The theory of evolution was introduced to him before his daughter died, but her death led to him becoming an athiest.

Futhermore explain the conditions necessary for natural selection to occur.

Also, Darwin (1859) suggested that whales arose from bears, sketching a scenario in which selective pressures might cause bears to evolve into whales; embarrassed by criticism, he removed his hypothetical swimming bears from later editions of the Origin (Gould 1995).

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

hahaha i guess he couldn't BEAR the criticism.

Correct me if i am wrong.

Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with unfavorable traits. Natural selection works on the whole individual, but only the heritable component of a trait will be passed on to the offspring, with the result that favorable, heritable traits become more common in the next generation. Given enough time, this passive process can result in adaptations and speciation (see evolution).

Does this also imply that they grow new organs because of these adaptations?

But the actual theory of evolution came from ancient Greece. It was only identified by the world in the late nineteenth century.

Darwins theories were actually more influenced by the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, in his Zoological Philosophy written in 1809.

Lamarck thought that all living things were endowed with a vital force that drove them to evolve toward greater complexity. He also thought that organisms could pass on to their offspring traits acquired during their lifetimes. As an example of this, Lamarck suggested that the long neck of the giraffe evolved when a short-necked ancestor took to browsing on the leaves of trees instead of on grass.

Yes, but the difference is that Lamarckian evolution is wrong. By working out, you increase your own body's strength and endurance, but since heredity is genetic, you do not pass on the characteristics you've obtained through working out. In other words, we cannot alter the genetic code by merely using our bodies - it's the other way around.

Ad hominem. Jesus fucking christ, the reason it's difficult arguing with you is that you refuse to learn from mistakes. Furthermore, there is nothing unscientific about being wrong. Science is about falsification, and that idea was clearly falsified. However, the theory evolution wasn't.

This is called "peer review." This should be evidence that when theories or ideas in science are wrong, they are removed. Evolution has not been removed. See the reasoning here?

This is perhaps the fourth time you've committed this fallacy in the last few pages. STOP DOING IT.

I said his assertion was UNSCIENTIFIC and BASELESS, understand?

He had no research or no data to prove his wild accusation.

Much like his accusation of evolution, never have i seen an animal evolve nor gain any new organs from reproducing.

Second of all, evolution is based on editing the origional theories of the past generation, such as Lamarck and the Greeks.

If you take any theory and keep editing it based on scientific findings it will be scientifically accurate also.

My main point is that the intial basis of all species evolving from a single organism is absurd. You take this theory and add on scientific facts and poof: you have evolution.

The same argument can be made with religions, and the same arguments you have produced so far.

This makes it very obvious that you are merely desperately trying to justify your incorrect conclusions. Evolution is a process that takes thousands, millions of years. However, evidence of evolution is there every time you look at different species of ants or insects of any kind. You won't be able to see changes in the DNA just by looking at an animal. And I'm willing to bet you've not seen too many animals give birth and grow to maturity. In order to conclusively determine if something has evolved, we must either look at the phenotypic rations of a population, or a population genetic analysis. None of this you can just "see."

S

Exactly. You now understand that science is an evolving system of axioms. If something is wrong, it is discarded; if something is merely inaccurate, modify it; if something is supported, expand your experiments.

It's not absurd at all. But it seems you've just realized how science works, and that evolution is true. The only way to know something about nature is to try to obtain empirical observations from it. Based on our observations, we write down patterns. If something changes, we change these patterns to account for the new evidence. This is science.

No, because religions are inherently authoritative. The truth of science lies not in any given set of explanations, but in the fact that IF our explanations are wrong, we can change them and make them more right. Religion prohibits the possibility of being wrong, and is therefore impossible to critically examine.