A thought for the day… (Page 8): I believe the "they" you are referring to are the Carl Sagan's of the world who demean those who don't agree with their version of things as Sagan did...

Reuss Griffiths Loc: Ravenna, Ohio

Racmanaz wrote:

Well, you should see how they treated biologist Michael Behe specifically on the subject of irreducible complexity.

I believe the "they" you are referring to are the Carl Sagan's of the world who demean those who don't agree with their version of things as Sagan did with in the opening quote. Since evolution is not a law but a theory, it can and should be challenged to measure it's validity in light of developing information. Behe has done just that with his position on irreducible complexity.

Reuss Griffiths Loc: Ravenna, Ohio

Wyantry wrote:

And we (or at least I hope, most) appreciate a rational hypothesis put forward for consideration without any carping or denigrating (and insulting) others.

The degree of incivility in the Attic is astounding. With the same individuals harping on the same subjects in the same manner — with no positional alteration — even when evidence or data to support a different viewpoint is provided.
There are some (in my estimation, unguided) individuals who will not even investigate provided references or links to information that would be germane to a discussion.
_________________

As to your thoughts on the scientific method: There seems to be a polarization among scientists as well as political groups. I understand the process and significance of the scientific method, and the fact the highest certainty on any particular subject is a theory with predictive explanatory power(s).

It seems people (in general) or those not very literate of science, do not understand the concept of falsifiability. NO theory is 100 percent true(*), and new evidence may be discovered that upsets theory.

The problem, as I observe it, is scientific methodology provides more “guidance” than “answers” when politicians, special interest groups and lawmakers regard Theory as proven Fact and make decisions or laws that affect entire populations.(**)

90 percent of scientists within any specific field agreeing on a subject is rare in scientific circles, it seems. And there is (almost) always a dedicated “fringe group” or more holding specific beliefs(***) that attempt to find fault with supported theory — coming up with unverifiable arguments and contrary hypotheses that are usually A). Antithetical to demonstrable experimental observation, B). Have little or no predictive power, and C). Depend upon some unproven, non-observed, generally non-factual, statistically insignificant or impossible alteration of known observed data.

The highest truth is verifiable observation. The only manner in which facts of nature be determined.

(*) Although some observations come close. The “law” of universal gravitational attraction, for one. Although even that may be altered if “dark matter” and “dark energy” hypotheses are correct.

(**) Cases in point: Masking directives and mandatory inoculations for certain groups (Covid).

(***) Examples are Creationists, “Young Earth” supporters, Flat Earthers, and other entrenched believers.

And we (or at least I hope, most) appreciate a rat... (show quote)

I agree with just about everything you've said here. I would like to comment on your asterisked comments though.

(*) There is no law of universal gravitation. It's a misstatement of Newton's 3 laws of motion, the third one that considers gravity and the one that Einstein challenged with his Theory of Relativity. I've read that Einstein's theory of general relativity includes a variable that must have a small but real value in order for the equations to work. Up until recently, he and we had no idea why that value had to be there. Recent work on Dark Energy and the detection of gravity waves can be rationalized by the value of this variable. Understand this is pretty much Greek to me but that is the essence of what I think was the point of the article.

(**) Careful here because you could be bumping up against the holy grail of people who identify others as deniers - climate change.

(***) This is a perfect example of the truism "Everyone has a theory that just won't work"

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Reuss Griffiths wrote:

I believe the "they" you are referring to are the Carl Sagan's of the world who demean those who don't agree with their version of things as Sagan did with in the opening quote. Since evolution is not a law but a theory, it can and should be challenged to measure it's validity in light of developing information. Behe has done just that with his position on irreducible complexity.

No, it’s just that the Carl Sagan of the world are more vocal and arrogant. There are many people who try to discredit Michael as a biologist because of his stats on irreducible complexity.

Reuss Griffiths Loc: Ravenna, Ohio

jcboy3 wrote:

In the pursuit of happiness, the state can and does control your access to drugs, alcohol, and sex. The state can control what you read or watch. The state can control your entertainment. You do not have a right to pursue happiness, and there is a reason it isn’t mentioned in the Constitution.

The state can take what it wants from you that has nothing to do with the existence of, or even belief in, a creator.

Sadly, you are viewing this issue backwards. Ours is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, and having our unalienable rights provided by our Creator establishes that we are ones who establish what the government can do instead of the government deciding what rights we have or don't have at their whim.

I'm done with such a negative conversation.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Racmanaz wrote:

No, it’s just that the Carl Sagan of the world are more vocal and arrogant. There are many people who try to discredit Michael as a biologist because of his stats on irreducible complexity.

You are on a first name basis with Michael? or is he someone like Elvis, Pele, Liberace, Pavarotti, Prince and others who are known by a single name?

jcboy3

Reuss Griffiths wrote:

Sadly, you are viewing this issue backwards. Ours is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, and having our unalienable rights provided by our Creator establishes that we are ones who establish what the government can do instead of the government deciding what rights we have or don't have at their whim.

I'm done with such a negative conversation.

Good. Because there is no Creator, and these supposed unalienable rights are not respected by people or the government at will.
You don’t have the right to do what you want to and with the most significant property you have, your own body.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

Reuss Griffiths wrote:

I believe the "they" you are referring to are the Carl Sagan's of the world who demean those who don't agree with their version of things as Sagan did with in the opening quote. Since evolution is not a law but a theory, it can and should be challenged to measure it's validity in light of developing information. Behe has done just that with his position on irreducible complexity.

Behe is re-mouthing a concept of “irreducible complexity” popularized by Palin years ago. A position which has been debunked by further knowledge of biological systems (e.g. flagella).

Just because persons do not currently understand how things work, does not mean things may not be explicable in the future.
~~~~~~~~~~

“Likewise, complex biological structures, such as the biochemical "motors" of bacterial flagella, are like little biochemical machines that should be interpreted the same way as are human-designed and constructed machines, such as the outboard motor of a boat.
Such features, according to Behe, are irreducibly complex – composed of many separate parts arranged so that if even one part were removed or altered, the structure would not work. Therefore, the separate and mutually interdependent parts must have been designed with a final purpose in mind; they could not have evolved as different and independent parts that fortuitously and ultimately worked together to form a functioning complex structure.
This argument can, of course, be used with every biological feature, structure, and process, since all are complex and make use of interdependent and interacting parts, themselves exceedingly complex.

“. . . this argument is over 200 years old. [see Palin] It has been thoroughly and consistently discredited by many thousands of scientific observations and experiments and, on this basis, is firmly rejected by scientists.

“Irreducible complexity" is a term employed by Behe to argue that evolutionary processes cannot account for at least some of the observed complexity in living things. However, Behe's insistence that complex structures must always retain the same function and must be built step-by-step overlooks many well-known evolutionary processes.

“While it is true that there are complex biologic features and processes that would not operate at 100% effectiveness or even at all if one part were removed or altered today, legitimate scientists understand that these features and processes were formed by a natural process (that is, evolution by natural selection).

“One point that Behe persistently ignores is that evolution utilizes precursor features and processes, perhaps less efficient and sometimes having completely different functions (in such cases termed preadaptations or exaptions), that exist as steps on the evolutionary pathway to the current feature or process.

Despite their relative inefficiency, however, these features and processes nevertheless possessed adaptive value (that is, they contributed to increased fitness) of their own – irrespective of the function that they would eventually serve in future generations.
They would thus be favored during natural selection and would adaptively evolve. Behe irresponsibly either ignores or dismisses this natural and historical explanation – which happens to be the one that other scientists accept.

For Behe, apparently, complex structures have no history at all, which is why he can see only their proximate usefulness and current interdependence of parts.Behe is a creationist precisely because he does not seriously explore the possibility of the evolutionary historical modification and change of interdependent parts.(Emphasis added)

SOURCE: https://ncse.ngo/michael-behe-and-intelligent-design-national-public-radio
~~~~~~~~~~

Just because people are ignorant of the way scientists and the scientific method work does not, as far as I am concerned, give them leave to promote a position of a disproven and thoroughly biased and discredited compilation of Creationist beliefs.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Wyantry wrote:

Behe is re-mouthing a concept of “irreducible complexity” popularized by Palin years ago. A position which has been debunked by further knowledge of biological systems (e.g. flagella).

Just because persons do not currently understand how things work, does not mean things may not be explicable in the future.
~~~~~~~~~~

“Likewise, complex biological structures, such as the biochemical "motors" of bacterial flagella, are like little biochemical machines that should be interpreted the same way as are human-designed and constructed machines, such as the outboard motor of a boat.
Such features, according to Behe, are irreducibly complex – composed of many separate parts arranged so that if even one part were removed or altered, the structure would not work. Therefore, the separate and mutually interdependent parts must have been designed with a final purpose in mind; they could not have evolved as different and independent parts that fortuitously and ultimately worked together to form a functioning complex structure.
This argument can, of course, be used with every biological feature, structure, and process, since all are complex and make use of interdependent and interacting parts, themselves exceedingly complex.

“. . . this argument is over 200 years old. [see Palin] It has been thoroughly and consistently discredited by many thousands of scientific observations and experiments and, on this basis, is firmly rejected by scientists.

“Irreducible complexity" is a term employed by Behe to argue that evolutionary processes cannot account for at least some of the observed complexity in living things. However, Behe's insistence that complex structures must always retain the same function and must be built step-by-step overlooks many well-known evolutionary processes.

“While it is true that there are complex biologic features and processes that would not operate at 100% effectiveness or even at all if one part were removed or altered today, legitimate scientists understand that these features and processes were formed by a natural process (that is, evolution by natural selection).

“One point that Behe persistently ignores is that evolution utilizes precursor features and processes, perhaps less efficient and sometimes having completely different functions (in such cases termed preadaptations or exaptions), that exist as steps on the evolutionary pathway to the current feature or process.

Despite their relative inefficiency, however, these features and processes nevertheless possessed adaptive value (that is, they contributed to increased fitness) of their own – irrespective of the function that they would eventually serve in future generations.
They would thus be favored during natural selection and would adaptively evolve. Behe irresponsibly either ignores or dismisses this natural and historical explanation – which happens to be the one that other scientists accept.

For Behe, apparently, complex structures have no history at all, which is why he can see only their proximate usefulness and current interdependence of parts.Behe is a creationist precisely because he does not seriously explore the possibility of the evolutionary historical modification and change of interdependent parts.(Emphasis added)

SOURCE: https://ncse.ngo/michael-behe-and-intelligent-design-national-public-radio
~~~~~~~~~~

Just because people are ignorant of the way scientists and the scientific method work does not, as far as I am concerned, give them leave to promote a position of a disproven and thoroughly biased and discredited compilation of Creationist beliefs.

b Behe is re-mouthing a concept of “irreducible c... (show quote)

The claim that irreducible complexity has been debunked is a falsehood, it has been challenged by many but never debunked. To make a claim that one part of a biological machine “bacterial flagella” for another purpose does in no way debunk irreducible complexity. It already has been proven that if you remove one or more parts of the molecular machine that machine will no longer be functional for its designed purpose.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Wyantry wrote:

Behe is re-mouthing a concept of “irreducible complexity” popularized by Palin years ago. A position which has been debunked by further knowledge of biological systems (e.g. flagella).

Just because persons do not currently understand how things work, does not mean things may not be explicable in the future.
~~~~~~~~~~

“Likewise, complex biological structures, such as the biochemical "motors" of bacterial flagella, are like little biochemical machines that should be interpreted the same way as are human-designed and constructed machines, such as the outboard motor of a boat.
Such features, according to Behe, are irreducibly complex – composed of many separate parts arranged so that if even one part were removed or altered, the structure would not work. Therefore, the separate and mutually interdependent parts must have been designed with a final purpose in mind; they could not have evolved as different and independent parts that fortuitously and ultimately worked together to form a functioning complex structure.
This argument can, of course, be used with every biological feature, structure, and process, since all are complex and make use of interdependent and interacting parts, themselves exceedingly complex.

“. . . this argument is over 200 years old. [see Palin] It has been thoroughly and consistently discredited by many thousands of scientific observations and experiments and, on this basis, is firmly rejected by scientists.

“Irreducible complexity" is a term employed by Behe to argue that evolutionary processes cannot account for at least some of the observed complexity in living things. However, Behe's insistence that complex structures must always retain the same function and must be built step-by-step overlooks many well-known evolutionary processes.

“While it is true that there are complex biologic features and processes that would not operate at 100% effectiveness or even at all if one part were removed or altered today, legitimate scientists understand that these features and processes were formed by a natural process (that is, evolution by natural selection).

“One point that Behe persistently ignores is that evolution utilizes precursor features and processes, perhaps less efficient and sometimes having completely different functions (in such cases termed preadaptations or exaptions), that exist as steps on the evolutionary pathway to the current feature or process.

Despite their relative inefficiency, however, these features and processes nevertheless possessed adaptive value (that is, they contributed to increased fitness) of their own – irrespective of the function that they would eventually serve in future generations.
They would thus be favored during natural selection and would adaptively evolve. Behe irresponsibly either ignores or dismisses this natural and historical explanation – which happens to be the one that other scientists accept.

For Behe, apparently, complex structures have no history at all, which is why he can see only their proximate usefulness and current interdependence of parts.Behe is a creationist precisely because he does not seriously explore the possibility of the evolutionary historical modification and change of interdependent parts.(Emphasis added)

SOURCE: https://ncse.ngo/michael-behe-and-intelligent-design-national-public-radio
~~~~~~~~~~

Just because people are ignorant of the way scientists and the scientific method work does not, as far as I am concerned, give them leave to promote a position of a disproven and thoroughly biased and discredited compilation of Creationist beliefs.

b Behe is re-mouthing a concept of “irreducible c... (show quote)

By the way, natural selection cannot create anything that’s not the way natural selection works.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Wyantry wrote:

Behe is re-mouthing a concept of “irreducible complexity” popularized by Palin years ago. A position which has been debunked by further knowledge of biological systems (e.g. flagella).

Just because persons do not currently understand how things work, does not mean things may not be explicable in the future.
~~~~~~~~~~

“Likewise, complex biological structures, such as the biochemical "motors" of bacterial flagella, are like little biochemical machines that should be interpreted the same way as are human-designed and constructed machines, such as the outboard motor of a boat.
Such features, according to Behe, are irreducibly complex – composed of many separate parts arranged so that if even one part were removed or altered, the structure would not work. Therefore, the separate and mutually interdependent parts must have been designed with a final purpose in mind; they could not have evolved as different and independent parts that fortuitously and ultimately worked together to form a functioning complex structure.
This argument can, of course, be used with every biological feature, structure, and process, since all are complex and make use of interdependent and interacting parts, themselves exceedingly complex.

“. . . this argument is over 200 years old. [see Palin] It has been thoroughly and consistently discredited by many thousands of scientific observations and experiments and, on this basis, is firmly rejected by scientists.

“Irreducible complexity" is a term employed by Behe to argue that evolutionary processes cannot account for at least some of the observed complexity in living things. However, Behe's insistence that complex structures must always retain the same function and must be built step-by-step overlooks many well-known evolutionary processes.

“While it is true that there are complex biologic features and processes that would not operate at 100% effectiveness or even at all if one part were removed or altered today, legitimate scientists understand that these features and processes were formed by a natural process (that is, evolution by natural selection).

“One point that Behe persistently ignores is that evolution utilizes precursor features and processes, perhaps less efficient and sometimes having completely different functions (in such cases termed preadaptations or exaptions), that exist as steps on the evolutionary pathway to the current feature or process.

Despite their relative inefficiency, however, these features and processes nevertheless possessed adaptive value (that is, they contributed to increased fitness) of their own – irrespective of the function that they would eventually serve in future generations.
They would thus be favored during natural selection and would adaptively evolve. Behe irresponsibly either ignores or dismisses this natural and historical explanation – which happens to be the one that other scientists accept.

For Behe, apparently, complex structures have no history at all, which is why he can see only their proximate usefulness and current interdependence of parts.Behe is a creationist precisely because he does not seriously explore the possibility of the evolutionary historical modification and change of interdependent parts.(Emphasis added)

SOURCE: https://ncse.ngo/michael-behe-and-intelligent-design-national-public-radio
~~~~~~~~~~

Just because people are ignorant of the way scientists and the scientific method work does not, as far as I am concerned, give them leave to promote a position of a disproven and thoroughly biased and discredited compilation of Creationist beliefs.

b Behe is re-mouthing a concept of “irreducible c... (show quote)

Natural selection has nothing to do with Darwinian type of evolution, I think Darwinists do not understand natural selection and it's limitations. Natural selection can only operate on what already exists, it does not have the ability to generate new genetic information to create new body plans or body parts, that's not what natural selection does. Natural selection only has the ability to increase the efficiency of an already existing body structure or eliminate that function, it can not create anything. Natural selection does not have foresight into the future to know how to build anything new genetically. In order to build something new, you need to devise a plan for future construction..that takes an intelligent mind, Natural selection can not see into the future to know how to build complex organisms and structures. Darwinism type natural selection has never been observed, tested nor repeated, therefore it is not based on scientific evidence, it's based purely on over active imaginations.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

Racmanaz wrote:

Natural selection has nothing to do with Darwinian... (show quote)

After you have digested information from this source: https://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html,

Why don’t you get back to me about this natural selection and evolution subject.

Excerpt:

“The following ideas were part of the intellectual climate of Darwin's time.

“No one knew how old the earth was, but geologists were beginning to make estimates that the earth was considerably older than explained by biblical creation. Geologists were learning more about strata, or layers formed by successive periods of the deposition of sediments. This suggested a time sequence, with younger strata overlying older strata.
A concept called uniformitarianism, due largely to the influential geologist Charles Lyell, undertook to decipher earth history under the working hypothesis that present conditions and processes are the key to the past, by investigating ongoing, observable processes such as erosion and the deposition of sediments.

“Discoveries of fossils were accumulating during the 18th and 19th centuries. At first naturalists thought they were finding remains of unknown but still living species. As fossil finds continued, however, it became apparent that nothing like giant dinosaurs was known from anywhere on the planet. Furthermore, as early as 1800, Cuvier pointed out that the deeper the strata, the less similar fossils were to existing species.

“Similarities among groups of organisms were considered evidence of relatedness, which in turn suggested evolutionary change. Darwin's intellectual predecessors accepted the idea of evolutionary relationships among organisms, but they could not provide a satisfactory explanation for how evolution occurred.
Lamarck is the most famous of these. In 1801, he proposed organic evolution as the explanation for the physical similarity among groups of organisms, and proposed a mechanism for adaptive change based on the inheritance of acquired characteristics. He wrote of the giraffe:
"We know that this animal, the tallest of mammals, dwells in the interior of Africa, in places where the soil, almost always arid and without herbage, obliges it to browse on trees and to strain itself continuously to reach them. This habit sustained for long, has had the result in all members of its race that the forelegs have grown longer than the hind legs and that its neck has become so stretched, that the giraffe, without standing on its hind legs, lifts its head to a height of six meters."
In essence, this says that the necks of Giraffes became long as a result of continually stretching to reach high foliage. Larmarck was incorrect in the hypothesized mechanism, of course, but his example makes clear that naturalists were thinking about the possibility of evolutionary change in the early 1800's.

Darwin(and Wallace, q.v.; and the “Wallace Line”)

Darwin was influenced by observations made during his youthful voyage as naturalist on the survey ship Beagle. On the Galapagos Islands he noticed the slight variations that made tortoises from different islands recognizably distinct. He also observed a whole array of unique finches, the famous "Darwin's finches," that exhibited slight differences from island to island. In addition, they all appeared to resemble, but differ from, the common finch on the mainland of Ecuador, 600 miles to the east. Patterns in the distribution and similarity of organisms had an important influence of Darwin's thinking. The picture at the top of this page is of Darwin's own sketches of finches in his Journal of Researches.

In 1859, Darwin published his famous On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, a tome of over 500 pages that marshalled extensive evidence for his theory. Publication of the book caused a furor - every copy of the book was sold the day that it was released. Members of the religious community, as well as some scientific peers, were outraged by Darwin's ideas and protested. Most scientists, however, recognized the power of Darwin's arguments. Today, school boards still debate the validity and suitability of Darwin's theory in science curricula, and a whole body of debate has grown up around the controversy (see the WWW site Talk.Origins for an ongoing dialogue). We do not have time to cover all of Darwin's evidence and arguments, but we can examine the core ideas. What does this theory of evolution say?

Darwin's Theory

Darwin’s theory of evolution entails the following fundamental ideas. The first three ideas were already under discussion among earlier and contemporaneous naturalists working on the “species problem” as Darwin began his research. Darwin’s original contributions were the mechanism of natural selection and copious amounts of evidence for evolutionary change from many sources. He also provided thoughtful explanations of the consequences of evolution for our understanding of the history of life and modern biological diversity.

Species (populations of interbreeding organisms) change over time and space. The representatives of species living today differ from those that lived in the recent past, and populations in different geographic regions today differ slightly in form or behavior. These differences extend into the fossil record, which provides ample support for this claim.

All organisms share common ancestors with other organisms. Over time, populations may divide into different species, which share a common ancestral population. Far enough back in time, any pair of organisms shares a common ancestor. For example, humans shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees about eight million years ago, with whales about 60 million years ago, and with kangaroos over 100 million years ago. Shared ancestry explains the similarities of organisms that are classified together: their similarities reflect the inheritance of traits from a common ancestor.

Evolutionary change is gradual and slow in Darwin’s view. This claim was supported by the long episodes of gradual change in organisms in the fossil record and the fact that no naturalist had observed the sudden appearance of a new species in Darwin’s time. Since then, biologists and paleontologists have documented a broad spectrum of slow to rapid rates of evolutionary change within lineages.

The primary mechanism of change over time is natural selection, elaborated below. This mechanism causes changes in the properties (traits) of organisms within lineages from generation to generation.

The Process of Natural Selection

Darwin’s process of natural selection has four components.

— Variation. Organisms (within populations) exhibit individual variation in appearance and behavior. These variations may involve body size, hair color, facial markings, voice properties, or number of offspring. On the other hand, some traits show little to no variation among individuals—for example, number of eyes in vertebrates.

— Inheritance. Some traits are consistently passed on from parent to offspring. Such traits are heritable, whereas other traits are strongly influenced by environmental conditions and show weak heritability.

— High rate of population growth. Most populations have more offspring each year than local resources can support leading to a struggle for resources. Each generation experiences substantial mortality.

— Differential survival and reproduction. Individuals possessing traits well suited for the struggle for local resources will contribute more offspring to the next generation. . . .”

And,

—Time. Geologic time. Millions and billions of years of time in which to mutate, evolve, adapt, reproduce and fill environmental niches.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Wyantry wrote:

After you have digested information from this source: https://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html,

Why don’t you get back to me about this natural selection and evolution subject.

Excerpt:

“The following ideas were part of the intellectual climate of Darwin's time.

“No one knew how old the earth was, but geologists were beginning to make estimates that the earth was considerably older than explained by biblical creation. Geologists were learning more about strata, or layers formed by successive periods of the deposition of sediments. This suggested a time sequence, with younger strata overlying older strata.
A concept called uniformitarianism, due largely to the influential geologist Charles Lyell, undertook to decipher earth history under the working hypothesis that present conditions and processes are the key to the past, by investigating ongoing, observable processes such as erosion and the deposition of sediments.

“Discoveries of fossils were accumulating during the 18th and 19th centuries. At first naturalists thought they were finding remains of unknown but still living species. As fossil finds continued, however, it became apparent that nothing like giant dinosaurs was known from anywhere on the planet. Furthermore, as early as 1800, Cuvier pointed out that the deeper the strata, the less similar fossils were to existing species.

“Similarities among groups of organisms were considered evidence of relatedness, which in turn suggested evolutionary change. Darwin's intellectual predecessors accepted the idea of evolutionary relationships among organisms, but they could not provide a satisfactory explanation for how evolution occurred.
Lamarck is the most famous of these. In 1801, he proposed organic evolution as the explanation for the physical similarity among groups of organisms, and proposed a mechanism for adaptive change based on the inheritance of acquired characteristics. He wrote of the giraffe:
"We know that this animal, the tallest of mammals, dwells in the interior of Africa, in places where the soil, almost always arid and without herbage, obliges it to browse on trees and to strain itself continuously to reach them. This habit sustained for long, has had the result in all members of its race that the forelegs have grown longer than the hind legs and that its neck has become so stretched, that the giraffe, without standing on its hind legs, lifts its head to a height of six meters."
In essence, this says that the necks of Giraffes became long as a result of continually stretching to reach high foliage. Larmarck was incorrect in the hypothesized mechanism, of course, but his example makes clear that naturalists were thinking about the possibility of evolutionary change in the early 1800's.

Darwin(and Wallace, q.v.; and the “Wallace Line”)

Darwin was influenced by observations made during his youthful voyage as naturalist on the survey ship Beagle. On the Galapagos Islands he noticed the slight variations that made tortoises from different islands recognizably distinct. He also observed a whole array of unique finches, the famous "Darwin's finches," that exhibited slight differences from island to island. In addition, they all appeared to resemble, but differ from, the common finch on the mainland of Ecuador, 600 miles to the east. Patterns in the distribution and similarity of organisms had an important influence of Darwin's thinking. The picture at the top of this page is of Darwin's own sketches of finches in his Journal of Researches.

In 1859, Darwin published his famous On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, a tome of over 500 pages that marshalled extensive evidence for his theory. Publication of the book caused a furor - every copy of the book was sold the day that it was released. Members of the religious community, as well as some scientific peers, were outraged by Darwin's ideas and protested. Most scientists, however, recognized the power of Darwin's arguments. Today, school boards still debate the validity and suitability of Darwin's theory in science curricula, and a whole body of debate has grown up around the controversy (see the WWW site Talk.Origins for an ongoing dialogue). We do not have time to cover all of Darwin's evidence and arguments, but we can examine the core ideas. What does this theory of evolution say?

Darwin's Theory

Darwin’s theory of evolution entails the following fundamental ideas. The first three ideas were already under discussion among earlier and contemporaneous naturalists working on the “species problem” as Darwin began his research. Darwin’s original contributions were the mechanism of natural selection and copious amounts of evidence for evolutionary change from many sources. He also provided thoughtful explanations of the consequences of evolution for our understanding of the history of life and modern biological diversity.

Species (populations of interbreeding organisms) change over time and space. The representatives of species living today differ from those that lived in the recent past, and populations in different geographic regions today differ slightly in form or behavior. These differences extend into the fossil record, which provides ample support for this claim.

All organisms share common ancestors with other organisms. Over time, populations may divide into different species, which share a common ancestral population. Far enough back in time, any pair of organisms shares a common ancestor. For example, humans shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees about eight million years ago, with whales about 60 million years ago, and with kangaroos over 100 million years ago. Shared ancestry explains the similarities of organisms that are classified together: their similarities reflect the inheritance of traits from a common ancestor.

Evolutionary change is gradual and slow in Darwin’s view. This claim was supported by the long episodes of gradual change in organisms in the fossil record and the fact that no naturalist had observed the sudden appearance of a new species in Darwin’s time. Since then, biologists and paleontologists have documented a broad spectrum of slow to rapid rates of evolutionary change within lineages.

The primary mechanism of change over time is natural selection, elaborated below. This mechanism causes changes in the properties (traits) of organisms within lineages from generation to generation.

The Process of Natural Selection

Darwin’s process of natural selection has four components.

— Variation. Organisms (within populations) exhibit individual variation in appearance and behavior. These variations may involve body size, hair color, facial markings, voice properties, or number of offspring. On the other hand, some traits show little to no variation among individuals—for example, number of eyes in vertebrates.

— Inheritance. Some traits are consistently passed on from parent to offspring. Such traits are heritable, whereas other traits are strongly influenced by environmental conditions and show weak heritability.

— High rate of population growth. Most populations have more offspring each year than local resources can support leading to a struggle for resources. Each generation experiences substantial mortality.

— Differential survival and reproduction. Individuals possessing traits well suited for the struggle for local resources will contribute more offspring to the next generation. . . .”

And,

—Time. Geologic time. Millions and billions of years of time in which to mutate, evolve, adapt, reproduce and fill environmental niches.

b After you have digested information from this s... (show quote)

You are conflating and natural selection and Darwinian type of evolution (mutations). I was only addressing natural selection which does not have the power to create body parts or plans, natural selection only eliminates function or enhances an already existing function known as adaptation. I think it's YOU that needs to learn more about the function of natural selection.

"Natural selection itself does not create new traits; it only changes the proportion of variation that is already present in the population."

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0128-1#:~:text=Natural%20selection%20itself%20does%20not,already%20present%20in%20the%20population.

I don't agree with everything in this link above.

Again...

Racmanaz wrote:
Natural selection has nothing to do with Darwinian type of evolution, I think Darwinists do not understand natural selection and it's limitations. Natural selection can only operate on what already exists, it does not have the ability to generate new genetic information to create new body plans or body parts, that's not what natural selection does. Natural selection only has the ability to increase the efficiency of an already existing body structure or eliminate that function, it can not create anything. Natural selection does not have foresight into the future to know how to build anything new genetically. In order to build something new, you need to devise a plan for future construction..that takes an intelligent mind, Natural selection can not see into the future to know how to build complex organisms and structures. Darwinism type natural selection has never been observed, tested nor repeated, therefore it is not based on scientific evidence, it's based purely on over active imaginations.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

Racmanaz wrote:

You are conflating and natural selection and Darwi... (show quote)

—> It seems appropriate to agree on what Natural Selection actually IS. My understanding it is the PROCESS of selection of heritable traits favorable to an organism’s continued existence in a particular environment.

Natural Selection therefore would be:

”Natural selection is the process through which populations of living organisms adapt and change.

1). Individuals in a population are naturally variable, (due to mutations), meaning that they are all different in some ways.
This variation means that some individuals have traits better suited to the environment than others.

2). Individuals with adaptive traits (or genetic mutations) —traits that give them some advantage—are more likely to survive and reproduce.

3). These individuals then pass the adaptive traits on to their offspring. Over Geologic time, these advantageous traits become more common in the population.

4). Through this process of natural selection, favorable traits are transmitted through generations.

5). Natural selection can lead to speciation, where one species gives rise to a new and distinctly different species. unable to successfully interbreed with an original population)It is one of the processes that drives evolution and helps to explain the diversity of life on Earth.”

SOURCE: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/natural-selection/#
~~~~~~~~~~

—> Although I agree Natural Selection does not CREATE differences (mutations do), those favorable mutations which promote increased longevity means there is a chance for those mutations to be inherited by offspring.
More offspring with the same modifications would increase within a population and could “outbreed” those without the adaptation. Over time, an increased population could overtake (“swamp”) a particular environmental niche.

MUTATIONS (Genetic Modifications) however, could alter functionality of preexisting pieces/parts/organs that would be beneficial for survival. Such genetic modifications might prolong the lifespan of an individual; thereby allowing longer breeding capability. Meaning more offspring with the SAME modification.
This would lead to adaptations (genetic modifications) which could, potentially, increase that adaptation to future generations.

>>>(This modification-by-mutation of pre-existing adaptations can/may/could lead to (over geologic timescales) increased complexity of biologic systems — laying-to-rest the BS argument of “irreducible complexity”)<<<

(The Lamarkian hypothesis of “adjustment” or “adaptation” by any one individual would not be passed on GENETICALLY to future generations. (Although such adaptations might be passed down culturally or by education)).
~~~~~~~~~~~

—> A Philosophical Discussion of natural selection is available at:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-selection/

”Natural selection requires variation in a population of organisms. For the process to work, at least some of that variation must be heritable and passed on to organisms’ descendants in some way. That variation is acted upon by the struggle for existence, a process that in effect “selects” variations conducive to the survival and reproduction of their bearers.
Much like breeders choose which of their animals will reproduce and thereby create the various breeds of domesticated dogs, pigeons, and cattle, nature effectively “selects” which animals will breed and creates evolutionary change just as breeders do.

Such “selection” by nature, natural selection, occurs as a result of the struggle for existence and, in the case of sexual populations, the struggle for mating opportunities. That struggle is itself the result of checks on the geometric population increase that would occur in the absence of the checks.

All populations, even slow-breeding ones such as those of elephants, will increase in size in the absence of limitations on growth that are imposed by nature. These checks take different forms in different populations. Such limitations may take the form of limited food supply, limited nesting sites, predation, disease, harsh climactic conditions, and much else besides.

One way or another, only some of the candidate reproducers in natural populations actually do reproduce, often because others simply die before maturity.
Owing to the variations among the candidate reproducers, some have better chances of making it into the sample of actual reproducers than do others. If such variations are heritable, the offspring of those with the “beneficial” traits will be likely to produce especially many further descendants themselves.

To use one of Darwin’s own examples, wolves with especially long legs that allow them to run more quickly will be more likely to catch prey and thereby avoid starvation and so produce offspring that have especially long legs that allow them, in turn, to breed and produce still more long-legged descendants, and so on.
By means of this iterative process, a trait conducive to reproduction that is initially found in one or a few population members will spread through the population.

Multiple bouts of Darwin’s process involving different traits, acting sequentially or in concert, may then explain both how speciation and the evolution of complex adaptations occur through the gradual evolution (change over time) of natural populations.

Darwin aimed to convince his audience that even such structures as the vertebrate eye, which at first seem explicable only as the product of design, could instead be explained by incremental, directional evolution, a complex but still naturalistic process (Darwin 1859: ch. 6). What is initially a light sensitive patch may be transformed into an eye by means of a great many bouts of selection that gradually improve and enhance its sensitivity. Showing that something is explicable is importantly different from explaining it (Lennox 1991); still, a theory must be an explanatory sort of theory for it to accomplish either task. After Darwin, the appearance of novel species in the geological record and the existence of designed-appearing adaptations cannot be used as grounds for invoking supernatural causes as a matter of last explanatory resort.” (Emphasis added).

This article references the several arguments pro and con of the theory of Evolution by Natural selection.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Wyantry wrote:

b —> /b It seems appropriate to agree on what... (show quote)

Again, I am only addressing natural selection not mutations. Also, natural selection isn’t the survival of the fittest, it’s the survival of the luckiest.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Racmanaz wrote:

Natural selection has nothing to do with Darwinian... (show quote)

Darwin never used the word evolution in his entire book.- The Origin of Species.

I think you attributing something to him he did not promote .