1. Darwin’s book seems (IMHO) more about animal adaptation to environmental stresses and natural selection producing offspring more capable of living with those stresses. His discussion of animal husbandry and, through selective breeding, a production of animals less capable to survive but that have certain desirable traits (i.e. Dairy Cows, and wool producing sheep). Certainly not Evolution, but rather natural (as opposed to genetic manipulation) selection of favorable genetic properties of a species to produce desirable offspring.
While I disagree with both sides of argument vis-à-vis “The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes”, I believe that “The Origin of Species” is best discussed over my preferred libation “The Twos Cocktail”. I also predict that no definite conclusion would be reached in a single sitting and would require future sessions.
2. As for Pythagoras, I tend to treat his “Theorem” more as a posited Axiom like Euclid did. Then back to the “Twos” for weighty debate.
i feel that sometimes natural selection is not so much the survival of the fittest as it is having been in the right place at the right time. Like sitting on a mountaintop (or an ark) when the whole world is flooded. That kind of thing.
I never miss an opportunity to post a link to this video whenever Darwin comes up. This is the best argument against evolution I have seen. Well, besides the Bible where it says God created it all.
2. As for Pythagoras, I tend to treat his “Theorem” more as a posited Axiom like Euclid did. Then back to the “Twos” for weighty debate.
*********************************************************************************
I gave up on theorems when I encountered Non-Euclidean Geometry, which stated that parallel lines meet at infinity.
From then on, I just studied to pass the tests. I had 40 hrs. of math when I graduated-9 of those were dual enrollment graduate classes.
Eventually, I went back to study business/finance/accounting which made a lot more sense to me. Ha.