Сотворил ли Господь « человека по образу Нашему [и] по подобию Нашему»?

[Elf18]

А, вы точно не выдумываете?
Может приведете ссылку подтверждающую это?

Естестесвенно выдумаваю

https://gtmarket.ru/laboratory/basis/5740/5750

Естественная хронология работы Дарвина над теорией происхождения видов позволяет выделить в её генезисе три очерченных выше периода достаточно однозначно:

1. Зарождение 18311836 годы (совпадает с путешествием на «Бигле» и заканчивается созданием первой «теории» видов).
2. Оформление 18361842 годы (работа над теорией, отраженная в основном в записных книжках 18371838 годов и очерке 1842 года).
3. Развитие 18421858 годы (работа над очерком 1844 года и над объёмным трудом, извлечением из которого стал текст «Происхождения видов»).

Из текста записных книжек 1836 году ясно видно, что Дарвин находил место и для новых актов творения, сосуществующих с процессом перехода видов друг в друга.
Если сосредоточить внимание только на той части записей, в которой разрабатывается эволюционная проблематика, то её анализ показывает, что Дарвин конструирует в ней теоретический механизм перехода (трансмиссии)

Суммируя отдельные дарвиновские замечания, можно представить идеальный объект трансмиссионной теории следующим образом.

Виды «сотворены на определённый срок», и их появление и гибель не зависят от «изменения обстоятельств», то есть от чего-то «внешнего» им как таковым. Поэтому «в вымирании видов нет ничего более удивительного, чем (в смерти) особей».
Как древнейшие, так и современные виды «переходят» друг в друга, то есть изменяются. Близкие виды имеют «общего предка».
Переход одних видов в другие есть «не постепенное изменение, или перерождение (degeneration), под влиянием обстоятельств; если один вид изменяется в другой, то это должно происходить путём скачка, иначе вид может погибнуть».
«Каждый (вид имеет) свои собственные границы (распространения) и характерные признаки».

Второй период разработки концепции биологической эволюции Дарвина начинается сразу же вслед за возвращением его в Англию после кругосветной экспедиции. Уже в марте 1937 года он начинает специальную записную книжку, целиком посвящённую проблеме происхождения видов и названную им чуть позже (в 1838 году) «Первой записной книжкой о трансмутации видов». Отдельные замечания он заносит и в старые записные книжки
Основная предметная тема записных книжек о трансмутации это тема вариативности, появления новых видов как результата изменения видов, являющихся их «предковой формой

В записных книжках о «трансмутации» фактически содержатся два различных взгляда на процесс изменения и происхождения видов, используются два понятия для его представления. Это различие можно выразить в рамках со- и противо-поставления «изменчивость изменяемость», где изменчивость есть процесс, являющийся причиной самого себя (causa sui), самоизменение, в котором
процесс и механизм совпадают, изменяемость же, напротив, обусловлена некоей «внешней» причиной и предполагает механизм (то есть другой, сущностный процесс), вызывающий изменение.


Изменчивость это исходная идея «теории трансмиссии» видов. Неоднократно используется она и в записных книжках по трансмутации видов [COLOR=#CC3333 !important]80.[/COLOR]
Дарвин связывает в этом теоретическом контексте изменчивость с самим существованием живого, придаёт ей статус центрального жизненного процесса, условия и способа существования, безусловного атрибута жизни как таковой. «Каждый вид изменяется. Он должен прогрессировать. Человек улучшает [свои] представления. Простейшее не может избежать того, чтобы не стать более сложным, и если мы обратимся к первичному происхождению, то должно было [иметь место] прогрессивное развитие» (Дарвин 1959 год, с. 94). Он примеряет возможность придания изменчивости статуса закона (природы) [COLOR=#CC3333 !important]81.[/COLOR]
При всём при том Дарвин не удовлетворяется представлением процесса видообразования в виде спонтанной изменчивости видов. Во всяком случае, он не готов считать подобное представление достаточным и окончательным. Записные книжки о трансмутации фиксируют дарвиновские попытки применения в теоретической схеме видообразования идеи изменяемости видов, вызванной какой-то, пока ещё неизвестной, причиной [COLOR=#CC3333 !important]82.[/COLOR]
Его смущало противоречие между спонтанным характером подобного видообразования и явно целесообразным, приспособительным характером видовых признаков. «Должны существовать [какие-то] законы изменения, случай никогда не мог бы произвести разновидности» (Дарвин 1959 год, с. 69).
Каков же идеальный объект трансмутационной теории в отличие от идеального объекта теории трансмиссионной?
Вполне очевидно, что, если представления, выработанные на предыдущем этапе, не были им просто отброшены, то их дальнейшее развитие должно было происходить в соответствии с новыми метапредметными установками. И он явно следует по этому пути, модифицируя принцип идеализации, регулировавший построение идеального объекта на предыдущем этапе. Если первоначально процесс перехода видов друг в друга непосредственно отождествлялся с эмпирическим многообразием видов (современных и ископаемых), то сейчас Дарвин проводит различение возможных и осуществлённых форм перехода видов.

[Веснушка]

Естестесвенно выдумаваю
https://gtmarket.ru/laboratory/basis/5740/5750

Да, вы были правы.
С трансмутацией разобрались.

[Elf18]

Transmutation of species - Wikipedia

Transmutation of species and transformism are 19th-century evolutionary ideas for the altering of one species into another that preceded Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection.^[1] The French Transformisme was a term used by Jean Baptiste Lamarck in 1809 for his theory, and other 19th century proponents of pre-Darwinian evolutionary ideas included Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Robert Grant, and Robert Chambers, the anonymous author of the book Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation.

Transmutation was one of the names commonly used for evolutionary ideas in the 19th century before Charles Darwin published On The Origin of Species (1859). Transmutation had previously been used as a term in alchemy to describe the transformation of base metals into gold. Other names for evolutionary ideas used in this period include the development hypothesis (one of the terms used by Darwin)

Однако "гипотеза развития" это тема Спенсера
в её защиту , 1852 года ( "Происхождение " Дарвина 1859)

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Development_Hypothesis

THE HAYTHORNE PAPERS.NO. II. THE DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS.In a debate upon the development hypothesis, lately narrated to me by a friend, one of the disputants was described as arguing that, as in all our experience we know of no such phenomenon as the transmutation of species, it is unphilosophical to assume that transmutation of species ever takes place. Had I been present, I think that, passing over his assertion, which is open to criticism, I should have replied that, as in all our experience we have never known a species created, it was, by his own showing, unphilosophical to assume that any species ever had been created.
Those who cavalierly reject the theory of Lamarck and his followers, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all. Like the majority of men who are born to a given belief, they demand the most rigorous proof of any adverse doctrine, but assume that their own doctrine needs none. Here we find scattered over the globe vegetable and animal organisms numbering, of the one kind (according to Humboldt), some 320,000 species, and of the other, if we include insects, some two millions of species (see Carpenter); and if to these we add the numbers of animal and vegetable species which have become extinct (bearing in mind how geological records prove that, from the earliest appearance of life down to the present time, different species have been successively replacing each other, so that the world's Flora and Fauna have completely changed many times over), we may safely estimate the number of species that have existed, and are existing on the Earth, at not less than ten millions. Well, which is the most rational theory about these ten millions of species? Is it most likely that there have been ten millions of special creations? or is it most likely that by continual modifications, due to change of circumstances, ten millions of varieties may have been produced, as varieties are being produced still? One of the two theories must be adopted. Which is most countenanced by facts?

...

But the blindness of those who think it absurd to suppose that complex organic forms may have arisen by successive modifications out of simple ones, becomes astonishing when we remember that complex organic forms are daily being thus produced. A tree differs from a seed immeasurably in every respect in bulk, in structure, in colour, in form, in specific gravity, in chemical composition; differs so greatly that no visible resemblance of any kind can be pointed out between them. Yet is the one changed in the course of a few years into the other changed so gradually, that at no moment can it be said Now the seed ceases to be, and the tree exists. What can be more widely contrasted than a newly-born child and the small, semi-transparent, gelatinous spherule constituting the human ovum? The infant is so complex in structure that a cyclopædia is needed to describe its constituent parts. The germinal vesicle is so simple that a line will contain all that can be said of it. Nevertheless a few months suffices to develop the one out of the other, and that, too, by a series of modifications so small that were the embryo examined at successive minutes not even a microscope would disclose any sensible changes. That the uneducated and the ill-educated should think the hypothesis that all races of beings, man inclusive, may in process of time have been evolved from the simplest monad, a ludicrous one, is not to be wondered at. But for the physiologist, who knows that every individual being is so evolved who knows further, that in their earliest condition the germs of all plants and animals whatever are so similar, "that there is no appreciable distinction amongst them which would enable it to be determined whether a particular molecule is the germ of a conferva or an oak, of a zoophyte or of a man" for him to make a difficulty of the matter is inexcusable. Surely, if a single structureless cell may, when subjected to certain influences, become a man in the space of twenty years, there is nothing absurd in the hypothesis that under certain other influences, a cell may in the course of millions of years give origin to the human race. The two processes are generically the same, and differ only in length and complexity.
We have, indeed, in the part taken by many scientific men in this controversy of "Law versus Miracle," a good illustration of the tenacious vitality of superstitions. Ask one of our leading geologists or physiologists whether he believes in the Mosaic account of the creation, and he will take the question as next to an insult. Either he rejects the narrative entirely, or understands it in some vague non-natural sense. Yet one part of it he unconsciously adopts; and that, too, literally. For, whence has he got this notion of "special creations," which he thinks so reasonable, and fights for so vigorously? Evidently he can trace it back to no other source than this myth which be repudiates. He has not a single fact in nature to cite in proof of it; nor is he prepared with any chain of abstract reasoning by which it may be established. Catechise him, and he will be forced to confess that the notion was put into his mind in childhood as part of a story which he now thinks absurd. And why, after rejecting all the rest of the story, he should strenuously defend this last remnant of it as though he had received it on valid authority, he would be puzzled to say.

[Elf18]

О естественном отборе до Дарвине
Weltmurksbude: Natural selection before Darwin and Wallace
Дидро
Denis Diderot, in 1749, anonymously published the Lettre sur les aveugles. The pages 77-112 therein contain a passage of which I give the English translation by Margaret Jourdain (1916, pp. 111-112). The scene is a talk between a blind philosopher Saounderson and a clergyman, Mr. Holmes, summoned to the philosopher's deathbed:

For instance, I may ask you and Leibniz and Clarke and Newton, who told you that in the first instance of the formation some were not headless and others footless?
I might affirm that such an one had no stomach, another no intestines, that some which seemed to deserve a long duration from their possession of a stomach, palate, and teeth came to an end owing to some defect in the heart or lungs; that monsters mutually destroyed one another; that all the defective combinations of matter disappeared, and that those only survived whose mechanism was not defective in any important particular and who were able to support and perpetuate themselves.

Вымирание "безголовых, безгногих монстров " эта идея идёт от Эмпедокла, потом Лукреция.


Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis (1751. Essay de Cosmologie) is, so far, the earliest source I know, in which the principle of natural selection or survival of the fittest was clearly stated. As typical for this time, however, natural selection was thought to keep the species fixed to their place in nature (we'd say niche). Natural selection was a mechanism of god's providence and thought to be mutually exclusive with species transmutation. This is why the sub-heading of this essay reads: "Which examinesthe evidence for God's existence from the Wonders of Nature."


Вымирание неприспособленных

Chance, one would say, produced an innumerable multitude of individuals; a small number found themselves constructed in such a manner that the parts of the animal were able to satisfy its needs; in another infinitely greater number, there was neither appropriateness nor order: all of these latter have perished. Animals lacking a mouth could not live; others lacking reproductive organs could not perpetuate themselves: the species we see today are but the smallest part of what blind destiny has produced.


Some translate "convenace" with "fitness" ( наиболее приспособленыый) instead of "appropriateness," in order to make the semblance clearer.

Joseph Tonwsend 1786. republished in 1817, "A Dissertation on the Poor Laws, by a well-wisher to mankind." (London: Ridgeways) seems to have inspired Thomas Mathus's (1798) Essay on the Principle of Population (see here for a separate blog post on this issue).

In it is a passage containing a short statement of natural selection (survival of the fittest). It is also highly reminiscent of later population ecological reasoning. But it is given in a context of discussing the poor laws and not organic evolution. That is, it is not proposed as a mechanism for the transformation of species. It could not possibly do so on its own without heritable variation and the other parts of the Darwinian explanatory system in place.

James Hutton 1794. "Investigation of the Principles of Knowledge and of the Progress of Reason, from Sense to Science and Philosophy." (Vol. 2, chap. 3, section 13, p. 501") reproduced in the Supplementary information to Paul N. Pearson's "In Retrospect." (2003. Nature 425, p. 665):
"

Now, this [adaptation through seminal variation and selection] will be evident, when we consider, that if an organised body is not in the situation and circumstances best adapted to its sustenance and propagation, then, in conceiving an indefinite variety among the individuals of that species, we must be assured, that, on the one hand, those which depart most from the best adapted constitution, will be the most liable to perish, while, on the other hand, those organised bodies, which most approach to the best constitution for the present circumstances, will be best adapted to continue, in preserving themselves and multiplying the individuals of their race."

Thomas R. Malthus 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population ) was a major source of inspiration for Matthew, Wallace and Darwin for their insight into the importance of natural selection in evolution.

The race of plants and the race of animals shrink under this great restrictive law. And the race of man cannot, by any efforts of reason, escape from it. Among plants and animals its effects are waste of seed, sickness, and premature death. Among mankind, misery and vice.

William Charles Wells 1813/1818. ("Two Essays: one upon single vision with two eyes; the other on dew...". Archibald Constable and Co., Edinburgh). Pages 423-437 contain An Account of a Female of the White Race of Mankind, part of whose skin resembles that of a negro; with some observations on the causes of the differences in colour and form between the white and negro races of men This has been read before the Royal Society of London in 1813, but not been published in its transactions. This is interesting because the next anticipator (Adams 1814


Joseph Adams 1814. (A Treatise on Hereditary Disease." London: J. Callow). Mind that the context is a treatise on hereditary disease meant for the general public. The public seems to have been frightened by the misconception that hereditary meant doom to the children of those who had a hereditary disease in the family. Adams anticipated many concepts of medical genetics, which would now be called recessiveness, penetrance etc. (see Weiss 2008).

In a state of nature the race of all gregarious animals is probably progressively improving, as far as is consistent with their capacity for improvement. The strongest male becomes the virgregis, and consequently, the father of most of the offspring.

Augustin Pyramus de Candolle 1820. Géographie Botanique contained the following passage:
"All the plants of a country, those of a given location, are in a state of war each. All are equipped with means of reproduction and nutrition more or less effective. The first that establish themselves by chance in a given location, tend, by the mere fact that they occupy the ground, to exclude other species: the biggest stifle the smaller; the more perennial replace those with a shorter duration; the most fertile gradually seize the space that could otherwise be filled by slower multiplying ones." (my translation)


John Claudius Loudon, 1822 ("An Encyclopaedia of Gardening." London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Brown and Green), is particularly relevant to the claim, sometimes aired, that Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Matthew (see below) because Matthew, in turn, lifted his insights from Loudon (see here).


imagine that every year an enormous quantity of seeds, produced by the existing vegetables, are spread over the surface of the globe, by the winds and other causes already mentioned, all of these seeds which fall in places suitable for their vegetation, and are not destroyed by animals, germinate and produce plants; then among these plants, the strongest, and largest, and those to which the soil is best suited, developed themselves in number and magnitude so as to choke the others. Such is the general progress of nature, and among plants, as among animals, the strong flourish at the expense of the weak. These causes have operated for such a length of time, that the greater number of species are now fixed and considered as belonging to certain soils, situations, and climates, beyond which they seldom propagate themselves otherwise than by the hands of man."


James Cowles Prichard 1826. Researches into the physical history of mankind. Second edition, Vol. 2. John and Arthur Arch, Cornhill. Spoiler: racism. Page 573:


in such a way as to produce races fitted for each mode and condition of existence. A great part of this plan of local adaptation appears to have been accomplished by the original modification of a genus into a variety of species. It has been further continued, and the same end promoted, by the ramification of a species into several varieties.


Besides, it appears probable that those local circumstances, which are most congenial to particular races, do in fact promote the appearance of those varieties which are best suited to them, or tend to give rise to their production in the breed.


Francis Corbaux 1829. ("On the laws of mortality, and the intensity of human life." The Philosophical Magazine 5: 198-205.) Corbaux formulated an idea of natural selection in an odd combination with senescence. In one passage he even wrote about the "natural selection" due to individual competition between centenaries. This does not only show that he had not fully understood that natural selection can only have an effect when working on individuals that can still reproduce and inherit their anomalies, it also proves that the next anticipator, Patrick Matthew, did not coin the term "natural selection." This is important with respect to some people who claim that Darwin plagiarized Matthew based mainly on such logomachy.


"competing amongst themselves for protracted longevity, to the exclusion of all the rest. Indeed, this natural selection of particular lives, out of a very considerable mass, repeatedly occurs among centenaries, at later periods, and according to their respective degrees of constitutional vigour; so that very little difference may appear in the probabilities of living one more year, between two individuals of whom the ages differed even to the extent of twenty years." (Corbaux 1829, p. 201)


Patrick Matthew 1831. ("On Naval Timber and Arboriculture." Edinburgh: Adam Black, Edinburgh). On my closer reading of Matthew (1831), I noticed that various scattered passages in the main text have been informed by his idea of natural selection with heritable variation. Some of these occur in Part IVcalled Notice of Authors who treat of Arboriculture, in which Matthew reviewed works of other scholars on arboriculture. That is, Matthew (1831) would head a chapter reviewing a certain scholar by, for example, The Forester's Guide, by Mr. Monteath. The running head throughout that chapter would alternate between Notice of Authors and Monteath's Forster's Guide on every other page. From my perusal, I got away with the impression that selection was a household term in the trade of tree breeding, as much as it used to be among breeders of any other kind of organism. As is well known, Darwin consulted many breeders during his years of incubating The Origin




There is a universal law in nature, tending to render every reproductive being the best suited to its condition that its kind, or that organized matter, is susceptible of, which appears intended to model the physical and mental or instinctive powers, to their highest perfection, and to continue them so. This law sustains the lion in his strength, the hare in her swiftness, and the fox in his wiles. As nature in all her modifications of life, has a power to increase far beyond what is needed to supply the place of what falls by Time's decay, those individuals who possess not the requisite strength, swiftness, hardihood, or cunning, fall prematurely without reproducing--either a prey to their natural devourers, or sinking uner disease, generally induced by want of nourishment, their place being occupied by the more perfect of their own kind, who pressing on the means of subsistenece."


Charles Lyell 1832. Although Lyell's Principles of Geology are usually taken to be on geology only, volume 2 is a book on biology rather than geology. For example, chapter 2 summarizes and dismissed Lamarck's theory of species transmutation. However, Lyell also mentioned the "struggle for existence" verbatim at the pages 55-56:
"


Edward Blyth 1835. An Attempt to classify the "Varieties" of Animals, with Observations on the marked Seasonal and other Changes which naturally take place in various British Species, and which do not constitute Varieties. (The Magazine of Natural History 8: 40-46).


and the stronger must always prevail over the weaker


so that all the young which are produced must have had their origin from one which possessed the maximum of power and physical strength; and which, consequently, in the struggle for existence, was the best able to maintain his ground, and defend himself from every enemy. In like manner, among animals which procure their food by means of their agility, strength, or delicacy of sense, the one best organised must always obtain the greatest quantity; and must, therefore, become physically the strongest, and be thus enabled, by routing its opponents, to transmit its superior qualities to a greater number of offspring.


Fennel 1836. James H. Fennel replied to Blyth's above quoted article in the Short Communicationssection of the same journal. While he did not repeat the principle of natural selection, he contradicted Blyth on the fixity of species (Magazine of Natural History 9: 647-648). Remembering that Darwin owned these volumes and scrutinized them carefully, it is clear that he put the pieces of a huge puzzle into place rather than creating the pieces of the puzzle from scratch.


Charles Naudin 1852. Published a highly important article in the Revue Horticole, that is unjustly forgotten. He anticipated much more than merely the principle of natural selection, for example, the tree-of-life metaphor (see here and here for further

We do not think that Nature has made its species in a different fashion from that in which we proceed ourselves in order to make our varieties; or better, we carried it's [Nature's] process into our practice." (p. 104)
"Such is, in our ideas, the course followed by nature; like us, it wanted to form races
appropriate for their needs; and with a relatively small number of primordial kinds, she gave birth in succession and at various times, to all plant and animal species that inhabitthe globe." (p. 104)
"Nature has operated on an immense scale and with immense resources; we, on the contrary, we do so with extremely limited means; but between its processes and ours,between his results and those we get, the difference is in any amount; between itsspecies and those we create, there are only the more and less."

Herbert Spencer 1852. ("A theory of population, deduced from the general law of animal fertility." Westminster Review 57: 468-501):
Nature secures each step in advance by a succession of trials, which are perpetually repeated, and cannot fail to be repeated, until success is achieved

[McLeoud]

Elf18

Вы ведь уже, наконец, готовы поведать нам, в чем разница между таксонами уровня инфраотряда и парвотряда. Ну и семейства заодно, прежде чем продолжать поражать нас своими познаниями в области эволюционной биологии.
Разница в том, что парвотряд это более низкий уровень.
А семейство ниже чем у парвотряда.

И все? Никакой другой разницы? Ежели так, то почему же Вы столь неоднократно настаивали на упоминании инфраотрядов и парвотрядов? Что в них такого сокровенного, что Вы не желаете видеть систематическое положение вида Homo sapiens без их упоминания? Что так привлекает овладевших Вами бесов в этих таксонах?

[Elf18]

Elf18
И все? Никакой другой разницы? Ежели так, то почему же Вы столь неоднократно настаивали на упоминании инфраотрядов и парвотрядов? Что в них такого сокровенного, что Вы не желаете видеть систематическое положение вида Homo sapiens без их упоминания? Что так привлекает овладевших Вами бесов в этих таксонах?

А ты оказывается мне ответил. Я это опять случайно заметил.
Какой ты упрямый и глупый. Ты строишь из себя мудрого горца а сам как юнец пользуешься плохо читаемым шрифтом bold вместе цитаты с автосообщением. Хотя очевидно это НЕ удобно всем и тебе тоже.

И все? Никакой другой разницы?

Да

Ежели так, то почему же Вы столь неоднократно настаивали на упоминании инфраотрядов и парвотрядов? Что в них такого сокровенного, что Вы не желаете видеть систематическое положение вида Homo sapiens без их упоминания? Что так привлекает овладевших Вами бесов в этих таксонах?

а ты бы читал тему и понял бы.
Я просил -что бы атеисты назвали себя обезьянами
и спросил почему названия человека в биологической систематике такие антропоцентричные.
А род Homo показывает что человек как бы внеэволюции.
что же ты не можешь ответить ? Чего ты все виляешь и отмалчиваешься?
Если ты такой умный каким ты себя мнишь? Твоя пауза несколько затянулась и уже выглядит как глупость.
Были вопросы о эволюционной не прогрессивности отряда приматов.
ты прочти диалог в Веснушка там все темы есть.

[McLeoud]

Elf18

И все? Никакой другой разницы?
Да

Так и зачем же тогда Вы с упорством, достойным Ovis orientalis, теребили эти таксоны, если Вам сразу указали на отрядный уровень?


Я просил -что бы атеисты назвали себя обезьянами

Ну, Вы - известный хам Может быть, поэтому атеисты пренебрегли Вашей просьбой?


и спросил почему названия человека в биологической систематике такие антропоцентричные.

А какие они должны быть? Протистоцентричные? Микотоцентричные? В качестве домашнего упражнения подумайте, почему названия кошачьих в биологической систематике фелиноцентричные, медвежьих - урсоцентричные, а быков - бовидоцентричные.


А род Homo показывает что человек как бы внеэволюции.

Разумеется, нет - ни одно название таксона вообще ничего не показывает про эволюцию.