What does evolution mean to you?

Oct 2019
676
48
USA
The basic premise of evolution is that mankind has common ancestry with animals.

For what it's worth, this is a simple folk belief which has existed in some form since the ancient Greeks (not necessarily in mutual exclusivity to creationism or theism, as many popular myths assert), as well as in cultures such as Hinduism, in which it serves a basis for their religion and culture. (The idea that "mankind came from nature, just like the animals", was a simple folk belief held by atheists, which was thought to be easily observable, existing long before there were any special theories of evolution).

Theories of evolution are also the basis on many treaties for Civilization, such as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes in "The Common Law" (in which civilization and rule of law had evolved from more primitive systems, such as blood feuds).

So crediting Darwin with discovering evolution is something of a historical fallacy, his theory was merely one of many which had existed before it.
 
Aug 2019
898
854
Albuquerque, NM
The basic premise of evolution is that mankind has common ancestry with animals.

For what it's worth, this is a simple folk belief which has existed in some form since the ancient Greeks (not necessarily in mutual exclusivity to creationism or theism, as many popular myths assert), as well as in cultures such as Hinduism, in which it serves a basis for their religion and culture. (The idea that "mankind came from nature, just like the animals", was a simple folk belief held by atheists, which was thought to be easily observable, existing long before there were any special theories of evolution).

Theories of evolution are also the basis on many treaties for Civilization, such as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes in "The Common Law" (in which civilization and rule of law had evolved from more primitive systems, such as blood feuds).

So crediting Darwin with discovering evolution is something of a historical fallacy, his theory was merely one of many which had existed before it.
You have simplified the idea of Evolution to try and compare it to ancient religious beliefs. What Darwin observed and hypothesized was a lot more complex than simple "mankind came from nature, just like the animals".

And actually, someone else was about to publish the Evolution theory which pushed Darwin to finally publish. He was hesitant because of the back lash he feared from people, but with the other guy hot on his heels (can't remember his name) he finally went public.

Also, the comparison to Wendall Holmes does not really fit. Evolution of ideas and law is not the same as biological evolution.
 
Nov 2013
2,766
1,225
NM
The basic premise of evolution is that mankind has common ancestry with animals.

For what it's worth, this is a simple folk belief which has existed in some form since the ancient Greeks (not necessarily in mutual exclusivity to creationism or theism, as many popular myths assert), as well as in cultures such as Hinduism, in which it serves a basis for their religion and culture. (The idea that "mankind came from nature, just like the animals", was a simple folk belief held by atheists, which was thought to be easily observable, existing long before there were any special theories of evolution).

Theories of evolution are also the basis on many treaties for Civilization, such as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes in "The Common Law" (in which civilization and rule of law had evolved from more primitive systems, such as blood feuds).

So crediting Darwin with discovering evolution is something of a historical fallacy, his theory was merely one of many which had existed before it.
Not merely discovering,

"The scientific theory of evolution by natural selection was conceived independently by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in the mid-19th century and was set out in detail in Darwin's book On the Origin of Species (1859).[7] Evolution by natural selection was first demonstrated by the observation that more offspring are often produced than can possibly survive. This is followed by three observable facts about living organisms: 1.) traits vary among individuals with respect to their morphology, physiology and behaviour (phenotypic variation), 2.) different traits confer different rates of survival and reproduction (differential fitness) and 3.) traits can be passed from generation to generation (heritability of fitness).[8] Thus, in successive generations members of a population are more likely to be replaced by the progenies of parents with favourable characteristics that have enabled them to survive and reproduce in their respective environments."

(My emphasis - more @ Evolution - Wikipedia)

Darwin laid out a scientific theory of evolution, based on his observations here & there in the World. He may have been the first to have the observational skills, sketching, travelling widely, & taking the time (20 years) to write up his observations & field notes into a coherent theory, tying the data together.
 
Dec 2018
4,830
1,334
New England
The basic premise of evolution is that mankind has common ancestry with animals.
No, that's not really correct. It's much broader that than. It's the process of how living organizations change over time -- sometimes radically -- as a result of genetic mutation and environmental pressure.

Also, man does not have a "common ancestry with animals." Man is an animal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MichaelT
Oct 2019
676
48
USA
No, that's not really correct. It's much broader that than. It's the process of how living organizations change over time -- sometimes radically -- as a result of genetic mutation and environmental pressure.

Also, man does not have a "common ancestry with animals." Man is an animal.
That's an arbitrary distinction, as is the zoological taxonomy, an arbitrary system of classification on the basis of similarities and differences.

One could argue that a socket wrench, and a supercomputer are both "machines", and that wouldn't be "wrong" - but one could also emphasis their differences.

I think it would be fair to draw a distinction between humankind and other animals, on the basis of human traits such as reasoning and creativity.
 
Oct 2019
676
48
USA
You have simplified the idea of Evolution to try and compare it to ancient religious beliefs. What Darwin observed and hypothesized was a lot more complex than simple "mankind came from nature, just like the animals".
It is more complex, but based on a similar premise.

Much as how John Calvin's treatise "Institutes of the Christian religion" is "more complex" than the simple text of the Bible or the New Testament.

So if one can draw a similarity between Christian myths and other religions (e.x. such as the notion of Virgin Births or Sons of God in world religions), one can also draw similarities between Darwin's theory and other theories of evolution.

And actually, someone else was about to publish the Evolution theory which pushed Darwin to finally publish. He was hesitant because of the back lash he feared from people, but with the other guy hot on his heels (can't remember his name) he finally went public.

Also, the comparison to Wendall Holmes does not really fit. Evolution of ideas and law is not the same as biological evolution.
I believe they interrelate, given that the evolution of law was based on the notion that mankind has a lower instinct in common with nature, which plays a role in barbarism and savagery.
 
Dec 2018
3,312
2,450
Wisconsin
The basic premise of evolution is that mankind has common ancestry with animals.

For what it's worth, this is a simple folk belief which has existed in some form since the ancient Greeks (not necessarily in mutual exclusivity to creationism or theism, as many popular myths assert), as well as in cultures such as Hinduism, in which it serves a basis for their religion and culture. (The idea that "mankind came from nature, just like the animals", was a simple folk belief held by atheists, which was thought to be easily observable, existing long before there were any special theories of evolution).

Theories of evolution are also the basis on many treaties for Civilization, such as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes in "The Common Law" (in which civilization and rule of law had evolved from more primitive systems, such as blood feuds).

So crediting Darwin with discovering evolution is something of a historical fallacy, his theory was merely one of many which had existed before it.
How do you think a theory is defined in scientific terms? I’m curious what you mean by “His theory was merely one of many”
 
Dec 2018
4,830
1,334
New England
That's an arbitrary distinction, as is the zoological taxonomy, an arbitrary system of classification on the basis of similarities and differences.

One could argue that a socket wrench, and a supercomputer are both "machines", and that wouldn't be "wrong" - but one could also emphasis their differences.

I think it would be fair to draw a distinction between humankind and other animals, on the basis of human traits such as reasoning and creativity.
While it's certainly a classification, it's certainly not arbitrary as you attempt to portray here. Let's look at the word you choose to use (emphasis added):

clas·si·fi·ca·tion
/ˌklasəfəˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun
the action or process of classifying something according to shared qualities or characteristics.

We share very little with wrenches. We do, however, share much with animals. For example, our DNA is 96% identical (not similar, identical) to that of chimpanzees. We're 90% identical to cats and 85% with mice. In fact, we're not all that different from plants. We have about 60% in common with bananas.



Powerful stuff, DNA.
 

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
40,200
28,073
La La Land North
That's an arbitrary distinction, as is the zoological taxonomy, an arbitrary system of classification on the basis of similarities and differences.

One could argue that a socket wrench, and a supercomputer are both "machines", and that wouldn't be "wrong" - but one could also emphasis their differences.

I think it would be fair to draw a distinction between humankind and other animals, on the basis of human traits such as reasoning and creativity.
This has been posted here previously, but there are two things you might learn from this short video.

 
  • Like
Reactions: intangible child

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
40,200
28,073
La La Land North
It is more complex, but based on a similar premise.

Much as how John Calvin's treatise "Institutes of the Christian religion" is "more complex" than the simple text of the Bible or the New Testament.

So if one can draw a similarity between Christian myths and other religions (e.x. such as the notion of Virgin Births or Sons of God in world religions), one can also draw similarities between Darwin's theory and other theories of evolution.


I believe they interrelate, given that the evolution of law was based on the notion that mankind has a lower instinct in common with nature, which plays a role in barbarism and savagery.
No. Comparing myths and comparing scientific studies are not the same thing. Myths based on fiction are whatever you want them to be.

Scientific theories derive from observed facts.

What other theories of evolution do you think are out there?
 
  • Like
Reactions: intangible child