members have continuously existed, in order to have generated either new and modified or the same old and unmodified forms.\u201d So if a species appears in a succession of ages (but only if its members have continuously existed)\u2026 wait\u2026 if they didn\u2019t continue then they wouldn\u2019t have appeared in a succession of ages. (Doesn\u2019t think the Tylenol will be strong enough). Back to the sentence, \u201c\u2026continuously existed, in order to have generated either new and modified or the same old and unmodified forms.\u201d (Imaginary friend appears) Dude, if I exist and have offspring so my species continues, my kids like, you know, have to be new and improved or be the same as me. Get it? (Looks at her imaginary friend) But I thought Darwin said all offspring inherit things that improve them in order to weed out the weak, so wouldn\u2019t all of your kids be new and improved? (Imaginary friend shrugs) I\u2019d explain, but I don\u2019t have the time to show you my research and my fact book. Gotta go play with some amoebas. I\u2019m just going leave it at that for now and move on to his discussion on the development of ancient forms. \u201cThere has been much discussion whether recent forms are more highly developed than ancient\u201d (page 336). Then he goes on to say he\u2019s not going to talk about the subject because naturalists have not defined (to each other\u2019s satisfaction) what the difference is between high and low forms. Okay, let\u2019s not discuss it. Yet he goes on for two pages as to why he\u2019s not going to discuss it. Isn\u2019t this fun? Only four long chapters left to read then I can move onto something else to turn my hair gray. Happy reading.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-70","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-52-books-in-52-weeks"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p15dwH-18","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.zerinasquest.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.zerinasquest.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.zerinasquest.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.zerinasquest.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.zerinasquest.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=70"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.zerinasquest.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1238,"href":"https:\/\/www.zerinasquest.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70\/revisions\/1238"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.zerinasquest.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.zerinasquest.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.zerinasquest.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}