|
NEWS 176 - 60 Comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I couldn't agree more, Bert. Bush seems to busy worrying about gay marriage and boobies on TV than any real issues. Social security, the deficit and our economy seem of little concern for Bush. I can't stand him either. It seems Howard Stern can't stand Bush too.
Bert, have you been listening to Howard lately? He's worried that the FCC is going to get him kicked off the air. He also thinks Bush had a hand in it. Anyway, it's some crazy shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not one to buy into conspiracy theories, but I think it's definitely possible that Howard is right. As this article illustrates, Bush is clearly not above removing dissenting voices wherever he can. I think Howard Stern overemphasizes his own importance, but I wouldn't put it past Bush to try to shut him down if he could easily get away with it.
Bush is a highly frightening zealot who must be stopped at all costs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read about this several days ago and meant to post it but I forgot. If Bush get's re-elected I'm going to move to Sweden - even if it means working at Mc Donalds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've read some interesting articles about Bush's subtle anti-science, pro-religion horseshit, and it's something Henry Rollins talked about when I saw him a couple weeks ago. I also can't stand how goddamn stupid he is: First of all, he wants to add a Constitutional amendment barring gay marriage... which is the most openly bigoted thing I've ever heard a U.S. president say in my lifetime. (I don't care what anybody says about the issue, about how Bush and other conservatives don't want to "redefine marriage"... it's an argument of semantics that's used to distract people from realizing it's about intolerance and prejudice.) Then, recently, he goes on about how he wants to spend all this money putting men on Mars, during one of the worst economic periods of the last quarter-century. What if a parent decided to go buy a Mercedes instead of buying food for their kids? It wouldn't make any practical sense; it's the same situation. Look outside of his questionable reasons for going to war, and there are so many more reasons to hate the guy.
I'm not convinced John Kerry is the perfect candidate, but it'll be a steaming hot day in Siberia before I vote for Bush.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amen, bro. I agree completely. As the Economist put it, usually the very few times we've passed amendments to the Constitution, it was to ENSURE freedoms, not LIMIT them. Bush is a fucking militant nut. I take back anything bad I ever said about Clinton. By comparison, he's fucking King Solomon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's intersting you say that. I was just thinking, man everybody was down on Clinton and didn't have much good to say about him. However, he was far, far more astute on foreign policy, domestic social issues, and the economy than Bush. In fact, I would re-elect him right now if I could. Who am I kidding, I'd elect Al Sharpton over Bush out of sheer priniciple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You go Swerb! I couldn't agree more. Bush needs to have his ass kicked out of office this up coming election. I admit I don't know a whole lot about John Kerry but he has to be better than Bush. Bush is dangerous to civil rights, science and our economy. I say get that war monger out of office.
I know war mongering isn't the only fucked up thing about Bush. I do however believe Bush went into office with a vendetta against Saddam. I know Saddam is a piece of shit but Bush manipulated information to make him look like a direct threat so we would go to war with Iraq. Clinton was dishonest about a blowjob. Bush was dishonest with information that inevitably lead us to war. Who knows how long our troops will be stuck in Iraq. It's all a bunch bullshit if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another problem is that people don't really even want a particularly secular president. This article talks about it:
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/069997.htm
This quote particularly distrubs me, even though it was from George Sr.:
"America as a whole seems to reflect what George H. W. Bush said in 1987: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.""
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's great. I can't believe she didn't get run out of town, but that's exactly the kind of thing GR (especially) needs. She makes a very valid point, though: atheists don't like to join clubs for fear of getting religious about atheism, so they're hard to organize. This is essentially what I said when ABC News interviewed me for one of their stories about atheism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anybody else notice that radical Christians tend to overuse their caps lock key? And that quote from Bush Sr. - arrggghhhhh!
That woman's columns are quite insightful. Actually, the end of the second one reminds me of a David Cross bit, where people say they'll pray for him, so he says, "Great! You've got me covered, so I'm going to go do some blow and fuck some hookers."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I came across this quote on a blog dedicated to evolution and I just thought it was so well stated that I had to share. It is in rebuttal to someone claiming that people in this country are somehow against The Passion because people are increasingly anti-christian.
"There is no serious, credible anti-Christian sentiment in this country. The majority of the population, including the people who make movies as well as those who watch them, are Christian. I am an atheist, and I guarantee you, we are a tiny minority; even at a university, where the culture warriors of the right try to claim god-hating secularists run rampant, we aren't particularly numerous. The government and the media do not pander to atheists and other non-Christians. We are not regarded as cool, no one points to us and praises us for our secular values, and if we endorse a particular position, our politicians rush to adopt the opposite, lest association with us should contaminate them. We don't even get the patronizing indulgence of stereotyping us as all possessing some endearing trait; there is no "Secular Eye for the Godly Guy", we aren't condescendingly portrayed in religious minstrel shows. There is no atheist demographic. We aren't a hot market. "
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What a great article. The first line is the exact reason why I'm voting for Kerry:
"If John Kerry has anything going for him that separates him from George W. Bush, it is the fact that he is not involved in the so-called "religious right" of America."
I think that might be the fundamental issue behind Bush's actions and policies - gay marriage, the environment, obviously his "faith-based" initiatives and abstinence-only sex ed thing, and, at the risk of sounding like a nutty conspiracy theorist, the war in Iraq. He may never admit it, but I'm willing to bet he has a prejudice against the Islamic world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The last issue of National Geographic discussed the same thing in the article 'Was Darwin Wrong?' Most people use the wrong meaning of theory in the scientific context. The article states that Evolution Theory is on the same level as Atomic Theory and Electrical Theory. What, you don't believe in electricity? It must be God in that there TV! It was an interesting article - one of my rare US magizine reads. Thanks Senor!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have the article, you're right, it was a good explanation. I will post some others later today as I have a few links to my favorites. :)
That reminds, me though of one of Richard Dawkins' books where he a friend of his was giving a talk to some radical feminists. They were basically anti-science since the scientific method was created by "victorian white males" so therefore it must be bad. The speaker, also a woman, said yes it was created by them but it also led to great discoveries such as DNA. And then the questioner said the single craziest thing I've ever heard: "You believe in DNA?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I got the National Geographic. I love how they did it. Was Darwin Wrong? Next page in big ass letters, "NO".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I love the ACLU. Instead of complaining about shit, they get some hard pipe hittin lawyers to take care of business. They are pretty effective in the courts. A lot of people hate them. Why? All they want is to protect Constitutional freedoms.
On religious bastards: you can believe in any imaginary diety you want just keep your crazy ideas to yourself. If you go public with these notions of an omnipotent being, you are fair game to having your shit debunked. It is not in mankinds best interest to tolerate ideas based on superstition created out of fear and cornfusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I guess it's time to add me to the enemies list. I support the Boy Scouts ? unequivocally, unabashedly, unashamedly. The Boy Scouts personify the kind of world in which I would like to live and raise my family.
Who's with me?"
Ummmm.... not me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What a fucking joke. And that senator Brownback is one of those really kooky religious right nutjobs who's after Howard Stern like crazy.
Although after hearing a story from a coworker of mine about a guy stashing porn in the company bathroom, and continuing to do so even after being discovered, leaves me wondering if there isn't something to this "porn addiction" hypothesis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think any assault on the porn industry is likely to conflict with a lot of politicians' personal interests.
And that ACLU column is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. I can't believe anyone would take it seriously. He makes all these claims about the organization, and doesn't back them up. Not only is he uninformed, he's a shitty writer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah it's not really fair to post articles from WingNutDaily, really, as they're out-and-out crazy. But sometimes they say shit that just begs a smackdown. Actually my mom was emailing me some articles from their site, encourage me to write my congressman to vote against something-or-other, but knowing that it was from their site, I just refused to read it. Send me something from a credible source, and then we'll talk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, Bert, there's something to the "porn addiction" hypothesis. But on the other hand, I think ANYTHING can be addictive, regardless of its chemical effects on the human body. TV, porn, smoking pot, CD collecting, cool ranch Doritos... I think it's a psychological trait that humans possess, and it can be exploited by our society, which tends to offer anything and everything a person wants, and makes it quick and easy to attain. Porn is a great example, because all it takes is an internet connection and wham! all the naked hooters you want.
My point being, any reasonable discussion about "porn addiction" only scratches the surface, because it's not the porn that's the problem, it's the addiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure glad I don't have any addictions.
By the way, I now have 420 xbox games! SWEET!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is, Swerb, that you're using the word "addiction" in a very equivocal sense. You even mentioned the key differentiator: the chemcial effects on the body. Sure, you can be addicted to video games, but is that same as being addicted to heroin? My guess is that the word "addiction" is not denoting nearly the same thing in those cases. The main difference between them (I'm guessing) is how hard they are to break, and the effect it has on you when you try to break the addiction.
The crazies on the religious right, however, claim that those chemcial effects ARE taking place in the case of porn "addiction." There's where I think the evidence is a little slim, and what I kind of scoff at.
But can a person get "really into" pretty much anything, to his own detriment? Sure.... but I don't know that I want to use the word "addict" in all of those cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dude, I was listening to the Micheal Medved show. He's a conservative asshole pushing for morality at every corner. He had a discussion with a caller on porn addiction. There was too much bullshittery to mention but I was listening to a lot of claaer and I have deduced the following.
Southern Christian Evangelical = uninformed close minded bigot
One caller perfectly exemplified this. With a twangly southern drawl he proceded to tell Medved that all the Amercians who call in to voice their protest to the war in Iraq are actually muslims. I'm certain that if you walk into a Baptist church in Beaufort, South Carolina and ask the congregation what they think a muslim is, they will equate it to being a terrorist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most people, myself included, don't know shit about shit. Problems start when we fucktards listen to some 'knowledgable authority' and that first opinion is what most people base as truth. Any opposing knowledge is first viewed as suspect, and is very difficult to unseat the first ideas.
Very few people go out and find answers for themselves. Normally we hang out in groups with people with the same attitudes, ideas, etc. Our thoughts are shaped within these groups. JA is very similar to this, but at least our members tend to seek out information. Other groups perpetuate old ideas, refusing to look at new information. People listen to their opinion leader, who very well is just as uninformed as anyone else, and regurgitate his ignorance. The look at Evolution Theroy is a great example. I can't believe how much I still hear the statement 'You believe we come from apes or monkeys?' Come on, that bullshit is so old, but it shows me that people are not seeking new information, just listening to the same old tired explainations. Most people don't research contrary arguements. They take their knowledge, file it in their 'this is the truth and what I think' folder, and go around spouting their ideas.
It comes down to ignorance. People just don't know. But, this is their own doing. They don't seek out new information, and if they do, they may not view it with an open mind. And why should they look for new info? Any knowledge you have seems to suffice. You only search for new info when the information you have is lacking, or you face contracdictory material.
My information on the US Constitution sufficed me for a while. Shit I know my constitutional rights, I am a American! I've been to college, I've taken classes! With all this BS in the news about peoples rights and what the founding fathers wrote, I got sick of hearing 'Its my constitutional right!'. I wondered if people really knew what the Fuck they were talking about. What did I do? I read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independance. I found out that I only thought I knew about these articles. All I really had a was vague sense of what they represented. I will venture that 90% of Americans do not understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They really don't understand what the Constitution does. I wanted to say that 90% have not read it, but I think we all covered it in elementary school.
I think I will start calling people out on their statements. Do you even know what the Constitution does? Yes? What? Or, Do you even know what the Theroy of Evolution is? No, that is not even close. Maybe you should read up on it and we can have an intelligent conversation later.
Wow, I must have a paper due Monday, cuz I sure have a lot of verbal diarreha to share.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another topic I wanted to talk about is the Media's and Kerry's failure to confront Bush's election tactics. Why didn't the media force them to address more pressing issues. One of Bush's responses to his economic plan (and I mentioned this before) is I am a compassionate conservative, he is a tax and spend liberal. Bush dumbed down alot of the issues and failed to address others. Granted, most of America likes the simple way of thinking, but I think America needs to see the full issue. When Bush asserted that Kerry will just raise your taxes, someone needed to say, Yes Goddamn it, we have to pay for your fiscal irresponsibility somehow. You can't run up a bill and not pay it.
The media let Bush tap-dance around as a cute little monkey in a pink suit. He distracted Americans with cute phrases like, Kerry will raise your taxes, Terrorists will attack America if Kerry is elected. As Americans watched his cute little monkey dance, he picked our pockets and took our votes. The media broadcasted this show night after night and never brought him to task.
Now I will work on my paper ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just wanted to be the first to welcome you all to the second coming of the Dark Ages.
The following Time article is about creationist theme parks which put out man and dinosaurs lived together. Who cares about that there have always been these crazy fools putting out that type of nonsense in churches all over America. What kills me though is a book that is being sold in National Park Services stations which says the Grand Canyon is about 4,500 years old. The whole article is disgusting and I can't bear to write an more so here it is.
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0
,9565,783829,00.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The NCSE has been following the Grand Canyon book thing for a while - it's highly disgusting. I forgot to look for it when I was there last summer. It's the definition of "fucked up repugnant shit".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just heard about the NCSE and was checking out their website (http://www.ncseweb.org). I would like to support them, but am hesitant to join an organization I know so little about.
So I guess the real question is, does the NCSE they have a Jackassery seal of approval?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without a doubt! I am a member and I consider it more imporant than the ACLU. Their primary responsibilty is combating creationists when they put school districts or boards of education under seige. They have some great speakers who are really good at getting the point across.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But do they employ lawyers who'll fuck some shit up? Otherwise it's all talk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well Bone, what lawyers do is "all talk" as well. And lawyers are rarely experts in the subject at hand, and so they employ experts like those at the NCSE. So the two work hand in hand fucking shit up together. Also the NCSE is good for meetings that take place before the rules get set, when debate is open to the public - places where lawyers are not welcome. They often nip things in the bud and ensure that no lawsuits need to be filed.
Perhaps I was overstating the case a bit to say they're more important than the ACLU since the the ACLU works against so many forms of attacks. But I like the NCSE because they're like science superheroes. They have a map of the US in their offices with colored pins representing flareups, and fly out to fight injustice being done at the hands of creationist evildoers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, these numbers are unchanged from previous years - Gallup does them every year or so, I believe. What really sucks is that in western european countries, there is no such stupidity.
It is funny though, that they broke it down by who you voted for. Sure does go a long way to giving credibility to the idea that Bush voters are stupid, doesn't it? Only problem is that nearly half of Kerry voters are retards as well.
It just bothers the shit out of me that in a country that has done more to advance science than any other in history, our citizens have such a profound lack of respect for it. On the other hand, from what I've read, science education alone is not enough to get people to stop believing in magical thinking. I believe the answer lies in teaching "critical thinking" from the elementary level on up, either as a separate class or as part of science units. The idea that children are never systematically trained to separate good ideas from bad ones is really quite tragic in my opinion. Of course, that shit would never fly in the south, as it would be viewed as an attack on religion (since by any reasonable standard, religion is chock-full of bad ideas).
So it's a vicious circle: religion prevents you from properly educating people, and the only way to keep people from believing crazy shit is proper education. What's the answer, people? I have no idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just read the article at FindLaw. He made on excellent point regarding this whole issue of teaching Intelligent Design. A different way of explaining that ID is not science (at least different than I had seen before).
To a substantial extent, Einstein's theory of
general relativity solved the action-at-a-distance
puzzle, but suppose that prior to Einstein someone
had proposed that gravity worked through the
operation of an "intelligent agent." It would have
been a perfectly valid objection to this proposal
that it isn't an explanation at all, but merely a
restatement of the problem. For now, we must ask
how the intelligent agent accomplishes action at a
distance.
In both biology and physics, in other words,
supernatural phenomena may be conceivable. But
for an account of such phenomena to qualify as
science, it must do more than simply posit an
intervention from outside the ordinary natural order.
It must also explain how the intervening agent
interacts with the natural world. Otherwise, it is
simply an article offaith rather than a scientific
explanation.
I had not thought about it in this way before. The "science" of Intelligent Design would be how the intelligent agent designed and interacted with the natural world. Without that, there is no science at all... just restating the problem - how did life originate, where do new species come from, etc.
For some reason this really clicks with me. The Theory of Evolution provides explanations for pretty much everything we see in biology, with volumes of evidence to back it up. If someone comes up with an explanation of how an intelligent agent interacted (and still does interact I suppose) with the natural world to "create" what we see around us, and explains the changes over time, and can back it up with real evidence.... then hell yes, teach that shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's about most Americans' level of understanding of evolution, all right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't remember where it was, National Geographic??? But it talked about the holes in Darwin's theory. While it did show that Darwin didn't have it completely right, it never came close to saying anything that Evolution itself was false.
One of things it mentioned, I believe, is that evolution can happen much quicker than previously theorized. Kind of like the white moths in England that turned into black moths during the industrial revolution and all the coal pollution in the air and then, after they cleaned up the pollution, turned into white moths again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, in fact National Geographic was very much on the side of science.
First off, "Darwin's theory" isn't what we teach anymore, since he didn't have any concept of genetics. A key tip is that if you hear people talking about "Darwin's theory" or "Darwinism", they're probably creationists. Darwin lived 150+ years ago and we know a lot more now about the history and progression of life on earth than when he was alive. Using that kind of term makes it sound like we cling to whatever Darwin said like gospel and haven't moved on since. While it's true that Darwin didn't understand evolution nearly as well as we do today, he still gets immense credit for how well his theory holds up, and how completely he supported the theory by way of documentation.
But if you're going to talk about holes in evolutionary theory (aka the Modern Synthesis), there are none. Not a single one. If there was, the theory would be rendered obsolete and useless. There are gaps in our understanding - we don't know every intermediate species that ever lived, a fact that delights creationists, for example. And it's true that there are aspects that we don't understand yet, but nothing to remotely indicate the theory doesn't hold up, even in the slightest way.
So those are not holes! If there weren't things we didn't understand, we wouldn't study them. That's what drives me absolutely nuts about anti-science kooks - they act like since we don't know the answer to everything, we must not know the answer to anything. Scientists, on the other hand, aren't upset by our lack of understanding - they're excited by it - the mystery is what drives them to discover how nature works, and more practically, it keeps them employed.
It's also funny that no one ever talks about "holes" or "gaps" in other scientific theories - gravitation, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, atomic theory - all of these are more or less accepted by most Americans yet are no better supported than evolutionary theory (in many cases, they aren't as well supported).
So Nick, time to go back to school and learn what we really do know. And also to realize that National Geographic is simply playing off the socially charged issue of "Darwin" in America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also like to point out that it is more intellectually irresponsible to deny evolution than to deny the Holocaust. While it is true that there are people alive today who witnessed the Holocaust, and it most certainly happened, it is no exaggeration to say that evolution is much, much more completely documented than the Holocaust could ever be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good article by Ebert:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In a way, Darwin's theory isn't really Darwin's theory. We attribute the discovery of evolution to him because he was the first person to document it extensively. Since, as Ross mentioned, he had no knowledge of genetics, really all he could document was the result, or outcome, of evolution. Like a person recording a randomly blinking light on the horizon. One day they show it to someone who knows Morse Code and they are able to decode it.
Darwin made some predictions and observations (hey, that short-long-short-short pattern seems to be recurring), but by its nature, it takes many generations to observe the effects of evolution which is not a 'hard' science anyway. Randomly-occurring variables (mutations) result in non-linear progression. People who want to dismiss evolution (let's call them "retards" for lack of a better term) call it "holes".
I love it that they have to learn about evolution in order to poke holes in it. All you have to know about religion to poke holes in it is that its core-belief is based on faith.
And there isn't even enough to create a Theory of Christianity (for example). It's based on a book, which is based on a modern translation of ancient text. If I were going to build a religion based on that alone, I would pick The Art of War. It makes a lot more sense, and it's older than any of the Christian texts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I mostly agree Spider, with some minor quibbles (which of course are what I'll focus on): It's hard to say that Darwin discovered evolution. The idea that all life is related and comes from common ancestry is much older than him. The trouble is that until Darwin, there was no plausible mechanism, no science, to back up that idea. So Darwin really did invent a theory - natural selection - to explain evolution. And it was more than, as they say, "stamp collecting."
Incidentally, it's that part that I think is the key to understanding for most creationists who stress the "it's only a theory" or "theory not fact" aspect of the debate. What they need to understand is that theories explain facts. So the theory of evolution (or natural selection if you like) explains the fact of evolution.
Anyway, it's true that his theory is not the one we teach today, although his theory is at the core of what we teach today. We just have a more robust version, really. He did much more than document the outcome. As I said, the theory explains the mechanism, and he did just that. That's what natural selection is. He didn't have the means to explain it in the detail we have today, but the reason that what he gave us rises to level of scientific theory rather than stamp collecting is because it can make testable predictions. Most of those predictions in Darwin's time would revolve around what would happen if you introduced a population of some species to a new environment.
Actually I think the Wikipedia article on natural selection puts it best:
In 1859, Charles Darwin set out his theory of evolution by natural
selection as an explanation for adaptation and speciation. He defined
natural selection as the "principle by which each slight variation [of
a trait], if useful, is preserved".[29] The concept was simple but powerful: individuals best adapted to their
environments are more likely to survive and reproduce. As long as there
is some variation between them, there will be an inevitable selection
of individuals with the most advantageous variations. If the variations
are inherited, then differential reproductive success will lead to a
progressive evolution of particular populations of a species, and
populations that evolve to be sufficiently different eventually become
different species.[30]
So I don't think it's entirely fair to say that "all he could document was the result, or outcome, of evolution." He really was the very first person to cohesively produce a plausible mechanism for how evolution occurs. But don't get me wrong - he did document the shit out of it too, and that made his case even more powerful.
|
|
|
