1835: Charles Darwin, falls overboard, drowns

Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Editorial_cartoon_depicting_Charles_Darwin_as_an_ape_%281871%29.jpg

After reading the book by George Basalla "The evolution of technology", yesterday I was reading the article "Cultural Darwinism: Natural selection of the spoked wood wheel" by F.T. Cloak. To his credit Basalla does point out that he uses the word "evolution" as a metaphor, but Cloak sticks to debilitating constraints and ends up with surrealist arguments.

But the rot is so much deeper and "Darwinism" has taken root in the very foundations of our thinking, from economics to sociology. See Universal Darwinism and be amazed at the influence of this mental cancer. http:////en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_darwinism

Benjamin Wiker correctly places Darwin's "The descent of Man" on his list of "10 books that screwed up the world".

Can you imagine the nature and quality of discourse had the world not been screwed up by Darwin?

16 September 1835. After a busy day exploring the Galapagos Islands, Charles Darwin's pockets are stuffed with rock samples. He takes a walk on the top deck of the Beagle when a sudden swell throws him off balance, he lunges at the railing, misses, falls overboard and sinks to the depths.


Edited by shokdee - 17-Aug-2011 at 01:12

[A light-hearted reply to the insightful comment Centrix Vigilis made]

---- Had he drowned in 1835, he wouldn't have had to make any deathbed confessions
" I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them."
http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/did-darwin-become-christian-his-deathbed

---- Had he drowned in 1835, William Erasmus Darwin (27 December 1839) wouldn't be born and be subjected to his father's "psychological studies" ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Erasmus_Darwin

  ...  which would have included dressing him up in girl's clothes !? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Charles_and_William_Darwin.jpg

---- Had he drowned in 1835, he wouldn't have suffered from "mysterious" illnesses, including Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome!   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_health

The Wiki hive mind is besotted with Mr Darwin, the last entry shows that sometimes there's just too much detail. What next Wikipedia, Charles Darwin's shoe collection?

Edited by shokdee - 17-Aug-2011 at 00:59

Thank you for the compliment!

If by "gobbledygook" you are referring to Wikipedia, then I couldn't agree more

Originally posted by Toltec Had Darwin died the Theory of Evolution would have happened. Darwin didn't invent evolution, he just proved it. He proved it in such an overwhealming way it was undeniable. Alfred Russel Wallace almost simultaneously to Darwin was proving the theory too, though not as far developed as Darwin, had he not abandoned it who knows what he would have produced. Unlikely to be as developed as Darwin and maybe minus the Survival of the Fittess machanism. But this would have undoubtably developed later.

Do you have any rational thoughts to offer or only religious fundamentalism?

1835: Charles Darwin, falls overboard, drowns walks on water.


Edited by shokdee - 17-Aug-2011 at 01:25

Tell me how the world 'has been screwed up by Darwin'.

He have compared animal society with human!Animal society had legalized incest mating for advance changes fixing,humans have tried to avoid it!At least official have been spoken it.But Vampires&Werewolves&X-men societies differs this rule!They have invented Darwin for their advantages glorification!Rest of his theory is OK!Even there were lot of copy&paste examples.But as Zukerberg have said we all have right for chair production if it improves the model!




Edited by medenaywe - 30-Oct-2011 at 06:32

I imagine someone else would eventually come up with a similar theory, although the development of modern science would have been set back by some 50 or 100 years

Ah yes. Glad we got that sorted.

 Interesting thread to make my maiden post.

 The thing with science is that it's dealing with a set number of observable facts. Given enough time, the order to these facts will eventually be recognized. Take, for instance, the works of the Greek philosopher Democritus. Democritus made his speculations about the indivisible atom on philosophy; other philosophers of the time argued against the indivisible atom because it was not observable - in this sense, the Greek philosophers opposed to Democritus made the correct observation as their ideas were based on what could be observed and Democritus made his claims on mere opinion.

 But fast forward nearly fifteen hundred years and the advance of science has changed what can be observed. What can be witnessed by the scientists of the nineteenth and twentieth century is different than what was observable to the ancient Greek philosophers. They find that the previous explanation for existence was wrong and that Democritus - despite flawed reasoning - was absolutely correct.

 To establish another example, let's put up Zeno's paradoxes and Diogenes the Cynic. Zeno was of the opinion that distance was not a real thing as one must always arrive at the half-point before reaching the conclusion. Taking from this, he argued that there was an infinite number of half-way points that made it impossible for an individual to reach the end of his journey. In response, Diogenes the Cynic stood up, walked around the room and sat back down in his chair.

 At the time, Diogenes would have had no real knowledge of the ideas of countable infinity and uncountable infinity, yet he displayed a knowledge of the idea that was immediately recognizable.

 The point I'm trying to make is that, had Diogenes never existed, Zeno's paradoxes would have still been incorrect and eventually disproved. Likewise, the facts would have eventually proven that Democritus was correct. The facts were already there, they just needed someone of sufficient intelligence or understanding to put them all together.

 Natural selection - being an observable fact and supported by hard science - would have eventually been deduced.

Except that millions have died cause of "uber human being" idea and implementation of natural selection in
human social condition,will agree with you that they were "ignorant" only and "not guilty about it" except if they are not Germans of course.

As humans it is our assignment to tell the people that is not true!I have his book in my library shelves also.
Till recently "Mein Kampf" was also there.My nephew have borrowed for reading.Best way to talk about good
and bad is to read other opinion and think about it.Most of people allow somebody else to comment those in
news&books.Beagle Diary&Origin of Species are books of my youth anyway.