1

Topic: Errors of Darwin

In the book of Dokinza I read the interesting fact about Darwin. The first issuing of its book was the best, and the subsequent issuings all became worse and worse.  explains it so: in any questions Darwin was initially right, and then under the pressure of the educated opponents changed the position for more erratic. Good acknowledgement of a proverb "never turns out argue with fools - they force you to fall to their level then knock down experience". It is still connected to methodology of Darwin - he specially wrote down the facts which are not inscribed in its theory. I would like examples on what it is is specific to questions and subjects Darwin changed judgement on erratic (it is necessary for me for article "Why people do not change sights").

2

Re: Errors of Darwin

Hello, Khimik, you wrote: K> I would like examples on what it is is specific to questions and subjects Darwin changed judgement on erratic (it is necessary for me for article "Why people do not change sights"). Most likely it is a question of "a nightmare of Dzhenkina" (Jenkin's swamping argument) and other  with . In the first "best" issuing questions "and as all it works under a cowl" the reactor conditionally  "was considered at level" on the schematic diagram: a pier signs somehow change, are somehow fixed (an ambush here) and all. When Dzhekin (and a row of others) started to show that at level of similar representations all it cannot work, Darwin as the fair person (without irony), started to try to explain. All turned out also truth "worse and worse", at level of hypotheses "and let's present that in blood there are magic substances" and already to immortal to idea of Lamarka " a neck three generations -  and children at you almost giraffes" (that generally completely contradicted the initial thesis about randomness of changes, he-he). What exactly the first editions it is better subsequent - .. K> changed the position for more erratic. Good acknowledgement of a proverb "never turns out argue with fools - they force you to fall to their level then knock down experience". It is impossible. Questions were absolutely on business, and that Darwin could not give distinct  does not do it  by fools. As soon as the people adequately perceived Mendel's ideas suddenly (!) all "nightmares" vanished into thin air also to any "fools" of anybody anywhere it was not possible to lower.

3

Re: Errors of Darwin

One change which criticizes Dokinz, this adding of a mention of the Creator under religious pressure in a known fragment "There is grandeur in this view of life...". Diff: http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/18 … -1860.html

4

Re: Errors of Darwin

Hello, Khimik, you wrote: K> In the book of Dokinza I read the interesting fact about Darwin. The first issuing of its book was the best, and the subsequent issuings all became worse and worse.  explains it so: in any questions Darwin was initially right, and then under the pressure of the educated opponents changed the position for more erratic. Strange that you did not name the book in which you it read. Strange that Dokinz herself did not result specific examples. Very strange. I here in any way will not read up one issuing of Darwin. And Dokinz quits all re-read. Too it is strange.

5

Re: Errors of Darwin

Hello, Fagin, you wrote: F> Hello, Khimik, you wrote: K>> In the book of Dokinza I read the interesting fact about Darwin. The first issuing of its book was the best, and the subsequent issuings all became worse and worse.  explains it so: in any questions Darwin was initially right, and then under the pressure of the educated opponents changed the position for more erratic. F> it is strange that you did not name the book in which you it read. F> it is strange that Dokinz herself did not result specific examples. F> it is very strange. F> I here in any way will not read up one issuing of Darwin. And Dokinz quits all re-read. Too it is strange. Me generally many I consider as strange, I try to be corrected as I can." The most grandiose  on the Earth.  evolutions ". I lost count of the angered letters received by me from readers of the previous book, calling me to account for deliberate as their authors consider, lowering of the vital word" the Creator "after" are inhaled ". Whether I distort deliberately intentions of Darwin? These zealous correspondents forget that the great book of Darwin transited through six issuings. In the first issuing the expression is that, what I resulted it here. Apparently, under the pressure of a religious lobby, Darwin interposed"Creator"into the second and all subsequent issuings. If there are no very serious bases for reverse, quoting"Origin of species", I always address to the first issuing. The reason partly consists that my own copy of this historical issuing in circulation in 1 250 copies is a part of my most expensive property, presented to me my philanthropist and friend Charles Simoni. But also because the first issuing is most historically important. This issuing struck shock in the Victorian solar plexus and knocked out spirit of centuries. Besides, later issuings, especially the sixth, indulged not simply to public opinion. In attempt to answer various educated, but to the misled critics of the first issuing, Darwin receded and even reversed the positions on a row of important points in which it was initially right. Therefore also have been initially inhaled"without a mention of any Creator.

6

Re: Errors of Darwin

Hello, Khimik, you wrote: K> Besides, later issuings, especially the sixth, indulged not simply to public opinion. In attempt to answer various educated, but to the misled critics of the first issuing, Darwin receded and even reversed the positions on a row of important points in which it was initially right. Therefore also have been initially inhaled"without a mention of any Creator. Well precisely speak - the militant atheism it spoils own books. I had a thought to esteem its one more book - most likely will refuse and if I will begin to read that precisely not this. This last sentence in the book of Darwin. And who else could breathe those powers into that one form? Obviously that Darwin meant the Creator and the explicit instructions on it in the second issuing only are refined by the text. At me just the first issuing and a word the Creator is used in it not once. Here an example: Let this process go on for millions on millions of years; and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to those of man? So Dokinz here explicitly talks nonsense.