Sea water salts and blood (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, February 15, 2015, 15:29 (3569 days ago) @ dhw


> http://sandwalk.blogspot.jp/2015/02/john-f-kennedy-carnival-cruises-blood.html
... 
> Doesn't disprove evolution, but shows like Haeckel's false embryos the amount of twisted information is out there to prop up Darwin.
> 
> dhw: No, it doesn't disprove evolution, and Darwin's theory does not depend on life originating in the sea, so it doesn't need “propping up” by twisted information. The basis of Darwin's theory is that all forms of life except the first evolved from earlier forms. How this happened remains the subject of endless speculation. You and I agree that random mutations are not satisfactory explanations, and that gradualism flies in the face of the geological record. Darwin, we think, got that wrong (which - in my view mistakenly - he would have deemed fatal to the theory), but unless you are prepared to reject the theory of common descent, I think you should distinguish between evolution and the various hypotheses devised (not necessarily by Darwin) to explain where and how evolution started and how it works.-My viewpoint is that it is hard to deny an evolutionary process. But clearly Darwin's view of it doesn't work, as you point out. So what should Darwin be credited with? A minimal idea: taking a evolutionary proposal current in his lifetime and turning it into an acceptable theory for that time in human history. Now his proposed mechanisms have been picked apart and his worry that gradualism would fail has failed. He was not mistaken. His theory doesn't work. I don't know why you can't see that, or perhaps you can. I don't think pure naturalism works either as an explanation. Therefore, if evolution occurred as it appears to have occurred, it was guided.