Learn more Download now Shop now Browse your favorite restaurants Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Amazon Music Unlimited for Family Shop now Shop now Learn more

on 18 March 2013
I have just finished reading Darwin's famous book, The Origin of Species. Consequently, I have some questions and wondered whether anyone might shed some light on the following?

1. Darwin does not mention dinosaurs so when was the first dinosaur fossil discovered?

2. Darwin writes about natural selection always being advantageous to a species so in what respect is it advantageous for a person to be born blind or handicapped in some way?

3. In what way is it advantageous for Man to have different blood groups? Why does Man have different blood groups and is he the only animal to do so?

4. Sea Horses appear to be aesthetically pleasing but to what natural advantage was it that they evolved into such vulnerable yet pleasing forms rather than, say, fish?

5. Darwin writes many long turgid sentences especially with regards to species and variety. Indeed, he does not appear to be able to successfully define the difference. Have I overlooked something?

6. In what way has the complexity of the eye - from Ape to Man - changed and evolved?

7. Popularly known as the "missing link"; is there any evidence of a transitional or intermediate fossil form or has there ever been a fossil found in the past few hundred years anywhere on earth which has convinced most people of the evolution of Mankind through Darwin's argument and theory of Natural Selection? If so, what is it and why is it convincing?

8. Moreover, Darwin wrote of the difficulty of such evidence because, amongst other reasons, of the extermination of transitional forms and the the very slow process involved. However, he maintained that under the ocean floor would be the best place to look for transitional forms. Since Mankind has had the benefit of using new technology to search for, say, Oil or Gas deposits under the sea or ocean floor surely some scientists have had the opportunity to explore these regions and conclude on their findings?
Have any intermediate or transitional forms been found?

9. According to Darwin the evolution of the eye began with basic life forms existing in the dark depths of the sea and uses nerves sensitive to light to illustrate his point but why was/is there a nerve sensitive to light?

10. Darwin writes in the chapter on the Difficulties of Theory in The Origin of Species:

"Hence the inhabitants of one country, generally the smaller one, will often yield, as we shall see they do yield, to the inhabitants of another generally larger country. For in the larger country there will have existed more individuals, and more diversified forms, and the competition will have been severer, and the standard of perfection will have been rendered higher... ."

Darwin was an Englishman who, after travelling round the world for five years was fully aware of the strength of the British and their ever growing Empire. Indeed, he was proud of this fact as anyone who has read The Voyage of the Beagle must admit. So why did Darwin draw a conclusion almost opposite to his direct experience?

11. Darwin concludes:

"And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection."

Can anyone shed any light on what is, "perfection"?

12. Did Darwin really believe in Theistic evolution? In other words, did Darwin think that God was involved or behind the work of Natural Selection as expounded in his book, The Origin of Species? He writes:

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled."

There are many other points made by Darwin and many times I have asked, is this true? In some instances, I am almost certain that what is being posited, is not true. However, this is enough for now. If anyone can answer any of these questions it would be most enlightening.
1818 Comments| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 20 December 2009
Bought the book and read it. It's great.

The first 50 pages of this book explains the background of Charles Darwin, explains the DNA code (my personal favourite subject) and how it conflicts with Darwin's understanding, the facts about transitional forms, briefly explains the missing link, Cambrian Explosion (another personal favourite subject), the evolution process, mutation (the driving "force" behind evolution) and questions that the evolution theory raises etc. It's full of references and cross references to websites and books to support its comments.

The rest of the book is the original Charles Darwin's famous writing about "On The Origin of Species"

People who find this book offensive because it contains an introduction by Ray Comfort who is a creationist, must get over it! Please note that there is such a thing as a "Religious Evolutionist" who gets offended by anyone who opposes this worldview!

Selling Charles Darwin's book without any sort of scientific introduction should be illegal these days (similar to selling cigarette packets without the health warning in the front). Sadly the majority of the public don't even understand the hypothesis that Charlie was promoting let alone argue its validity. Worse still most people with limited education refer to the hypothesis as a fact!

I recommend you buy this book and get educated by viewing the facts and compare it to the hypothesis.
2020 Comments| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 24 October 2010
I know most people think this is just "so amazing" yet reading it I find it irritating to say the very least. The approach by Charles Darwin is childish and condescending to say the least. Yet just imagine, in this world where free speech and thought is hated, the reaction that I will probably get to these few words.....
3333 Comments| 11 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 25 November 2011
How many people understand that evolution is theory and not fact; and also that even Darwin did not believe in his theory and regretted writing it.
1010 Comments| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 7 October 2010
If you are part of the American educational system or even if just you think "Creationism" is in any way credible, please read this book: if you still think "Creationism" has any clams to be in any way scientific, read it again, or ask some one to explain it to you. Nothing more to say really.
99 Comments| 39 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 29 August 2014
Darwins ideas are not new at all
77 Comments| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
VINE VOICEon 17 January 2003
A well-written, well-argued treatise on the volatile subject of the evolution of new species by natural selection. At the time, this flew in the face of accepted theories, and especially upset current theological doctrine, Archbishop Ussher would be particularly upset!.
Darwin agonised for years over the publication of his book, and it was only at the urging of his friends (that he was about to be upstaged by Wallace) that he finally published. The delay was of his own making - torn between the evidence of his notes and correspondence with Wallace, and the furore that would inevitably result. The furore was bound to happen anyway, surrounded as he was by small-minded bigots, so he should have published earlier. But ... this might have deprived us of the brilliant arguments he puts forth in support of each section in the book.
He obviously knew what he was up against, so he tried to present his case as lucidly as possible - and here's the unusual aspect of the work - in layman's language! This was almost unheard of in a Victorian Scientific treatise - they were meant to be read by Scientists, not the hoy-poloy! He tries to counter every conceivable objection to each statement, as nicely (in both senses of the word) as possible, without any of the fervour and tunnel vision that one expects from a convert to a new ideal. He takes us by the hand and gently walks us through the evidence in support of his theory, helping us to realise that, yes, he is talking sense, no matter what our pre-conceptions of life might be.
Discover for yourself that evolution is not 'survival of the fittest', but 'survival of the most fit' - that is, fitted for that particular ecological niche - fittest being a Victorian word that has taken a different modern meaning.
An amazingly good read, even for our enlightened times, but recommended reading - I'll bet there are hundereds of copies on dusty bookshelves that have never been read - time to dust it off and find out for yourself the genius of the man.*****
88 Comments| 57 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 15 March 2015
Charles Darwin was a highly aberrant ape, a product of a blind process which didn't have him in mind. All of his “moral” pronouncements were simply aberrantly selected examples of selfish gene promotion. Some (such as his abolitionism) may have been maladaptive, and would eventually have been selected against. Others (such as his statement that the “lower races” were destined to destruction) sound more in keeping with the needs of biological fitness. As a product of a blind and utterly indifferent cosmos, Charles Roger was nevertheless something of a pattern-seeker, and hence “discovered” a pattern he called “evolution”, which he counterpoised to another pattern, called “Christianity”. The corrosive effects on group selection of the former (and its attendant patterns “atheism” and “agnosticism”), suggest that the aberrant apes ironically known as “Homo sapiens sapiens” may be at a genetic dead-end, and that cockroaches (Blattella germanica) or lice (Phthirapthera) may once again rule the land, if they can ween themselves from their dependency on this particular creature and its “cultural” artifacts (many of whom are peculiar, to say the least, from the viewpoint of selection- and mutation-driven change, such as “Big Brother”, “Mozart”, “Eurovision Song Contest” and “Mona Lisa”). Of course, certain isolated sub-populations of “Man” might still have enough survival skills to be selected for survival by the blind watchmaker, including the flock known as “ISIS” and the alpha male known as “Vladimir Putin”. As for the strange artifacts mentioned above, the blind mechanism behind them might be an aberrant variety of sexual selection. Like the male peacock, who spouts a huge tail for the lady birds only to be ultimately eaten by leopards, “art”, “music” and “Youtube” probably plays this function among statistically-cladistically relevant subsections of the Homo pseudo-ape. The exact biological functions of “the theory of evolution” itself remains less clear (not to mention “the Big Bang” or “quantitative easing”), but some kind of purely chemical explanation cannot be ruled out, perhaps an aberrant behavior when eating certain kinds of fruit, Homo having “invented” something known as “agriculture” (another version among ants work just fine). Yours truly, Robot Abrasax, Roswell UFO station 51, on his way back to Havona and the Chief Controller. Over and out. CLASSIFIED ADDENDUM: Whoever built us and our robotic race, “Homo sapiens sapiens” were clearly not involved. Or evolved.
44 Comments| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 27 May 2013
2 stars as there is some good science in here, but sadly none of it supports the author's faith based conclusion that all life forms including man descended by modification from a common ancestor (on whose origins he pointedly refused to comment). Among Darwin's good science is the observation about seeds in a dead pigeon germinating after floating 3 weeks on a pond, proving that plants could spread across seas in this way. He also designed an excellent grass square experiment which proved that plants which don't like being mown short, don't like being mown short. He makes an excellent case that less fit animals tend to be less fit, and expounds the other already well established fact that intelligent human breeders are able to push the form of their subject (whether flowers, dogs , pigeons etc) towards the edge of what we might now call the genomic envelope.

None of his sound but ultimately banal science justified his conclusions about common descent with modification.

Darwin admits, for example, that a plant or animal breeder needs to 'rogue' his stock (i.e. remove and kill or not breed from individuals with unwanted characteristics) or else the work of selection would be undone in a generation or two. Agreed. However, this observation failed to deter him from making his central assumption that natural selection would do 'immeasurably more' than human selection. In fact it does measurably less, since human directed breeding goes farther and faster than natural selection is observed to go-and then hits the edge of the genomic envelope and can progress no further. Left to themselves, the variant forms achieved by selective breeding revert to the mean very quickly. Darwin failed to explain why more time, even lots of it, would undo this observable tendency to quickly revert to the mean.

Darwin was well aware of the everyday and historical observation that species appear fixed within relatively narrow limits, and that this observation is radically opposed to his theory. He evades the difficulty by appealing to deep time, thereby making his theory untestable and unfalsifiable with many an 'I have no difficulty in imagining...I can hardly doubt...make we not believe?' However, he is forced to acknowledge in a chapter of excuses that the vast numbers of intermediate fossil forms that would be the only direct support for his hypothesis are lacking and that this is a strong argument against his hypothesis. He assumed the intermediate forms would turn up, but apart from a tiny number of questionable candidates, the fossil record stubbornly yields examples which ARE either one thing or another, not intermediates.

Darwin fails to address the issue of the non functioning intermediate organ or creature. While vigorously asserting that natural selection would 'ruthlessly eliminate' (a lot of that sort of language occurs in Origin) any variation which did not confer an advantage, he fails to supply even one example of an intermediate form which would give selective advantage. He simply imagines the problem away. In my favourite quote he asserts 'I can hardly doubt that the vertebrate lung is descended with modification from the swim bladder of an extinct form of which we know nothing.' He knows nothing but can hardly doubt. How is this not the language of faith in things unseen?

Malcolm Bowden in his book 'Rise of the Evolution Fraud' explains that Darwin's threadbare 'theory' was foisted on the world by a well organised, well connected and highly motivated coalition of revolutionaries, deists, atheists and Christian heretics who wanted to get rid of the creation account. For with no Creator, you have no Lawgiver of Judge, so needn't bother with a Saviour.

'Origin of Species', like D H Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's lover, is a rotten book but was lionised and promoted by those who wanted to believe in its message. It was the right book at the right time to be used as a battering ram by a revolutionary elite who wanted to de-Christianise society.They have been very successful, not because they had a good case but because it was a message that many wanted to hear.

PS I really appreciate having this book on Kindle as it is easier to search on terms like 'imagine...suppose...believe' and other such terms which Darwin used so often in his persuasive but ultimately hollow sophistry.
33 Comments| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 20 June 2013
Excellent edition of Charles Darwin's epoch changing book, now regarded as a surrogate Bible by millions around the world; who insist that his theory be taught as 'fact' in modern schools, despite the many deliberate lies/falsifications devout Neo-Darwinian believers have attempted to establish as 'scientific truth'.

From Piltdown Man through Haeckel's drawings and Lysenko's Doctrine to the recent 'Global Warming' scam, recent historical record is FULL of these 'scientific' frauds being foisted on the public. But why should so many intelligent individuals be prepared to conceal/destroy knowledge they know to be true, while promoting doctrinaire nonesense they know to be lies?

The publication by Charles Darwin in 1859 of his excellent book:- The Origin of Species (Collins Classics)threw the Western World into a spiritual/psychological crisis, from which it has never really recovered. Darwin accurately observed that all living things can adapt to the effect of external pressures IE: changes in the habitat, food supply, prevailing weather conditions etc... From these observations he reasoned that all the varieties of life on this planet might originally have been descended from only one original source, existing in the distant past. He clearly understood the potentially damaging social effects this idea might have; and also the possibility that he may have been innaccurate, as can be seen from the quotes shown below:-

"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." - Charles Darwin"

"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic." - Charles Darwin

"...I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.- Let each man hope & believe what he can." - Charles Darwin

Unfortunately, Darwin's 'Survival of the Fittest' Theory, with it's racist/white supremist attitudes, was exactly what the Victorian Era political Establishment needed; a 'scientific' ideology that underpinned their Imperialist conquest/colonisations around the world. Darwinism was thus seized upon, accepted as 'unarguable truth' and rapidly elavated to the status of a new 'scientific religion', intended by it's Victorian believers to replace Christianity. Quote:-

"I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." - Charles Darwin

Without meaningfull knowledge of the 'simple' cell, let alone of DNA, chromosomes and/or Genetic Science, but with evidence of European civilisation's supremacy apparent from a glance at the newspapers; the later Victorian Era was Darwinism's hey-day. Millions of the most well-educated accepted the new 'scientific' Darwinism, exactly as Protestantism had been accepted following Martin Luther's 95 Theses being made public knowledge in 1522. And for the same reasons; Darwinism seemed to answer the questions of the day far better than the backward looking Victorian Christianity it challenged.

Unfortunately, the grimmer reality of Darwinian 'selection' became clear to all following the defeat of Nazi Germany (the first truly Darwinian Govt. of the 20th Century) in 1945. With the victorious Allied Media exulting in the horrors of Auschwitz, Belsen and the rest, tens of millions of believing Darwinists faced an unwelcome choice that Luther's devotees were spared. Re-edit whole sections of the original doctrine OR accept evil as the natural condition of man.

Since then we've seen this editing process within the Neo-Darwinian Scientific establishment occuring on an ever greater scale, even as the advance of molecular/genetic science casts increasing doubt on the entire philosophy. That's why today's devout Neo-Darwinists trumpet:- "It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change." BUT at the same time attempt to conceal/discredit and even destroy irreplacable scientific evidence that exposes flaws in the central Darwinist doctrine itself (See:- Rebuttal to the Rumor that I Destroyed a Paluxy Track - Copyright © 1998 by Glen J. Kuban)

This situation is a modernday re-run of that facing devout Catholics after the Protestant Reformation. Millions of devout Catholics did not wish to abandon the 'faith of their father's', but ultimately found themselves forced to suppress ever more obviously beneficial human intellectual development, in order to 'conceal' the increasingly obvious flaws in Medieval Catholic doctrine.

As Darwin explained however:- "it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

The publications listed below are just a few of the many scientific exposes of today's failing Neo-Darwinian faith/doctrine, just as Luther and Darwin's works exposed the failed doctrine/dogmas of their ages:-

The Science Delusion - Rupert Sheldrake.
Why Us?: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves - James Le Fanu.
Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target: A Critique of the New Atheism - C Lennox.
Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism - Alvin Plantinga
Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False - Thomas Nagel
The Myth of Junk DNA - Jonathan Wells
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design - Stephen Meyer
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwin and Intelligent Design (Politically Incorrect Guides) - Jonathan Wells
The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions - David Berlinski
22 Comments| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse