Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 6 Oct 2004 07:01:11 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> > Now, imagine how those who read Darwin or Lyell must have reacted after a
>> lifetime of assuming that the earth was 6000 years old. Some wrested
>> themselves away from an older way of thinking, others did not. To
>>some, like
>> Huxley, Darwin's book came as a revelation.
>
>Actually, quite a few people before them, including some
>malacological names such as Cuvier, Lamarck, and William Smith,
>thought the earth was quite old. Although there were a few
>reactionaries, in general old-earth views met with little difficulty
>in the 1600's to 1800's.
>The distinct faunas of fossil mollusks in different layers were
>important to Lyell and his predecessors in recognizing evidence for
>a long sequence of events in earth history.
The concept of evolution predated Darwin. Darwin was simply the
person who provided a plausible explanation of it's mechanism.
We should note that the full title of Darwin's book was:
"On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,
or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
--
Ed Foster
[log in to unmask]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|