If you can’t find your copy of The Origin of Species, know that there’s always one online at The TalkOrigins Archive.
Recent Comments
Science Notes-
-
Flickr Photos
Simon Singh has won! Send money.
Anti-vaccine toll, U.S.
The Origin of Species online
November 25, 2009 — monado22 Responses to “The Origin of Species online”
Leave a reply to RBH Cancel reply
The Out Campaign
“Atheism is a religion like 'not collecting stamps' is a hobby.” ―Penn Jillette
“If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color” ―Mark Schnitzius
"If atheism is a religion, then health is a disease!" —Clark Adams
Science Notes 
December 24, 2009 at 14:53
Sorry for the tardiness of this comment, but I’m finally going through the 1,000+ posts from 250+ sources waiting in my reader.
The whole of Darwin’s writings, including all editions of Origin are online here.
December 24, 2009 at 15:29
It’s great to have you drop by, whenever you get around to it. Thanks for the link & Happy Solstice!
November 30, 2010 at 17:53
We do not know if God exists or not, but we do know that Darwin most definately does not.
November 30, 2010 at 22:41
I beg your pardon? Do you normally compare Santa Claus with Lincoln, and gloat that Lincoln is dead?
We do know that Darwin existed and we are fortunate that he left us such a solid foundation explaining the statistical basis of evolution.
December 2, 2010 at 18:35
Say what? Darwin does exist? Where is he? Have him respond personally or I shan’t believe you. That leaves God as being the only one who could possibly exist given the two. There is a great deal of evidence that God exists. But, and I repeat, Darwin most definately does not.
November 30, 2010 at 18:00
No such thing as Adaption/Evolution without Intelligence, because by it’s very nature that’s what Adaption and Evolution is. Unless man has come up with a way of improving upon an or ‘evolving’ an idea without thinking then all would have to agree.
November 30, 2010 at 22:45
You obviously have no idea of the mechanisms of adaptation or evolution, if you believe that they require intelligence! How much intelligence does a plant or a bacterium have?
“It is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool, than to open it and have everyone know for sure.”
December 1, 2010 at 18:38
Do you ‘know’ that a plant does not have intelligence or is this something has been ‘proven?’
December 1, 2010 at 18:43
I guess my point is that there must be intelligence in cells or the ‘building blocks’ of animal or plant life that we are not aware of (or maybe we are). There sure seems to be intelligence at some level in order to produce the end results that occur. Thx.
December 2, 2010 at 18:50
You do not completely understand the mechanisms of adaption and evolution either if you have to ask me is a plant has intelligence. You obviously assume a plant does not. How much intelligence is there in the Human Brain? Far more than in the Human Mind, would’nt you agree? How does a body know to repair itself when injured? Why does it repair itself? Does this not require conciousness and intelligence at the cellular level that you are oblivious to? You can argue till your blue in the face. You will never get me to believe intelligence at the molecular or cellular level does not exist.
(P.S., my mouth is closed. If you have’nt noticed I am communicating by typing. Now who’s the fool?).
Lastly, those NDE experiences must be a big thorn in the side of those of narrow mind. Studies pretty much bedunk all the arguments against them thrown there way. Not much left except to believe the experiences are real, would’nt you say, or are you going to toss out the same old, tired and weary recycled responses that fall miserably short in their attempt to explain these experiences away.
Yes, there is a God. But, there is definately is no Darwin.
Hugs and kisses.
December 3, 2010 at 08:57
Dave/Gina, stick to one name per e-mail address or I’ll delete your comments for sock-pupetting. Better yet, stick to one name and e-mail address.
Near-death experiences have been shown to be the result of oxygen deprivation on the brain and are well known in test-pilot training. I guess that’s a thorn in your side. What is this, the kitchen sink? You’re just going to throw in every off-topic religious apology you can think of?
There is no evidence for God. There is irrefutable evidence for Darwin. By the way, why are you harping on someone whose work has been added to and improved upon for 150 years? Are you next going to explain that jet engines can’t exist because James Watt didn’t design one?
December 2, 2010 at 21:51
Yes, there is intelligent design. The intelligence is in the cells.
December 3, 2010 at 08:46
Science is not fanfic. It is about mechanism and probability. You don’t get to just throw up a plausible-sounding or even implausible narrative and then sit back to admire it. “What if there were invisible fairies hand-carving the DNA?” is not a theory.
We know from observation that intelligence requires neural cells, preferably clumped into a brain. I can be confident that plants do not have intelligence because (a) they show no signs of it and (b) they have no neural cells.
Your basic error seems to be that you confuse storytelling (as in your favourite mythology) with investigation and evaluation.
December 3, 2010 at 09:18
Just to further prove my point –
Does a nail have intelligence? No. But it was made by intelligence eventhough that intelligence can never be seen or proven to exist because the deisgn for the nail exists in the mind of man and mind and mind cannot be seen or observed.
Therefore, is it possible for mind to exist eventhough it cannot be seen or proven to exist? Absolutely. It is not a stretch to look at a tree, a plant or anything else that and come to the conclusion that the ‘idea’ for the plant, just as the ‘idea’ for the nail was 1st conceived in a mind before created into physical reality. A tree bears fruit. For what purpose? To feed. Its not all that hard to figure out but you have to take a step back and have a good look around so you can see the bigger picture. Or do you believe a nail was not created by intelligent design because it cannot be proven?
December 3, 2010 at 11:45
Nails don’t breed, so they are an invalid comparison.
December 3, 2010 at 09:05
Monando – “Intelligence requires neuro cells.” Thank you for proving my point that Intelligence is in the (neuro) cells.
There are 2 types of intelligence within the human body. The soul which is contained within it, and neuro cells along with a bunch of others mixed together which do their bit to make the body grow, heal, work etc. The soul, or mind, is the curious one. It tries to play catch up and figure out what the real brains or intelligence of the body (neuro cells etc.) already know – and that is how they go about doing their buisness. The mind is the dumber of the 2. The cells are the real stars of the show. The mind can only sit back and watch that which has already been figured out. It cannot figure out things for itself. It has to watch and learn. It also cannot replicate by itself. It has to use what is already there and replicate by using existing ingredients. You still believe there is no intelligence in design? I challenge you to create life from nothing that already exists. No cheating allowed. No copying or stealing. Just your mind and your bears hands. Don’t think it will happen. That’s where God comes in.
December 3, 2010 at 11:45
Excuse me!? Soul? Fanfic.
December 3, 2010 at 12:06
Excuse me? Fanfic? Pidamu!
You speak of that which you do not know. You scoff at that which you do not understand! You make utterances without comprehension. To you I say Pidamu!
December 3, 2010 at 12:36
You responded with a nonsense word; but “fanfic” is not nonsense. In fact, I linked to a definition above. You are at least consistent in showing your lack of reading skills.
Let me put it another way: the soul is a fairy tale for people who are afraid of death.
December 3, 2010 at 12:42
Monado you would be very interested to know thae depth of scientific research that has gone into studying Near Death Experiences. A reasonable conlcusion after reviewing these studies would be that conciousness survives bodily death. But please, do not take my word for it. This information is easily attained through the net. But you need to have an ‘open mind’ to the wonderous possibilities of life that are at present beyond the comprehension of those who purely focus on the world upon which they gaze. Remember, there is mind, and there is thought. These cannot be seen or proven to exist, yet exist they do. Ideas originate in mind and then are manifest into physical reality. This is true for a plant just as it is for a nail!
Good luck with your NDE research!
December 3, 2010 at 13:05
As someone once said, having the mind survive the death of the brain is like having 70 miles per hour survive a car crash. NDEs have been shown to be illusions of a brain that is shutting down. My mind is not so open that my brain is falling out!
December 3, 2010 at 13:03
Pete/Gina/Dave … some bigger questions. First … why are you sock-puppeting? You’re clearly one person – same diction, same spelling mistakes, same ideas. Pseudonyms are sadly common on the Internet, but creating multiple pseudonyms seems odd to the point of weirdness.
(I will say that I am in effect “inferring” the existence of one person behind multiple names. See below.)
(Incidentally I should point out that many people think certain kinds of spelling mistakes indicate a lack of literateness. In this category are homophonic errors, such as mistaking “bear” for “bare”. If you actually want to persuade folks to your views, you need to check your text more carefully for spelling mistakes, lest you be rejected out of hand as ignorant.)
Second, why bother teasing someone (Monado) whose views you know are antithetical to yours? You won’t convince her, and I rather doubt she’ll convince you – so why don’t you spend your effort on, shall we say, those you can persuade? If you find her views disdainful, aren’t you violating one of the main rules of argument, often put colourfully as, Don’t wrestle with a pig – you both get dirty & the pig enjoys it. :-)
Now to some substantive points.
About whether Darwin existed. To doubt Darwin’s existence (I mean as a human being who wrote certain books etc.) would mean doubting the existence of everyone you’ve never met. If you accept the existence, for instance, of a grandfather who died before you could remember him, based on the oral evidence of your parents, siblings, and other relatives, then you pretty much have to accept the existence of Darwin – and Abraham Lincoln and Richard III and Julius Caesar. Some reputed persons’ existence is in some doubt – Paul Bunyan and Santa Claus (the North Pole one, not the Anatolian bishop) – because the chain of evidence is much in doubt. Are you proposing that Charles Darwin the person is a kind of conspiratorial construct?
The evidence for God (or a Godhead or some kind of entity that might create things) is at best inferential. Even your arguments above _infer_ the existence of an intelligent designer from what you believe is an intelligent design.
If you accept the direct evidence of your senses and then carry on with all the consequences – that you are in fact separate from the chair you’re sitting on, that your computer is “real”, that your friends are real, that your house/apartment is real, that Conan O’Brien is real, that the President is real (whichever President :-), you are inevitably led to a 99+% conclusion that Darwin is real. No such chain of evidence leads to the existence of God.
You’re free to believe that His existence is implied by Nature – an intellectually respectable position that goes back millennia, and extends to many cultures. You’re also free to believe that the Bible is His Word, and thus proves His existence, but that requires an act of Faith (i.e., that the Bible’s assertions are correct) and is thus outside the realm of Evidence.
It seems above you’re altering the meanings of words – I’m thinking particularly of “intelligence” – to prove a point – and thus disproving (or weakening) your point.
The “soul” you discuss above is an assertion without the kind of evidence that’s used to prove the existence of, e.g., genes. Saying “There are two kinds of intelligence” is just an assertion; and asserting something doesn’t make it true.
I can’t create a locomotive out of nothing – but that doesn’t mean that God created the locomotive I see chuffing along a railroad. That argument is a specifies of what’s called the “God of the gaps”, and could arguably be quite disrespectful to God. In effect, it says, If we don’t understand something, or can’t replicate, well, God must’ve done it.
The trouble is, our great-to-the-twentieth-degree grandparents had to ascribe almost everything – the seasons, their diseases, that their youngest died mysteriously – to God’s will, because the “gap” of their understanding was very wide. Our gap is much smaller (tho’ still big, to be fair) so we now ascribe only the deepest mysteries to God.
If we say, Whenever we don’t understand something, it’s God, then we’re dooming Him to continual diminution.
Keep well.