Psyren:
No, he didn't. That is what we call quote mining, where we dig through a list of things said and find a way to take something out of context to make it fit the claim we are making. Belle posted the full quote.
The interesting part is that this doesn't mean anything, even if he did or did not. There is no disputing that Darwin was wrong about a great many aspects of evolution that we have discovered today. Every scientist will tell you this, just like every scientist will tell you that we live in a Heliocentric Solar System, but this doesn't mean that the Ptolemaic proposal of Geocentrism did not contribute to our modern perspective. Despite the fact that his use of epicycles is now practically a curse word among astrophysicists of today.
Many people have contributed many thoughts to the field of science over the course of history and later had their contribution proven either dead wrong (while still sending us in the right direction) or not entirely accurate. This is what science does - it takes ideas proposed, tests them, retests them, continues to retest them, offers them for peer review (where other scientists of a high caliber also commit to testing and making sure of the accuracy of the results) until it can either A - Support the hypothesis being tested or B - Correct or dismiss the hypothesis being tested. Another example is the Einstein's Theory of Relativity being a near replacement for Newtonian Gravity (though this is not a 100% situation).
So we know that Darwin had many inaccuracies about his proposal. We would expect that after 100 years of continued new information about the subject that he did not have access to. This does not mean that because we now have new light on the subject that the initial idea is useless.
Example: I propose to you the unthought of idea that holding onto a parachute and blowing into it will let me fly. By the end of my life span I realize that I haven't succeeded, thus "invalidating" my idea of balloon flight. Someone else with a more modern day knowledge of physics realizes that theoretically, my proposal could work if the air contained within were expanded through the use of heat. He makes it work. If the idea had been discarded due to me not quite having a fully fine tuned idea, then we wouldn't be where we are. This is what we do - we refine ideas over time which allows us the many things we have today.
However, you are welcome to contest this.
EDIT: Sorry, I meant to say this. This isn't actually directed at Psyren since I know he stepped out. This was a contribution to the general discussion that was prompted from Psyren's comment. So any mentions of "you" are the generic use, not a specific individual.
Quote:Sigh im sorry I cant beleive in the theory of evolution when the man who made it famous (Charles Darwain.) even on his death bead said it was a load of hogwash.
No, he didn't. That is what we call quote mining, where we dig through a list of things said and find a way to take something out of context to make it fit the claim we are making. Belle posted the full quote.
The interesting part is that this doesn't mean anything, even if he did or did not. There is no disputing that Darwin was wrong about a great many aspects of evolution that we have discovered today. Every scientist will tell you this, just like every scientist will tell you that we live in a Heliocentric Solar System, but this doesn't mean that the Ptolemaic proposal of Geocentrism did not contribute to our modern perspective. Despite the fact that his use of epicycles is now practically a curse word among astrophysicists of today.
Many people have contributed many thoughts to the field of science over the course of history and later had their contribution proven either dead wrong (while still sending us in the right direction) or not entirely accurate. This is what science does - it takes ideas proposed, tests them, retests them, continues to retest them, offers them for peer review (where other scientists of a high caliber also commit to testing and making sure of the accuracy of the results) until it can either A - Support the hypothesis being tested or B - Correct or dismiss the hypothesis being tested. Another example is the Einstein's Theory of Relativity being a near replacement for Newtonian Gravity (though this is not a 100% situation).
So we know that Darwin had many inaccuracies about his proposal. We would expect that after 100 years of continued new information about the subject that he did not have access to. This does not mean that because we now have new light on the subject that the initial idea is useless.
Example: I propose to you the unthought of idea that holding onto a parachute and blowing into it will let me fly. By the end of my life span I realize that I haven't succeeded, thus "invalidating" my idea of balloon flight. Someone else with a more modern day knowledge of physics realizes that theoretically, my proposal could work if the air contained within were expanded through the use of heat. He makes it work. If the idea had been discarded due to me not quite having a fully fine tuned idea, then we wouldn't be where we are. This is what we do - we refine ideas over time which allows us the many things we have today.
However, you are welcome to contest this.
EDIT: Sorry, I meant to say this. This isn't actually directed at Psyren since I know he stepped out. This was a contribution to the general discussion that was prompted from Psyren's comment. So any mentions of "you" are the generic use, not a specific individual.
![[Image: Ashe.jpg]](http://i1017.photobucket.com/albums/af298/symbiosychotic/Ashe.jpg)