Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum The Origin of Species - An Invitiation.

I don't have my version at hand, but here's the chapters from the Gutenberg version which I had thought was identical to my own - except I thought I only had 14 chapters. Anyway, mine and this one do include the "miscellaneous objections." I wonder - do creationists often quote from that chapter?

INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I. VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION.

CHAPTER II. VARIATION UNDER NATURE.

CHAPTER III. STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE.

CHAPTER IV. NATURAL SELECTION; OR THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST.

CHAPTER V. LAWS OF VARIATION.

CHAPTER VI. DIFFICULTIES OF THE THEORY.

CHAPTER VII. MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION.

CHAPTER VIII. INSTINCT.

CHAPTER IX. HYBRIDISM.

CHAPTER X. ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD.

CHAPTER XI. ON THE GEOLOGICAL SUCCESSION OF ORGANIC BEINGS.

CHAPTER XII. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION.

CHAPTER XIII. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION -- CONTINUED.

CHAPTER XIV. MUTUAL AFFINITIES OF ORGANIC BEINGS: MORPHOLOGY -- EMBRYOLOGY -- RUDIMENTARY ORGANS.

CHAPTER XV. RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION.

Mine is the 6th edition and agrees with the above. Jones leaves the above chapter VII out of his version and so all chapters shift one place. Darwin starts his chapter VII with:

"I will devote this chapter to the consideration of various miscellaneous objections which have been advanced against my views ..."

It therefore must have been added after a first edition came out. A quick skim through the chapter suggests your question, "I wonder - do creationists often quote from that chapter?" is answered in the affirmative. In fact it's probably the only chapter they have read. They still raise the same difficulties but are not yet aware of the solutions, perhaps deliberately.

Makes sense to put it here then everyone can contribute.

Darwin Chapter IX

In this chapter Darwin shows that the difference between varieties and separate species is simply a matter of degree. If we define separate species as being unable to form fertile offspring then, of course, separate species will be unable to form fertile offspring. But in practice it is often totally impossible to define whether two populations are separate species or merely varieties.

Darwin's objective was to prove that with time varieties evolve into species. As an extension it is obvious that species evolve into genera, etc. His case suffers a little in that at the time he was unaware that the infertility that arises through inbreeding springs from a different cause to the infertility that develops between species. This led him to a few dead ends but, read in the light of what we now know, his examples are still very interesting.

And we now know that the gap between species can change with changing environment. For example two species of Galapagos finches readily form hybrids during optimum environmental conditions but separate when times are hard. It seems even human groups behave the same way. John Dewey claimed as long ago as 1915 that different classes and social groups mix with each other more during expansive econmomic periods. It's probable that ancient human groups obeyed this same rule.

Anyone want to add anything, take it away or dismiss it totally? Or try another chapter?

Curious. Are you going to make a video of this?

No. I thought you were, with Dan doing the talking! We'll see what happens. Inshallah.

Okay. Very good. Thanks!

Should I have a go at summarising chapter VII Miscellaneous Objections?

Go for it!
thanks,
k

By the way Fallible. What did you find "Curious"?

"By the way Fallible. What did you find "Curious"?"
hahaha...I meant "I'm curious as to whether you're going to make the vid or whether I should plan to make it."

btw, I'm trying to learn a video tool now so that people don't have to see my ugly mug and I can do some other edits. I'm not sure what I'll settle on.

thanks again,
tff

Hey Fallible. DA wrote way back:

"Among my job qualifications is professional lecturer: I'd be happy to help if it promotes the understanding of serious science."

Do you think we should hold him to it? But maybe he's no better looking than either of us.

I'd love it if Dan took up the torch and ran with it.

I'm looking at ways of making videos. I downloaded ms moviemaker last night, but I'm still experimenting with it. I might go out and buy something, but I need to make sure whatever I get does something useful - or else why wife will play the Lorena B game with me.

I'm diverted on another project right now - one for my youngest kid - and I'm hoping to learn some lessons that will be useful for this OOS project.
tff

Good luck.

TFF, I saw your video and your passion about the subject material and your blistering intelligence shine through. I joke, but you need a pipe and smoking jacket. Great job; you can be my professor anytime.
Sincerely,

mitth: "I saw your video"
thanks, but I'm convinced I can do better.
I experimenting with windows moviemaker on another project. If this works out, I'll try to not use my voice at all, or at least not my physical picture. I notice I'm continually clearing my throat (allergies and nervousness). And I'm not using a script. I should write rather than speak, I think.

Anyway, I hope to learn a lot on this other project that I can apply to the redux project.
tx,
tff

Yes it's interesting the different ways cultures have of filling gaps while speaking. English-speaking people usually say "um", or "ah". I was amused in Scotland when the first person I asked for directions started out, "em". My brother reckons he could never give a speech in Maori because his throat would become raw. He's not able to cough enough. Have you got maori ancestry Fallible? (joke).

On topic. I don't know the best way to explain exactly how evolution actually works. Pictures are obviously a necessity. Maybe a film of the Darwin redux...

Hiya TFF,

It occurs to me, after writing my post #21409 on "Is Science the Answer," that perhaps your presentation could use some clarifying statements (setting parameters).

I'm assuming you are trying to reach people who may be somewhat leary of, or hostile to, evolution theory.

Anyway, some statements about what E.theory is NOT, might be as informative as 'what it is.'

As an example, 'E.theory doesn't say anything about the existence of God (or the origin of life).'
Or something like 'E.theory is a tool that generally is consistent with (and explains) observations in the material world (physical reality). It doesn't say anything about any spiritual reality.'
Or perhaps 'E.theory doesn't purport to understand everything there is to know about how genetics work (or even how life works in general).'

Additionally, other general statements might help put E.theory into a wider context.
Something such as, 'E.theory principles can be applied to other areas of human interest including politics, organizations, economics, chemistry, astronomy, families, psychology, art, and philosophy,' might help people understand and relate to E.theory better.

Those 'sentences' may not be the best way to say things, but do you get the idea?

~~Samwik

That's good advice, thanks. I especially liked:

'E.theory principles can be applied to other areas of human interest including politics, organizations, economics, chemistry, astronomy, families, psychology, art, and philosophy,'

The sooner we do that the better off we'll be. All our ideas and beliefs, both individual and collective, evolve.

I get the idea and agree with it.
thanks much for the feedback.

Hiya TFF,
I discovered something today which also may help as a resource in the "perspectives/context" areas.

It's called the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://www.iep.utm.edu/

I was looking up Searle's Chinese-Room problem, and voila....

Check the "E" section on Evolution (& ff), as well as Evidentialism, and Epistomology.

There was even a section on Epistomology, Feminist:
Feminist epistemologies take seriously the ways in which knowers are enmeshed in social relations that are generally hierarchical while also being historically and culturally specific.

Sounds like good advice across the board to me....

~~SA