Here for instance:
That is evidently imitating a cat. It might not seem like much of a cat to you, but it's enough of a cat to help the butterfly survive, and maybe in a few thousand years it'll be a much better cat facsimile, such as here:
Posted on 03/29/2006 7:53:52 PM PST by SampleMan
Last year, the intelligent design movement burst onto the national scene, causing all manner of outrage from the guardians of science and right thinking. All the major media covered this upstart idea challenging Darwinian evolution's theory of the origin of life. Everybody has been piling on, even conservative pundits like George Will and Charles Krauthammer. The cultural elites were appalled when the yahoos on the Kansas Board of Education voted to "teach the controversy" to high-school students. In Dover, Pa., a judge outlawed the mere mention of I.D. theory in school science classes. Like a fierce game of whack-a-mole, wherever I.D.'s politically incorrect head pops up, its opponents rush to smack it back down.
I am enjoying all this tremendously. What makes it so much fun to watch is that so far not one of the critics understands it. Without exception, they simply dismiss I.D. theory as nothing more than stealth religion – creationism by another name. They say that all I.D. does is insert God to explain what science has not yet figured out. While they all lose their collective minds about it, warning darkly that the fundamentalists are coming, support for I.D. theory will continue to grow because it is good science. I want to explain why, so that when you hear the intelligentsia loudly denouncing it, you, too, can have a good laugh. Even better, you will understand why intelligent design theory is going to become a major force for good in the battle to rescue our collapsing culture – because the way we think about origins affects the way we think about nearly everything. (More on that later.)
Meanwhile, the debate rages on, all the while opponents keep insisting there is no debate.
Despite its pretensions to objectivity, science has always been political. That's why scientific revolutions have often met initially with resistance and ridicule, because the old order stands to lose if the new becomes accepted. But the great thing about science is that eventually the weight of evidence breaks through. Think Galileo (opposed not only by the church but by fellow academics), or Lister (ridiculed for disinfecting surgical rooms to prevent infection), or the Wright Brothers (man will never fly). So all this hand wringing about intelligent design is a good sign that the revolution is under way. The old order is being challenged, and they are freaking out.
I.D. not religion
First, what I.D. theory is not: It is not creationism. Full disclosure here: I am a creationist. As a Christian, I believe God is the author of life. But I.D. theory is a science-driven enterprise. It is not a deduction from Scripture but an inference from observation. It says that the intricate design found in living things and in the universe itself is best explained by an intelligent cause. Darwinism, on the other hand, says that undirected natural processes led life to arise spontaneously; then evolution by natural selection (survival of the fittest) resulted in living things that appear to be designed, but really aren't. The question boils down to this: When considered objectively, where does the evidence actually lead?
Drawing heavily on Nancy Pearcey's great apologetic book "Total Truth," I'm going to focus on two of the most powerful arguments for intelligent design. Her book contains many more. I wish every Christian (and every thinking person) would read her masterful defense of Christianity as total truth about all of reality. But just reading this column will make you far more knowledgeable about I.D. than nearly all of its opponents.
It's true that by far the dominant theory of origins is the evolutionary one. It goes something like this: It all began billions of years ago in some sort of chemical soup (a "warm little pond," as Darwin put it) which, when zapped with an energy source, led to the chance formation of amino acids. These acids somehow self-organized into proteins and then morphed into the first living cell. All living things descended from that first cell, evolving from simple into increasingly complex organisms, all the way up to man.
Just one problem
In Darwin's time this was easier to imagine, because it was thought that cells were mere blobs of protoplasm. It fit in nicely with his idea that life could have first appeared as a simple cell. There's just one problem. We now know that there is no such thing as a "simple" cell. Recent advances in microbiology have demonstrated that the cell is literally a miniature factory town, with its own chemical library containing blueprints that are copied and transported to molecular assembly lines that manufacture everything the cell needs. Nancy Pearcey compares it to "… a large and complex model train layout, with tracks crisscrossing everywhere, its switches and signals perfectly timed so that no trains collide and the cargo reaches its destination precisely when needed."
Just one cell is vastly more complex than anything ever created by human engineering. And your body contains 300 trillion of them, each one "knowing" exactly what it is supposed to do within itself and in relation to all the other cells.
Microbiologist Michael Behe has coined the term "irreducible complexity" to describe this. That is, the cell consists of coordinated, interlocking parts that must all be in place simultaneously, or it won't function at all. You can't improve the cell through one random mutation at a time because if you change any one aspect, the whole thing will crash. For evolutionary change to occur, every single piece of its Rube Goldberg-like factory would have to mutate at exactly the same time, and each single mutation would have to be beneficial, or the cell would just die.
Darwin himself understood what today's evolutionists refuse to admit:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
That is exactly what Behe has done. As Pearcey puts it:
"An aggregate structure, like a pile of sand, can be built up gradually by simply adding a piece at a time. ... By contrast, an organized structure, like the inside of a computer, is built up according to a pre-existing blueprint."
Since living systems are organized wholes, they had to have been put together in the first place by a pre-existing design.
Darwinists cannot explain irreducible complexity. They keep saying that it poses no problem for evolution, as if repetition would make it so. They insist that just because we don't yet understand how evolution can work in light of this doesn't mean that we won't figure it out eventually. But they will never figure it out, because irreducible complexity makes evolutionary change at the cellular level logically impossible.
(Note: Natural selection clearly occurs within species as an adaptive mechanism. I.D. theory does not deny or even address this, nor does it address the question of whether natural selection could lead to the development of entirely new species. I.D. theory is concerned with the origin of life only.)
Not by chance
Even more powerful evidence comes from the genetic code. DNA is a kind of language consisting of four chemical "letters" that combine into an astonishing variety of sequences to spell out a message. It contains a mind-boggling amount of information. Where did it come from?
Darwinists say that DNA resulted from chance mutations operated on by natural selection. Really? As theologian Norm Geisler quipped:
"If you came into the kitchen and saw the alphabet cereal spilled out on the table, and it spelled out your name and address, would you think the cat knocked the cereal box over?"
In fact, chance events tend to scramble information, like typos in a page of text. Even if some kind of more complex molecule somehow did appear in the supposed chemical soup, the same random processes that produced it would continue to insert "typos," soon scrambling any coherent message that might have occurred. Again, it's not that we don't yet understand how chance could create complex information; it's that in principle this cannot happen.
Nor by physical law
If chance cannot do it, perhaps some yet-undiscovered physical law can. That's what scientists excited about complexity theory are hoping. They are studying self-organizing structures like snowflakes and crystals, searching for clues to how similar natural processes might also give rise to the complex information found in DNA. But they won't find any.
That prediction stems not from ignorance or hubris, but from the nature of physical laws, which by definition are regular and repeatable. Those properties enable the brilliant engineering students at MIT to enjoy shoving a piano off seven story high Baker House roof every year. They know that gravity makes things fall, every time.
But the information found in DNA is quite different. When you decode one section it tells you nothing about what comes next. The letters are free to combine into an unimaginably vast quantity of information. By contrast, the physical laws being explored in complexity theory are simple instructions, able to create complex patterns but not much information – certainly not enough to account for the fact that each cell in your body contains more information than the entire Encyclopedia Britannica.
This is not at all like saying man will never fly because God didn't give him wings. It's not that I.D. theorists can't imagine how a physical law could create information. It's because in principle, law-like processes cannot generate complex information. Some things really are impossible.
Information, information, information
It turns out that life is not primarily about matter, but information. Commenting on the failed attempts to create life in the lab, astrophysicist Paul Davies writes:
"Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won't work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level."
Common sense tells us that information does not occur without an intelligence to organize it, any more than the hardware of a computer can create its own software. Even scientists know this. Otherwise, how could SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) researchers ever hope to distinguish between radio signals generated by some natural process and those sent from the hoped-for aliens? Again, we see that the most plausible explanation for the information in DNA is an Intelligent Designer put it there.
But for Christians, we knew that, didn't we? "In the beginning was the Word (Logos)." Behind everything is the Logic, the Wisdom, the Intelligence of God.
Darwin's irony: cultural devolution
Currently, only a minority of scientists holds to intelligent design theory, but the number is growing. To date, over 400 scientists have signed a document entitled "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." Many of these scientists are not Christian, and some are outright hostile to it, which is further evidence that I.D. is not religion. A scientific revolution is just beginning, but almost nobody recognizes it, least of all its opponents.
And not a moment too soon, since evolutionary theory did not stay in the scientific realm but oozed into all the sciences, the liberal arts and out into culture, with horribly destructive results. The biblical view of man as a spiritual being created in God's image has been replaced by the view that man is nothing more than a highly evolved animal struggling to survive in a meaningless universe. Scratch any social ill and you will find Darwinism underneath.
One of the worst consequences has been the devaluation of human life. It is no exaggeration to say that Darwinism has led to the killing of untold millions of human beings. To highlight just a few examples: eugenics (philosophical Darwinism) inspired Margaret Sanger to found Planned Parenthood and the pro-abortion movement. Eugenics helped Hitler convince an entire country to follow him in his attempt to wipe out the "inferior" Jews, not to mention the toll in blood it took to stop him. These days Peter Singer, a Princeton professor of bioethics, advocates that parents be allowed to dispatch their imperfect infants up to 30 days after birth. The misguided "right to die" movement is rapidly becoming the "right to kill" movement, as last year we watched severely disabled (but not dying) Terri Schiavo starve to death by court order, while a large portion of the country approved of it. Meanwhile, more than a million babies continue to be aborted every year. None of these horrors could have occurred in a culture that understood each human life to be a unique creation of God, stamped with his image.
Darwinism is also behind the sexual revolution (just doing what comes naturally), radical feminism, family breakdown and normalization of homosexuality (gender roles are social constructs we can discard as we "evolve" as a society). Darwinism removed the foundation for a transcendent moral Truth that stands outside of our personal preference. Now we make it up as we go, "re-imagining" everything. Even many Christians consider their faith to be purely personal. It's "true for me, but maybe not for you." No wonder assertions that Jesus is the only way to God meet with such outrage. And why so-called progressives are deeply offended when Christians try to bring into the public square what they view as nothing more than our particular rabbit's foot. Rejection of God is the root cause of our cultural degradation, but Darwinism has been its indispensable support, giving intellectual cover for all the evil we want to do.
Reversing the damage
But intelligent design is on the move, and this is a great gift to everyone, especially Christians. It's only a matter of time before it becomes accepted as a legitimate competing theory of origins, and as it does it will unleash enormous changes for good, not only in science but all of culture – because if people understand that there is (or at least could be) a Designer, then we can once more ask, what is the purpose of that design? What are things for?
For example, conservatives and Christians are having a difficult time making the case against homosexual marriage. Thousands of years of exclusively heterosexual marriage mean nothing to those with a Darwinist worldview. Why, they are far more evolved than those benighted cultures in the misty past. To them, tradition is oppressive; destroying it is progress. Why shouldn't people be able to "love" whomever they want? How will it hurt your marriage?
The truth is that homosexual marriage is wrong because it violates God's design and purpose for us, with inevitably negative consequences. But for an exercise in frustration, just try to discuss design with someone steeped in the evolutionary mindset. Point out the functional biological differences between male and female, and they will dodge, deny or change the subject. Press the issue, and they will become angry at your attempt to "impose" your personal values. What they will never do is engage the substance of your argument. They can't. Their worldview will not allow them to admit the obvious.
Multiple research studies documenting the need that children have for a mom and a dad are probably the best defense we've got, but in a nation full of divorced or never married single parents, and with a media quick to promote "gay" families, it's a tough slog. So far, a majority of the public opposes homosexual marriage, but it's mostly instinctive and traditional. People say things like, "I wasn't raised that way." But younger generations, raised on books like "Heather Has Two Mommies" and subjected to Darwinist dogma throughout their schooling, have no tradition left to hold them. And any common-sense instinct they might have to resist faces an incessant cultural onslaught that brands such thoughts as hateful prejudice.
For the older generations, watching defenders of marriage viciously attacked in the press is very confusing. Having never reasoned out something so basic as marriage, they, too, will begin to doubt themselves. Unless something dramatic changes, public opposition will eventually crumble, and we will see the destruction of marriage as one more nail in the cultural coffin we are building for ourselves.
No, you haven't. You've just posted a smart-ass one-liner in a cheap attempt to run away when you sensed that you were coming up on the short end of an argument.
You tried to make a smarmy connection between Hitler and Darwin, then you got all huffy and "how dare you!" when it was shown that the same sleazy "guilt by association" could be turned back around on you, and with far better support and more direct linkage. Hypocrite.
An *honorable* person would have admitted the sliminess of the original slur, and apologized for having tried to employ such a below-the-belt attack in so tenuous a manner. I note that you haven't done that. No, instead you get all self-righteous about how it's somehow horrific and you're justified in taking offense when *other* people do it, but you don't think there's anything wrong with it when *you* do it nor can you seem to understand why *other* people might have taken offense to your original slur.
Is it a *requirement* for criticis of evolution to engage in dishonest debate techniques and sophistry and double standards, or is it just something they all enjoy as a hobby?
Let's run with that, as I can't remember and it appears to fit the bill.
#300
The moth appears to fit the bill for what I was talking about.
I didn't know there were any butterflies/moths with transparent wings. Fascinating.
Actually, as I stated clearly, it's a butterfly.
If only that were true of creationists and their secret agents, the IDers. You look at the planks of ID and every argument has been rebutted to death. All ID has is to keep coming back with the same misstatements and fallacies, hoping to someday shout down the rebuttals.
The worst thing about ID isn't that it's wrong, but that it's an endlessly repeated catalog of "misstatements." (Ah, the kinder, gentler FR.)
Until someone comes up with some testable hypotheses, it's all just talk, and pretty boring (to me) speculation about unknown things being done by unknown actors at an unknown time by means unknown, or even worse, speculation about whether the scripture revealed to Mohamed is more accurate than the ones revealed to Moses or Joseph Smith, or by Brahma or Buddha.
And what shall we make of someone who sees anger...oh, just about everywhere? I have to admit, it's an ingeniously self-fulfilling prophecy - post the article on a hair-trigger, ready and waiting for even the slightest hint of offense, and sure enough, you find it every time. What's even better is when we post an article that paints some segment of the forum as somehow being akin to gay Nazis, and then we're shocked - shocked, I tell you! - when that segment reacts negatively to such a comparison.
Don't patronize me.
Please. You hardly have grounds to complain on that score. You throw a bomb into the room, and then you have the temerity to actually act surprised when it goes off. You must seriously think everyone here is pretty damn stupid not to see right through that kind of thing. You came in spoiling for a fight, and you got it. Do not presume to patronize me, sir, by pretending otherwise.
Yes, there have been several attempts at getting the ID'ers to tell us just what their curriculum would be for ID, particularly without mentioning the Theory of Evolution. It almost always leads to [sound of crickets] as they are hoist on their own petard.
Here for instance:
That is evidently imitating a cat. It might not seem like much of a cat to you, but it's enough of a cat to help the butterfly survive, and maybe in a few thousand years it'll be a much better cat facsimile, such as here:
I regret to inform you that responding with a simple repetition of a smart-assed one-liner used as an evasion not only contradicts your smug assertion that you have "evolved beyond us", it demonstrates the validity of what I wrote about your dishonest "debate" techniques, your immaturity, and your hypocrisy.
But if you want to continue to behave in a manner that makes this obvious to all, be my guest.
I saw one last year(?) buzzing about a bizarre-looking oriental lily that I call my "Feed me, Seymour" plant. I wasn't sure what it was until it lit and sat still for two seconds. The shock was about like seeing a man from a distance and then realizing up close he is really a big ugly bug.
They better hope that none of their opinions are observed as a fact, for that fact would be tested and explained by science. Most all of the faith and belief of philosophy would be refuted.
I'll try again, as I really am looking for some differing answers. How else can I gather information to formulate my hypothesis.
I AM WRITING IN CAPITALS TO GET AS MUCH ATTENTION AS POSSIBLE SO THAT I WILL HAVE MORE RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS THAT FOLLOW MY OBSERVATION. BOTH EVO"S AND CREATIONIST ARE EQUALLY ENCOURAGED TO REPLY.
My observation to date. Scientist object to ID because they say it's hypothesis are "untestable" as defined by the scientific methods.
They view it as resorting to "someone else did it". Which is an unacceptable answer in their ideology.
Dissenting scientist have come up with testable hypothesis, to which scientist then return to their laboratories to test until they can disprove. Once they have they declare that the evidence for ID is false.
Dissenting scientist then claim that due to statistical probabilities it is not false.
Then the mathematicians began calculating until they can say, "You did the math wrong." However, the mathematicians are not able to arrive at the same answer, but that's okay because all of them did arrive at an answer that suggested the evidence to disprove was possible.
Once again, dissenting mathematicians come up with different answers that show the likelihood of the organized occurrence is statistically impossible. But, since their math is "wrong" according to the other mathematicians, it doesn't count.
So, once again scientist say that ID can not come up with one testable hypothesis that they can't disprove, and dissenting scientist claim that they have, and it has not been disproved.
So it simple terms it boils down to:
Who is the Designer. A question that supposedly can have no testable hypothesis.
Where did it all come from? A question that can be "tested" until it gets to a place where it is "untestable".
Leaving both ideologies in the same boat, and us left to battle it out by our wits. To which I have made this observation.
The main principle's of Conservative Texan Mom's theory of the evolution of wits
1.Conservative NeoDarwinist show a tremendous range of variation of wits
2.Conservative Creationist, old, young, and middle-aged, show a similar range of variation of wits.
3.All wits are engaged in a struggle for existence
Now here are some questions to ponder.
When scientist continue tests until they have favorable conditions to produce positive results. I know, all the conditions are found in nature. There is still a scientist working within the laboratory to create the conditions. Is this taken into account, and could it be called the ID factor, since an intelligent source is creating the conditions? Even if these conditions can be found in nature, who is to say that scientist are not merely reproducing a smaller version of a previously performed experiment, and verifying it's results?
When scientist come up with a result that "disproves" a theory, do they take into account the statistical likelihood of all things coming together they way they do as a result of purpose, or chance. Or, is this not considered because they have their "possibility under the right conditions" evidence and therefore have disproved the theory.
Why is it that when a hypothesis is not provable it is discounted as invalid. Perhaps we lack the means with which to prove. One hundred years ago, if someone suggested that we might have instructions within our cells that determine how we are made, would they have been ridiculed because it was not "testable" since we lacked the means in which to do so?
Further more, AND THIS IS NOT MY BELIEF, it is merely a hypothesis that I am wondering whether or not has the possibility for testing. If space aliens did do it, and we developed the technology to go there and learn the science by which they did it, what would we call this? And is it theoretically testable?
Is science's main objection regarding ID that if it is considered to have as much merit as "it just happened" then it will have to be taken into equal consideration when evaluating other aspects of evolution that evolution has trouble explaining, even though evolution would deny such trouble exists?
In such an event that they are regarded as equals, how will Occam's razor be applied?
And to top it off
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy - are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset."
C.S. Lewis
Strange. I doubt if there are many scientists alive who wouldn't trade their life's work for their name on any of Darwin's books.
You should stop, but I have no problem with seon you dig you hole deeper.
Darwin, Charles, Journal of researches into the natural history and geology of the countries visited during the voyage round the world of H.M.S. Beagle, 11th edn London, John Murray, 1913. [first published London, Henry Colburn, 1839].
-Narrative of the Surveying Voyages of Her Majesty's Ships 'Adventure' and 'Beagle' between the years 1826 and 1836, describing their examination of the Southern shores of South America, and the 'Beagle's' circumnavigation of the globe.
-Volume iii. Journal and Remarks, 1832-1836. By Charles Darwin. London, 1839. [Digitization forthcoming].
-Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. 'Beagle.' Edited and superintended by Charles Darwin.
-Part I. Fossil Mammalia, by Richard Owen. With a Geological Introduction, by Charles Darwin. London, 1840.
-Part II. Mammalia, by George R. Waterhouse. With a notice of their habits and ranges, by Charles Darwin. London, 1839.
Darwin, Charles, The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs. Being the First Part of the Geology of the Voyage of the 'Beagle.' London, Smith, Elder & Co., 1842.
Darwin, Charles, Geological observations on Coral Reefs, Volcanic Islands, and on South America: being the Geology of the Voyage of the Beagle, under the Command of Capt. FitzRoy, during the Years 1832-36. London, Melbourne & Toronto, Ward Lock & Co., 1910. [first published London, Smith, Elder & Co., 1842-6].
[-Coral Reefs - Volcanic Islands - Geological Observations on South America-]
Darwin, Charles, Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the countries visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. 'Beagle' round the world, under the command of Captain Fitz-Roy, R.N. 2nd edition, corrected, with additions. London, 1845. [Digitization forthcoming]
Darwin, Charles, A Monograph of the Fossil Lepadidae; or, Pedunculated Cirripedes of Great Britain. London, Palaeontographical Society, 1851.
Darwin, Charles, A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia, with Figures of all the Species. The Lepadidae; or, Pedunculated Cirripedes. London, Ray Society, 1851.
Darwin, Charles, A Monograph on the Fossil Balanidæ and Verrucidæ of Great Britain. London, Palaeontographical Society, 1854.
Darwin, Charles, A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia, with Figures of all the Species. The Balanidae (or Sessile Cirripedes); the Verrucidae, etc. London, Ray Society, 1854.
Darwin, Charles, On the origin of species by means of natural selection. London, John Murray, 1859. [1st edn].
Darwin, Charles, On the various contrivances by which British and foreign orchids are fertilised by insects. London, John Murray, 1862.
Darwin, Charles, The variation of animals and plants under domestication. 2 vols, 2nd edn New York, D. Appleton & Co. 1883. [first published London, John Murray, 1868].
Darwin, Charles, The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. 2nd edn revised and augmented, London, John Murray, 1882. [first published London, John Murray, 1871].
Darwin, Charles, The origin of species by means of natural selection. 6th edn London, John Murray, 1872.
Darwin, Charles, The expression of the emotions in man and animals. London, John Murray, 1872.
Darwin, Charles, The movements and habits of climbing plants. 2nd edn London, John Murray, 1875.
Darwin, Charles, Insectivorous plants. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1875. [first published London, John Murray, 1875].
Darwin, Charles, The effects of cross and self-fertilisation in the vegetable kingdom. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1892. [first published London, John Murray, 1876].
Darwin, Charles, The different forms of flowers on plants of the same species. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1896. [first published London, John Murray, 1877].
Darwin, Charles, The power of movement in plants. London, John Murray, 1880.
Darwin, Charles, The formation of vegetable mould, through the action of worms. Eighth thousand (corrected) London, John Murray, 1883. [first published London, John Murray, 1881].
Darwin, Charles, The foundations of the Origin of Species: Two essays written in 1842 and 1844 by Charles Darwin, Francis Darwin ed., Cambridge, 1909.
Darwin, Charles, 'Geology', in John F.W. Herschel ed., A Manual of scientific enquiry; prepared for the use of Her Majesty's Navy: and adapted for travellers in general. London, 1849.
Darwin, Charles, 'Recollections by Charles Darwin', in Leonard Jenyns, Memoir of the Rev. John Stevens Henslow. London, 1862, pp. 51-55.
Darwin, Charles, 'Prefatory notice', to A. Kerner, Flowers and their unbidden guests. Translated, revised and edited by W. Ogle. London, 1878.
Darwin, Charles, Preface and 'a preliminary notice' to Ernst Krause, Erasmus Darwin. Translated from the German by W.S. Dallas. London, John Murray, 1879.
Darwin, Charles, 'Prefatory notice' to August Weismann, Studies in the Theory of Descent. Translated and edited by Raphael Meldola. London, 1880.
Darwin, Charles, 'A letter (1876) on the 'Drift' near Southampton', in James Geikie, Prehistoric Europe: a geological sketch. London, 1881.
Darwin, Charles, 'A posthumous essay on instinct' in George John Romanes, Mental evolution in animals: with a posthumous essay on instinct by Charles Darwin. London, Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., 1883.
Darwin, Charles, 'Prefatory notice', to Hermann Müller, The Fertilisation of Flowers. Translated and edited by D'Arcy W. Thompson. London, 1883.
Darwin, Charles, 'Über die Wege der Hummelmännchen', trans. by Ernst Krause in his, Gesammelte kleinere Schriften von Charles Darwin. Leipzig, 1886.
[note: letters in periodicals are not listed separately here.]
Darwin, Francis ed., The life and letters of Charles Darwin. 2 vols. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1905. [first published London, John Murray, 1887].
Darwin, Francis & A.C. Seward eds., More letters of Charles Darwin. 2 vols. London, John Murray, 1903.
Darwin, Charles, Letters to Professor Henslow, read by him at the meeting of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, held November 16, 1835. [Cambridge, Privately printed, 1835].
Darwin, Charles, 'A letter (1876) on the 'Drift' near Southampton', in James Geikie, Prehistoric Europe: a geological sketch. London, 1881.
FitzRoy, Robert, and Darwin, Charles, 'A Letter, Containing Remarks on the moral State of Tahiti, New Zealand, &c.', South African Christian Recorder, 2, 1836, pp. 221-238. [Digitization forthcoming]
Darwin, Charles, 'Notes upon the Rhea Americana', Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, (5) 1837, pp. 35-36.
Darwin, Charles, 'Remarks upon the habits of the genera Geospiza, Camarhynchus, Cactornis, and Certhidea of Gould', Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, (5) 10 May 1837, p. 49.
Darwin, Charles, 'Observations of proofs of recent elevation on the coast of Chili, made during the survey of His Majesty's ship Beagle, commanded by Capt. Fitzroy', Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 2(48) 1837, pp. 446-449.
Darwin, Charles, 'A sketch of the Deposits containing extinct Mammalia in the neighbourhood of the Plata', Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 2(51) 1837, pp. 542-544.
Darwin, Charles, 'On certain areas of elevation and subsidence in the Pacific and Indian oceans, as deduced from the study of Coral Formations', Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 2(51) 1837, pp. 552-554.
Darwin, Charles, 'On the Formation of Mould', Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 2(52) 1838, pp. 574-576.
Darwin, Charles, 'Geological Notes made during a survey of the East and West Coasts of South America in the years 1832, 1833, 1834, and 1835; with an account of a transverse section of the Cordilleras of the Andes between Valparaiso and Mendoza' Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 2, 1838, pp. 210-212.
Darwin, Charles, 'On the connexion of certain volcanic phænomena, and on the formation of mountain-chains and volcanos, as the effects of continental elevations', Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 2(56) 1838, pp. 654-660.
Darwin, Charles, 'Note on a Rock seen on an Iceberg in 61° South Latitude', The Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London, 9, 1839, pp. 528-529.
Darwin, Charles, 'Observations on the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy, and of other parts of Lochaber in Scotland, with an attempt to prove that they are of marine origin', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1839, pp. 39-81.
Darwin, Charles, 'On the Connexion of certain Volcanic Phenomena in South America; and on the Formation of Mountain Chains and Volcanos, as the Effect of the same Power by which Continents are elevated.', Transactions of the Geological Society of London,(2)53, 1840, pp. 601-631.
Darwin, Charles, 'On the formation of mould', Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 5(3), 1840, pp. 505-509.
Darwin, Charles, 'On the distribution of the erratic boulders and on the contemporaneous unstratified deposits of South America', Transactions of the Geological Society of London, (2)6(2) 1841, pp. 415-431.
Darwin, Charles, 'On a Remarkable Bar of Sandstone off Pernambuco, on the Coast of Brazil', London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 19, 1841, pp. 257-60.
Darwin, Charles, 'Humble-Bees', Gardeners' Chronicle, no. 34, 21 August 1841, p. 550.
Darwin, Charles, 'Notes on the Effects Produced by the Ancient Glaciers of Caernarvonshire, and on the Boulders Transported by Floating Ice', London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 21, 1842, pp. 180-88.
Darwin, Charles, 'Double flowers—their origin', Gardeners' Chronicle, 9 September 1843, p. 628.
Darwin, Charles, et al, 'Report of a committee appointed "to consider of the rules by which the nomenclature of zoology may be established on a uniform and permanent basis"', Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science for 1842, 1843, pp. 105-121.
Darwin, Charles, 'Remarks on the preceding paper, in a Letter from Charles Darwin, Esq., to Mr. Maclaren', Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal xxxiv. 1843, pp. 47-50. [The "preceding" paper is: 'On Coral Islands and Reefs as described by Mr. Darwin. By Charles Maclaren'].
Darwin, Charles, 'On the origin of mould', Gardeners' Chronicle, 6 April 1844, p. 218.
Darwin, Charles, 'Manures, and Steeping Seeds', Gardeners' Chronicle, 8 June 1844, p. 380.
Darwin, Charles, 'Variegated Leaves', Gardeners' Chronicle, 14 September 1844, p. 621.
Darwin, Charles, 'What is the Action of Common Salt on Carbonate of Lime?', Gardeners' Chronicle, 14 September 1844, pp. 628-29.
Darwin, Charles, 'Observations on the Structure and Propagation of the genus Sagitta', Annals and Magazine of Natural History, xiii. 1844, pp. 1-6.
Darwin, Charles, 'Brief descriptions of several Terrestrial Planariae, and of some remarkable Marine Species, with an Account of their Habits', Annals and Magazine of Natural History, xiv. 1844, pp. 241-251.
Darwin, Charles, 'An Account of the Fine Dust which Often Falls on Vessels in the Atlantic Ocean', Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, pt. 1, 2, 1846, pp. 26-30.
Darwin, Charles, 'On the Geology of the Falkland Islands', Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, pt. 1, 2, 1846, pp. 267-74.
Darwin, Charles, 'Origin of Saliferous Deposits: Salt-Lakes of Patagonia and La Plata', Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, pt. 2, 2, 1846, pp. 127-28.
Darwin, Charles, [review of] 'Waterhouse's 'Natural History of the Mammalia', Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 1847, xix. pp. 53-6.
Darwin, Charles, 'Salt', Gardeners' Chronicle, 6 March 1847, pp. 157-58.
Darwin, Charles, 'On the Transportal of Erratic Boulders from a Lower to a Higher Level', Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 4, 1848, pp. 315-23.
Darwin, Charles, 'On British Fossil Lepadidæ', The Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 6, 1850, pp. 439-440.
Darwin, Charles, 'Extracts from Letters to the General Secretary, on the Analogy of the Structure of Some Volcanic Rocks with That of Glaciers', Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 2, 1851, pp. 17-18.
Darwin, Charles, 'Bucket Ropes for Wells', Gardeners' Chronicle, 10 January 1852, p. 22.
Darwin, Charles, 'On the power of Icebergs to make rectilinear, uniformly-directed Grooves across a Submarine Undulatory Surface', London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, x, 1855, pp. 96-98.
Darwin, Charles, 'Does Sea-Water Kill Seeds?', Gardeners' Chronicle, 14 April 1855, p. 242.
Darwin, Charles, 'Does Sea-Water Kill Seeds?', Gardeners' Chronicle, 26 May 1855, pp. 356-57.
Darwin, Charles, 'Nectar-Secreting Organs of Plants', Gardeners' Chronicle, 21 July 1855, p. 487.
Darwin, Charles, 'Shell Rain in the Isle of Wight', Gardeners' Chronicle, 3 November 1855, pp. 726-27.
Darwin, Charles, 'Vitality of Seeds'. Gardeners' Chronicle, 17 November 1855, p. 758.
Darwin, Charles, 'Effect of Salt-Water on the Germination of Seeds', Gardeners' Chronicle, 1 December 1855, p. 789.
Darwin, Charles, 'Longevity of Seeds', Gardeners' Chronicle, 29 December 1855, p. 854.
Darwin, Charles, 'Seedling Fruit Trees', Gardeners' Chronicle, 29 December 1855 p. 854.
Darwin, Charles, 'Effect of Salt-Water on the Germination of Seeds', Gardeners' Chronicle, 24 November 1855, p. 773.
Darwin, Charles, 'Cross Breeding', Gardeners' Chronicle, no. 49, 6 December 1856, p. 806.
Darwin, Charles, 'Hybrid Dianths', Gardeners' Chronicle, no. 10, 7 March 1857, p. 155.
Darwin, Charles, 'Mouse-coloured Breed of Ponies', Gardeners' Chronicle, no. 24, 13 June 1857 p. 427.
Darwin, Charles, 'The Subject of Deep Wells', Gardeners' Chronicle, no. 30, 25 July 1857, p. 518.
Darwin, Charles, 'Bees and Fertilisation of Kidney Beans'. Gardeners' Chronicle, 24 October 1857, p. 725.
Darwin, Charles, 'Productiveness of Foreign Seed', Gardeners'Chronicle, no. 46, 14 November 1857, p. 779.
Darwin, Charles, 'On the Action of Sea-Water on the Germination of Seeds', Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society, Botany, l, 1857, pp. 130-40.
Darwin, Charles, & Alfred Russel Wallace, 'On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection', Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society, Zoology, 20 Aug. 1858, 3, pp. 45-62.
Darwin, Charles, 'On the Agency of Bees in the Fertilisation of Papilionaceous Flowers, and on the Crossing of Kidney Beans', Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 3rd series ii. 1858, pp. 459-465.
Darwin, Charles, 'Public Natural History Collections', Gardeners' Chronicle, no. 48, 27 November 1858 p. 861.
Darwin, Charles, 'Cross-bred Plants', Gardeners' Chronicle, no. 3, 21 January 1860 p. 49.
Darwin, Charles, 'Do the Tineina or other Small Moths Suck Flowers, and if so what Flowers?', Entomologist's Weekly Intelligencer 8, 1860, p. 103.
Darwin, Charles, 'Natural Selection', Gardeners' Chronicle, no. 16, 21 April 1860, pp. 362-63.
Darwin, Charles, 'Fertilisation of British Orchids by Insect Agency', Gardeners'Chronicle, no. 23, 9 June 1860, p. 528.
Darwin, Charles, 'Note on the achenia of Pumilio Argyrolepis', Gardeners' Chronicle, 5 January 1861, p. 4.
Darwin, Charles, 'Fertilisation of British Orchids by Insect Agency', Gardeners' Chronicle, no. 6, 9 February 1861, p. 122.
Darwin, Charles, 'Phenomena in the Cross-breeding of Plants', Journal of Horticulture and Cottage Gardener, 14 May 1861, 1, pp. 112.
Darwin, Charles, 'On the Two Forms, or Dimorphic Condition, in the Species of Primula, and on their remarkable Sexual Relations', Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society, Botany, 6, 1862, pp. 77-96.
Darwin, Charles, 'On the Three remarkable Sexual Forms of Catasetum tridentatum, an Orchid in the Possession of the Linnean Society', Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society, Botany, 6, 1862, pp. 151-57.
Darwin, Charles, 'Cross-breeding in Plants: Fertilisation of Leschenaultia formosa', Journal of Horticulture and Cottage Gardener, 28 May 1861, 1, p. 151.
Darwin, Charles, 'Fertilisation of Vincas', Gardeners' Chronicle, 15 June 1861, pp. 552, 831, 832.
Darwin, Charles, 'Cause of the Variation of Flowers', Journal of Horticulture and Cottage Gardener, 18 June 1861, 1, p. 211.
Darwin, Charles, 'Fertilization of Orchids', Gardeners' Chronicle, no. 37, 14 September 1861, p. 831.
Darwin, Charles, 'Peas', Gardeners' Chronicle, no. 45, 8 November 1862 p. 1052.
Darwin, Charles, 'Cross-breeds of Strawberries', Journal of Horticulture and Cottage Gardener, 25 November 1862, 3, p. 672.
Darwin, Charles, 'Variations Effected by Cultivation', Journal of Horticulture and Cottage Gardener, 2 December 1862, 3, p. 696.
Darwin, Charles, 'Fertilisation of Orchids', Journal of Horticulture and Cottage Gardener, 31 March 1863, 4, p. 237.
Darwin, Charles, 'The Doctrine of Heterogeny and Modification of Species', Athenaeum. Journal of Literature, Science, and the Fine Arts, no. 1852, 25 April 1863, pp. 554-55.
Darwin, Charles, 'Origin of Species', Athenaeum. Journal of Literature, Science, and the Fine Arts, no. 1854, 9 May 1863, p. 617.
Darwin, Charles, 'On the Thickness of the Pampean Formation, Near Buenos Ayres', Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 19, 1863, pp. 68-71.
Darwin, Charles, 'Appearance of a Plant in a Singular Place', Gardeners' Chronicle, no. 33, 15 August 1863, p. 773.
Darwin, Charles, 'Vermin and Traps', Gardeners' Chronicle, no. 35, 29 August 1863, pp. 821-22.
Darwin, Charles, 'On the so-called "Auditory-sac" of Cirripedes', Natural History Review, 1863, pp. 115-116.
Darwin, Charles, 'A review of Mr. Bates' paper on 'Mimetic Butterflies.'', Natural History Review, 1863, pp. 219-224.
Darwin, Charles, 'On the Existence of Two Forms, and on Their Reciprocal Sexual Relation, in Several Species of the Genus Linum', Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society (Botany) 7, 1864, pp. 69-83.
Darwin, Charles, 'Ancient Gardening', Gardeners' Chronicle, no. 41, 8 October 1864, p. 965.
Darwin, Charles, 'On the Sexual Relations of the Three Forms of Lythrum salicaria', Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society, Botany, 8, 1865, pp. 169-96.
Darwin, Charles, 'On the Movement and Habits of Climbing Plants', Journal of the Linnaean Society of London (Botany), 9, 1865, pp. 1-118. [Digitization forthcoming].
Darwin, Charles, 'Partial Change of Sex in Unisexual Flowers', Gardeners' Chronicle, no. 6, 10 February 1866, p. 127.
Darwin, Charles, 'Oxalis Bowei', Gardeners' Chronicle, no. 32, 11 August 1866 p. 756.
Darwin, Charles, 'Cross-fertilising Papilionaceous Flowers', Gardeners' Chronicle, no. 32, 11 August 1866, p. 756.
Darwin, Charles, 'Fertilisation of Cypripediums', Gardeners' Chronicle, no. 14, 6 April 1867, p. 350.
Darwin, Charles, 'Note on the Common Broom', in George Henslow, 'Note on the Structure of Indigofera, as Apparently Offering Facilities for the Intercrossing of Distinct Flowers,' Journal of the Linnean Society, Botany, 9, 1867, p. 358.
Darwin, Charles, '[Inquiry about Proportional Number of Males and Females Born to Domestic Animals]', Gardeners' Chronicle, no. 7, 15 February 1868, p. 160.
Darwin, Charles, 'On the Character and Hybrid-like Nature of the Offspring from the Illegitimate Unions of Dimorphic and Trimorphic Plants', Journal of the Linnean Society, Botany, 10, 1868, pp. 393-437.
Darwin, Charles, 'On the Specific Difference between Primula veris, Brit. F. (var. officinalis of Linn.), P. vulgaris, Brit. Fl. (var. acaulis, Linn.), and P. elatior, Jacq.; and on the Hybrid Nature of the common Oxlip. With Supplementary Remarks on naturally-produced Hybrids in the genus Verbascum', Journal of the Linnean Society, Botany, 10, 1868, pp. 437-454.
Darwin, Charles, 'Queries about Expression for Anthropological Inquiry', Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution . . . for the Year 1867. Senate Mis. doc. no. 86, 1868, p. 324.
Darwin, Charles, 'Hedgehogs', Hardwicke's Science-Gossip: An Illustrated Medium of Interchange and Gossip for Students and Lovers of Nature, 1 Dec. 1868. p. 280.
Darwin, Charles, 'The Formation of Mould by Worms', Gardeners' Chronicle, no. 20, 15 May 1869 p. 530.
Darwin, Charles, 'Pangenesis: Mr. Darwin's Reply to Professor Delpino', Scientific Opinion: A Weekly Record of Scientific Progress at Home & Abroad, 2, 1869, p. 426.
Darwin, Charles, 'Origin of Species', Athenaeum. Journal of Literature, Science, and the Fine Arts, no. 2174, 26 June 1869, p. 861.
Darwin, Charles, 'Origin of Species', Athenaeum. Journal of Literature, Science, and the Fine Arts, no. 2177, 17 July 1869, p. 82.
Darwin, Charles, 'Notes on the Fertilization of Orchids', Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 4th series, iv. 1869, pp. 141-159.
Darwin, Charles, 'The Fertilisation of Winter-flowering Plants', Nature, 1 November 1869, vol. i. p. 85.
Darwin, Charles, 'Note on the Habits of the Pampas Woodpecker', Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1870, pp. 705-706.
Darwin, Charles, 'Pangenesis', Nature, 27 April 1871, vol. iii. p. 502.
Darwin, Charles, 'A new view of Darwinism', Nature, 6 July 1871, vol. iv. p. 180.
Darwin, Charles, 'Fertilisation of Leschenaultia', Gardeners' Chronicle, 9 September 1871, p. 1166.
Darwin, Charles, 'A Letter from Mr. Darwin', Index, vol. 2, 23 December 1871, p. 404.
Darwin, Charles, 'Bree on Darwinism', Nature, 8 August 1872, vol. vi. p. 279.
Darwin, Charles, 'Inherited Instinct', Nature, 13 February 1873, vol. vii. p. 281.
Darwin, Charles, 'Perception in the Lower Animals', Nature, 13 March 1873, vol. vii. p. 360.
Darwin, Charles, 'Origin of certain instincts', Nature, 3 April 1873, vol. vii. p. 417.
Darwin, Charles, 'Habits of Ants', Nature, 24 July 1873, vol. viii. p. 244.
Darwin, Charles, 'On the Males and Complemental Males of Certain Cirripedes, and on Rudimentary Structures', Nature, 25 September 1873, vol. viii. pp. 431-2.
Darwin, Charles, 'Recent researches on Termites and Honey-bees', Nature, 19 February 1874, vol. ix. p. 308.
Darwin, Charles, 'Fertilisation of the Fumariaceae', Nature, 16 April 1874, vol. ix. p. 460.
Darwin, Charles, 'Flowers of the Primrose destroyed by Birds', Nature, 23 April 1874, vol. ix. p. 482.
Darwin, Charles, 'Flowers of the Primrose destroyed by Birds', Nature, 14 May 1874, vol. x. pp. 24-5.
Darwin, Charles, '[A Communication on Irritability of Pinguicula]', Gardeners' Chronicle, vol. 2, 4 July 1874, p. 15.
Darwin, Charles, 'Cherry Blossoms', Nature, 11 May 1876, vol. xiv. p. 28.
Darwin, Charles, 'Sexual Selection in relation to Monkeys', Nature, 2 November 1876, vol. xv. p. 18. Reprinted as a supplement to the Descent of Man, 1871.
Darwin, Charles, 'Fritz Müller on Flowers and Insects', Nature, November 29, 1876, vol. xvii. p. 78.
Darwin, Charles, 'Holly Berries', Gardeners' Chronicle, vol. 7, 6 January 1877, p. 19.
Darwin, Charles, 'The Scarcity of Holly Berries and Bees', Gardeners' Chronicle, 20 January 1877, p. 83.
Darwin, Charles, 'Note on Fertilisation of Plants', Gardeners' Chronicle, 24 February 1877, p. 246.
Darwin, Charles, 'Testimoninial to Mr. Darwin-Evolution in the Netherlands-with a letter by Darwin', Nature, 8 March 1877, vol. 15, pp. 410-12.
Darwin, Charles, 'A biographical sketch of an infant', Mind, July 1877, pp. 285-294.
Darwin, Charles, 'The Contractile Filaments of the Teasel', Nature, 23 August 1877, vol. 16. p. 339.
Darwin, Charles, 'Growth under Difficulties, Gardeners' Chronicle, vol. 8, 29 December 1877, p. 805.
Darwin, Charles, 'Transplantation of Shells', Nature, 30 May 1878, pp. 120-1.
Darwin, Charles, 'Rats and Water-Casks', Nature, 27 March vollume xix. p. 481.
Darwin, Charles, 'Fertility of Hybrids from the common and Chinese Goose', Nature, 1 January vol. xxi. p. 207.
Darwin, Charles, 'The Sexual Colours of certain Butterflies', Nature, 8 January 1880, vol xxi. p. 237.
Darwin, Charles, 'The Omori Shell Mounds', Nature, 15 April 1880, vol. xxi p. 561.
Darwin, Charles, 'Sir Wyville Thomson and Natural Selection', Nature, 11 November 1880, vol. xxiii. p. 32.
Darwin, Charles, 'Black Sheep', Nature, 30 December 1880 vol. xxiii. p. 193.
Darwin, Charles, 'Movements of Plants', Nature, 3 March 1881 vol. xxiii. p. 409.
Darwin, Charles, 'Mr. Darwin on Vivisection', British Medical Journal, 1, 1881, p. 660.
Darwin, Charles, 'Mr. Darwin on Vivisection', Times, 22 April 1881.
Darwin, Charles, 'The Movements of Leaves', Nature, 28 April 1881, vol. xxiii pp. 603-4.
Darwin, Charles, 'Inheritance', Nature, 21 July 1881 vol. xxiv. p. 257.
Darwin, Charles, 'Leaves injured at Night by Free Radiation', Nature, 15 September 1881, vol. xxiv. p. 459.
Darwin, Charles, 'A Letter to Mrs. Emily Talbot on the Mental and Bodily Development of Infants', Nature, 13 October 1881, vol. xxiv p. 565.
Darwin, Charles, 'The Parasitic Habits of Molothrus', Nature, 17 November 1881, vol. xxv. pp. 51-2.
Darwin, Charles, 'Preliminary notice' in W. van Dyck, 'On the Modification of a Race of Syrian Street-Dogs by Means of Sexual Selection: With a Preliminary Notice by Charles Darwin', Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, no. 25, 1882, pp. 367-70.
Darwin, Charles, 'On the Dispersal of Freshwater Bivalves', Nature, 6 April 1882, vol. xxv. pp. 529-530.
Darwin, Charles, 'The Action of Carbonate of Ammonia on the Roots of Certain Plants', Journal of the Linnean Society (Botany) 19, 1882, pp. 239-61.
Darwin, Charles, 'The Action of Carbonate of Ammonia on Chlorophyll-Bodies', Journal of the Linnean Society (Botany) 19, 1882, pp. 262-84.
Darwin, Francis, ed., The foundations of the Origin of Species: Two essays written in 1842 and 1844 by Charles Darwin. Cambridge, 1909.
Barrett, Paul H., Metaphysics, Materialism, and the Evolution of Mind: Early Writings of Charles Darwin. Transcribed and Annotated by Paul H. Barrett. With a Commentary by Howard E. Gruber. Chicago, 1980.
Barlow, Nora ed., The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882. With original omissions restored. 1958.
Darwin, Charles, Charles Darwin's Notebooks, 1836-1844, Cambridge University Press. 1987. (Also published as: Charles Darwin's Notebooks, 1836-1844: Geology, Transmutation of Species, Metaphysical Enquiries. London: Ithaca, N.Y., British Museum (Natural History); Cornell University Press, 1987. [Contains: previously published notebooks B, C, D, and E (1837-1839), M and N (1838-1840), "Red Notebook" (1835-1837), "Old and Useless Notes" (1838-1840), and "Abstract of Macculloch" (1838). Previously unpublished notebooks are: A (1837-1839) on geology, the "Glen Roy Notebook" (1838), the "Torn Apart Notebook" (1839-1841); seven "Summer 1842" sheets; "Zoological Notes, Edinburgh Notebook" (1837-1839); and "Questions and Experiments" (1839-1844).]
Darwin, Charles, Charles Darwin's Beagle Diary. Cambridge; New York, Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Darwin, Charles, The Red Notebook of Charles Darwin. London: Ithaca, British Museum (Natural History); Cornell University Press, 1980.
Darwin, Charles, Charles Darwin's Natural Selection: Being the Second Part of his Big Species Book Written from 1856 to 1858. London; New York, Cambridge University Press, 1975.
Darwin, Charles, The Correspondence of Charles Darwin. ed. by Frederick Burkhardt, S. Smith et al. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, (1985-).
di Gregorio, Mario A. with of N. W. Gill eds., Charles Darwin's Marginalia. 2 Vols. New York: Garland Publishing, 1989.
Keynes, R. ed., Charles Darwin's : zoology notes & specimen lists from H.M.S. Beagle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Its not the disagreement that makes you look angry, its the anger.DAMN, that was a great post. I wish I had said that. I concur 100%And what shall we make of someone who sees anger...oh, just about everywhere? I have to admit, it's an ingeniously self-fulfilling prophecy - post the article on a hair-trigger, ready and waiting for even the slightest hint of offense, and sure enough, you find it every time. What's even better is when we post an article that paints some segment of the forum as somehow being akin to gay Nazis, and then we're shocked - shocked, I tell you! - when that segment reacts negatively to such a comparison.
Don't patronize me.
Please. You hardly have grounds to complain on that score. You throw a bomb into the room, and then you have the temerity to actually act surprised when it goes off. You must seriously think everyone here is pretty damn stupid not to see right through that kind of thing. You came in spoiling for a fight, and you got it. Do not presume to patronize me, sir, by pretending otherwise.
I've lost count of the number of times the "evolution critics" have tried to play that childish game, but they sure are awfully fond of it.
You lost me here. What is the test of "God left it looking like that?"
Wow. like a Cheshire Cat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.