Evolutionary fossils POOFING to dust?

[LouaiB]

So right into the point, I was talking with my friend about millions of years old fosils, and he said it's impossible, even if these bones survive decomposition (for example by being in an anaerobic place before decomposition gets it's hand on all of it), that they, and I emphasize this, they "poof into dust when you dig them up and they contact air". So, if a million year old half scull is dug up, according to him, it can't be used because it emidiately poofs into dust. I mean, is this anywhere near truth? He was using this as an argument against the fossil record of evolution. Yes, the whole record, and the RE teacher was like "I know, I know, Darwin's theory is a fraud" And while we're at it, the teacher also said that he'll bring me quotes from darwin saying that he admitted that he doesn't believe his own theory and made it up for some personal reason. I mean, I know Darwin got genetics wrong for example, but saying that his natural selection is wrong because he just made it up. I mean, I don't even care if he dreamt of it after a night of over drinking! Evolution by natural selection is proven and no quote, even by it's own finder, would change that! Plus I have my doubt on that quote of his. So bottom line, do old fossils poof when exposed to air, or in other words, when dug up? Poof instantaneously like he said? Or for the sake of argument, after a day or two? Poof before the geologists can place it in a safe condition?

[StephL]

Course it's bullshit! Refer to Fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia But while you mention it - if one doesn't find any fossils of some critter, it does not mean it didn't exist. Just lately new mammals have been discovered, having lived side by side with the dinosaurs: BBC - Earth - Early mammal fossils reveal remarkable diversity

[LouaiB]

Exactly the person I was hoping would stumble into my thread! Now, with religious people, getting the studies and facts isn't the hard part, but making them admit it's not a worldwide atheistic conspiracy of scientists (which are by the way 93% of them are pro-evolution and against intelligent design according to many studies and surveys done by Pew research center for example) against god lol. I can imagine the conversation going like: Me:" this poof thing you said isn't true" Him:"I challenge you to bring me fossils millions of years old then" Me:"I showed you before! The websites for example that I sent you by the Smithsonian's Museum! It had lots and lots of transition fossils from primates to humans!" Him:"It was obvious to the blind that they where glued and fake!" Me:"of course, they're assembled for display you moron! Not fake!" Him:"you don't know what you're talking about" I mean, where do you go with that kind of denialing person?! He is literally like that. Another example is when I was criticizing the idea of the Quran saying that salt water and fresh water don't mix, and he was like "scientists found a spot in the sea where there is fresh water that isn't mixing with sea water". And I was like "of course! That's called an underwater spring! It shoots fresh water into that spot of the sea, and it does mix, but the constant 'reloading' of fresh water, and the hard visibility of the turbulence creates the illusion of a constant spot of fresh water not mixing with the sea water" That's what's nice about us. We don't throw dogma and misconceptions of science. We embrace science and accept when we are wrong and change to the better position (which seems to be constantly pointing further and further away from religion with each new discovery. Surprise surprise ). I mean, here Muslims are so brainwashed that they ACTUALLY believe that science has DECLARED that the Quran is a true MIRACLE!! Wow, that 93% thing will surely come in handy for this! Unless, you know, they start calling Pew and the other research centers a part of the Illuminati lol! A conspiracy!!! I even remember this exact friend of mine going around school telling people that NASA found a crack covering the whole circumference of the moon, proving Mohammad's miracle of splitting the moon! I told him it's a fraud, a picture taken from an article from NASA's website of a only few hundred KM long crack on the surface of the moon (out of 10,000KM of the whole circumference of the moon) and then placed on it by the blogger a false caption of it stretching all around the moon. He (my friend) then shamelessly, and what turned out a straight lie, told me he read it himself in the NASA website. I dared him to link it for me, and of course after a week he came by and told me he actually meant that he was talking about reading it in a blog (the one i told him about) about NASA (though I clearly remember him saying "NASA's official website"), and he backed out of the whole crack around the moon thing. I wasn't surprised. He always pulls things out of his ass and also quotes me out of context on purpose! I remember one time he told everyone in the class that I said that DNA of offsprings is identical to either the mother solely or the father, and I was talking clearly back then about microbial mitosis! He does that a lot! ANYWAYS, lol I drifted so much off topic, thnx Steph, and that link does sound interesting, gonna visit it now! Mammals during the dinosoar age? Sounds like a useful discovery for evolution, a tremendously useful one!

[Sivason]

It is very hard for those who are brought up being told "if you do not believe us, you are a sinful person" This is pounded into every fiber of their belief system. Now, they grow up and everything points to the people who taught them being traggically wrong. How do you keep to "the faith" in the light of overwhelming evidence? You get two choices. Either lay aside everything your family has believed and insisted was paramount to being a good person, or put on blinders, while placing your thumbs in your ears and going " lah lah lah, I can't hear you." Pitty them and take it easy on them. they are in a tuff spot. Do you have a right to smeer it in their face that everything core to their belief system was wrong, when they are trying so hard not to have their world view shattered? Those who would argue for science do not have a dangerous amount of personal happiness and faith riding on the topic, so have nothing to loose by walking away. The same can not be said for the other side, and giving in may mean years with a counselor.

[Alric]

Ask them to explain why they would poof into dust. If he knows for a fact that it will happen he should understand why and be able to explain it. Of course that isn't true, so would be interesting to see what he says. Either he will say something incoherent or will not have any idea, or he will be explain it and you can just google search it and correct any misunderstandings he may have.

[Sivason]

Ask them to explain why they would poof into dust. If he knows for a fact that it will happen he should understand why and be able to explain it. Of course that isn't true, so would be interesting to see what he says. Either he will say something incoherent or will not have any idea, or he will be explain it and you can just google search it and correct any misunderstandings he may have. Let's see. Being Devil's advicate here: cause they is old. Old stuff crumbles to dust after even a thousand years. 'sides nuttin is over 5000 years old cause we added together all the ages of biblical guys from the begining, Godness, this should all be obvious, praise the Lord.

[Denziloe]

...fossils aren't made of bone. They're rock. You should inform your friend of this and then laugh in their face at how ignorant they are. Seriously, how conceited do you have to be to think you're capable of overthrowing hundreds of years of scientific work, when you know precisely shit-all about the subject at hand and have made no attempt to research it? Sometimes the only way to deal people like this is by shaming them.

[LouaiB]

You're definitely right there, sivason. It's just hard to stay calm when they start throwing dogma, fallacies, and scientific misconception on your face and start the insults and acting like they intellectually crushed you and saying I'm just scared of the truth. It's hard to see them as the victims when times like these come. But I'm trying to stay calm with them. Lol for example last night, I was giving my friend one of the Quran verses that said that "the night overtakes the day, and the sun goes to it's resting place". He was being very apologetic, saying it's an action of rotation around itself, then I pointed him the the verb showing the meaning of "going" and not "at" (it's hard to translate properly for you, cuz we were using an Arabic Quran as always), then he changed and said it was like "going to eat", and I was like, dude, eat is a verb. Resting place is a place. He then had nothing to say but telling me that I'm just arguing (it means in our context to just throw nonsense to continue the debate while knowing you're wrong). Trust me, it's very obvious it's an action of movement. Even the whole context of the paragraph it's in shows (falsely) how the night arrives. I mean, really, the viel of night overtakes the day. Seriously? They seriously think that the Quran is filled with scientific discoveries and miracles. Back to the previous point, if you speak Arabic, you'll know how wrong it is to consider that verse as, well as the same as 'going to eat' for example. It's not 'going to sleep' or 'going to take a shower'. It clearly shows that the sun is going somewhere at night. Other verses say that the sun has an orbit too, but apologists say "the orbit is around our galaxy's center", and they may be right, bcz it says only that the sun has an orbit, but it didn't specify around what. Anyways, update! He came back and told me that bones can survive but only underwater or in high moistures(it's funny how he always states at times like these that he had always said so about the fossils. He's the kind of person that just doesn't accept being wrong. He'll lie about his previous stance), and then was like "the fossils are still fake because the museums say that they discovered all of the dinosaur species, and it's not possible that all of them species had drowners!". I mean, really, is this even remotely true? Do they survive only if in high moisture places? I told him they survive in anaerobic places, and he was saying that the underwater counts too, and it's the only way. I'm seriously becoming very stressed because of this. To be honest with you guys, I worry about hell myself. I always worry that "what if one of the hells is true?! It's eternal torture!". Seriously, I'd like to know who's the SoB who invented the concept of hell. PS: sivason, I don't think muslims believe in a young earth. They say the bible was tempered with and is now not the true bible. Oh, but there's still lots of errors still. But, like in Christianity, the strongest weapon, and the most annoying one, that Muslims use is the interpretation of verses one. Sometimes, the interpretation becomes very twisted and unlikely, just to save from showing an error, and Muslims still say it would be the right way to interpret it. Not sometimes, many times. This annoys me a lot because I am an ex Muslim, and I'm still damaged, yeah I use the word damaged because, like Richard Dawkins said, it would have been better if I were raped as a child rather than damaged for life by the fear of eternal torture. I think I need therapy lol. Where, here?! What am I gonna tell the shrink? Tell him I don't believe in god and I need therapy from the damage I took from the monstrous religion teachings?! I always worry that one of these religious might be true. I never really live at ease. Any suggestions? Lol

[Sivason]

Know that science is not a tool of evil intended to weed out the unfaithful. That line of thought is clearly the stuff a religion would have to say in light of being proved wrong. Proved wrong. That is the thing, it is those who must hold to a belief in an infallible and literal word of God tradition, be it any one of the faiths, who can not adapt and make peace with the modern world. If they could laugh and say, "well the writers of these things did not understand many scientific things, but the message for a spiritual life is still valid" then they could keep faith and transition into the modern world. You need not be scared away from prayer or worship because so much of the religions of the world were built on false information. Make peace with God in your own non-denominational way. If you are not sure about God, pray and say I will seek truth and maybe come back to you, but the religions of man have injured me. My point is that you can tell that much of the fear added into religion is a tool of control. If they were wrong about the sun, clearly they do not know the heart of God, any more than to guess, like all of us. Live a good life by not harming others and trying to be kind. Honestly seek to find a connection with something above you. Maybe not the Muslim idea of God, but perhaps some force of goodness you need not define. Know that any great force that could create such a world will understand if you choose not to believe things that clearly have been proven wrong. Know that the people who insist these thing are facts, have proven they are not honestly authorities on God and can not tell you what God wants.

[LouaiB]

Know that science is not a tool of evil intended to weed out the unfaithful. That line of thought is clearly the stuff a religion would have to say in light of being proved wrong. Proved wrong. That is the thing, it is those who must hold to a belief in an infallible and literal word of God tradition, be it any one of the faiths, who can not adapt and make peace with the modern world. If they could laugh and say, "well the writers of these things did not understand many scientific things, but the message for a spiritual life is still valid" then they could keep faith and transition into the modern world. You need not be scared away from prayer or worship because so much of the religions of the world were built on false information. Make peace with God in your own non-denominational way. If you are not sure about God, pray and say I will seek truth and maybe come back to you, but the religions of man have injured me. My point is that you can tell that much of the fear added into religion is a tool of control. If they were wrong about the sun, clearly they do not know the heart of God, any more than to guess, like all of us. Live a good life by not harming others and trying to be kind. Honestly seek to find a connection with something above you. Maybe not the Muslim idea of God, but perhaps some force of goodness you need not define. Know that any great force that could create such a world will understand if you choose not to believe things that clearly have been proven wrong. Know that the people who insist these thing are facts, have proven they are not honestly authorities on God and can not tell you what God wants. Thank you for the advice, sivason! I truly do see that if god exists, a good one, these religions would be like an insult to his figure, and he wouldn't be upset at all just because I can't detect him. I love the approach of living a life of kindness and compassion. This is very healthy for the mind too. The idea of having a connection with a higher energy or a higher thing appeals me. I'm not sure though about the existence of a transcendence, but for me, what makes me alive and puts me in my essence is, as you might guess, the beyond worlds of creation and ecstatic experiences. Yes, I'm talking about LDing. Now I don't consider dreams to be beyond the brain, but that doesn't make it any less exciting. Well, maybe a little less exciting. I have a personal meaning for life, and I love it very much, but I do want to consider spirituality, though I don't understand it much. Is it transcendence or a phsycological thing?

[Sivason]

You cannot learn from me or anyone else what it is or should be for you. You can listen to what others feel, but you will do the exploring for yourself. Do I believe in transcendent things? Yes, I have had them more than proven to me, but that is not proof for you, that is hope at best, someone else's experience. Is it a psychological thing also? A life of doing things that bring you good feeling of self worth and a sense that you are good in nature and striving to do good, will have great benefits on your psyche. How to find those good feelings, is again your part of the journey. I could suggest you start by trying to understand how sad and hard the position is for young Muslim "True Believers" Sure you will get frustrated at rude insulting people, but find some pity for their hardship too. That is just an example, you will find your own. Spirituality is generally the modern term for a personalized path to exploring what may be above us, be it higher aspects of our selves or a force of goodness. The first step normally is to realize how much brain washing you have already had, and to accept it as something to work on fixing. Then you just start your own path. Go slow and get lots of opinions (but judge for yourself). You will do fine.

[LouaiB]

The point of cleaning myself of brainwashing is a very important point. You can't find the right path if you're already in the wrong one. To be honest, I don't think my higher self or my perception or experience of a higher self, or anything like that (I still don't know what they mean and what's this about, but what I'm understanding is that I must 'do' to understand. Kinda like how mindfulness is established by meditation. You meditate, not plan out how it would go out) would exist outside our brains. Though if there is anything I know, it's that I can't just take that for face value.

[Occipitalred]

What an interesting conversation. The only thing I thought worth adding, is to not only pity people such as conforming Muslims, but also appreciate that they are just as complex and special as you. They are too often seen as dull simple people but they have very valuable stories, just like any of us, even if they're beliefs are those passed on by tradition. A logical reasoning is not the only worthy quality, as "atheists" have a tendency to believe (EDIT: ...or so they convey, and they do). I would add, many conforming religious people are scared away by moving to another worldview because of this belief that logical reasoning is the only important thing, and also YOLO. Religious people find this dumb. They don't relate with this. If we stopped fighting as if there were only two options, people would be more willing to explore other territory.

[Denziloe]

Who thinks that logical reasoning (by which I assume you also mean deference to empirical observation) is the "only important thing"? I've never heard atheists say this. All they believe is that logical reasoning and empirical observation works. In other words, they think it's ridiculous to deny that Pythagoras' theorem is true (because it has a logical proof) or that the Earth is round (because it is observed). I think everybody here agrees that people who don't accept this are in denial. But this doesn't mean we think that reasoning is the "only worthy quality" in the human sphere. There are plenty of other worthy qualities, like compassion, or art. You're making a false dichotomy, and I'm not sure why.

[Occipitalred]

Fair response. Much like you, I am strongly against this idea of a dichotomy between religion and science, it is non-necessary, and harmful. What I am saying, is from the point of view of a conforming religious person, arguments from "atheists" seem to dehumanize, despiritualize the human conscious experience and that is why conforming religious people do not even consider what the "atheist" is saying. It does not sound relevant to their experience. I believe that, for an "atheist" to give some sense of logic to a "religious" person, they must first show an understanding of how valuable that person's experience is, and to explain that believing in things such as natural selection could not harm their relationship with God. "Atheists" often address compassion as an evolution adaptive behavior. It just sounds so dehumanizing to a religious person, especially the way it is being expressed. I am a person who understands both perspectives and I often feel this tone from "atheists" so I can only understand why "religious" people would feel that way, regardless of what the "atheist" meant to say. Edit: Yes, "Atheists" often do say "God is not necessary for morality, we, atheists have compassion and love and blablabla" but they still convey a dehumanizing tone. I am not sure I can explain exactly why, but it is felt (subjectively). Another EDIT: Sorry LouaiB, I really don't mean to blame you, I just felt like I had to give an example (I do feel, like you are in your own special battle between faith and fact, perhaps both sides will win for you, it seems). "That's what's nice about us. We don't throw dogma and misconceptions of science. We embrace science and accept when we are wrong and change to the better position (which seems to be constantly pointing further and further away from religion with each new discovery. Surprise surprise )." When a conforming religious person reads such a sentence, that devalues religion as whole, such an important part of their Life, like 50% of their day, just because of science, they definitely feel a dichotomy, that should not be there. People should not say "religion is bad". They should instead say "Religion is such a valuable aspect of the human conscious experience, but recent information is showing that those who wrote the Bible did not have a superior knowledge of physics and biology, as would be expected from being written in the past... etc....Much like Sivason said."

[LouaiB]

True indeed. Religious people seem to see the other side as having an alien perspective, not just about the disbelief. Most religious people do praise logic and science, but are in denial about anything science says that might be against their stance. For example, people still use the first cause argument, even though the difference from cause & effect and ex nihilo should be clear by now, and the failure of conceptual analysis & deduction without the ability to test and experiment. It's even difficult to assume that we can use our logic outside what it evolved to understand (we can learn to though). Even in our current sciences, basic logic doesn't work in some domains like quantum physics for example. For example, an electron not just can be in 2 places at once, but it does. Impossible you say? Exactly! Logic can't comprehend it! Logic evolved to help us escape science, not understand atoms! Now imagine using logic, or should I say simple flawed philosophy, to prove god! You can't! Even in itself it's flawed (like a god can't be omnipotent and omniscience at the same time, and so on). So even if you presume you can use philosophy, you're using it wrong! Where was I? Oh yeah... Religious people do see it as too much bs. Childhood indoctrination really is powerful. But what surprises me is that they happily can believe in heaven and hell and angles and devils, but not scientifically proven origin of humans from primates? I mean, how did they weigh that? "I ain't come from no monkey! Case closed!" I especially love how they use the 2nd law of thermodynamics

[Sivason]

I would just like to jump in with one point. There are those who are brain washed by Religion, and find some science to be an attack on their world belief. However, there are people who are religious and are easily as open minded as any scientist (many are scientists). I think Occipitalred gets this. Here is a confession/ proclamation: I am a very religious person. I am not agnostic. I know there are spiritual things beyond science (personal faith, not an argument). I pray many times a day and not only believe I am heard, I believe God and me are good friends going way back, and I have all the same feeling emotionally for God as I would for my loving parents. Here is the second part: I believe in evolution and DNA and every thing else that makes good scientific sense. I have no feeling of need to convert anyone else. While I feel some contentment at subtlety helping those who question me here, I wait for them to approach, and I do not follow if they pull back. Religion and science are not opposites Dogma and science are.

[Descensus]

So, if a million year old half scull is dug up, according to him, it can't be used because it emidiately poofs into dust. Except they don't. We have videos of paleontologists digging up fossils. Some may be fragile, sure, but they don't turn into Nesquik powder on contact. Tell your friend to do even a cursory search of fossil recovery videos on YouTube. And while we're at it, the teacher also said that he'll bring me quotes from darwin saying that he admitted that he doesn't believe his own theory and made it up for some personal reason. I mean, I know Darwin got genetics wrong for example, but saying that his natural selection is wrong because he just made it up. I mean, I don't even care if he dreamt of it after a night of over drinking! Evolution by natural selection is proven and no quote, even by it's own finder, would change that! Plus I have my doubt on that quote of his. Darwin didn't even know about genetics. Gregor Mendel's (the father of genetics) work didn't become popular until about 1900. Darwin laid a strong foundation for evolution by natural selection, but not the complete story. Your teacher and friend don't know what they're talking about.

[LouaiB]

Darwin didn't even know about genetics. Gregor Mendel's (the father of genetics) work didn't become popular until about 1900. Darwin laid a strong foundation for evolution by natural selection, but not the complete story. Your teacher and friend don't know what they're talking about. No no, that genetics part was my side note. I know they didn't discover genetics back then, but what I meant by genetics is when he (Darwin) talked about how the characteristics and traits of animals transfer. He didn't know about the traits being DNA, but we discovered later that that would be called genetics, and he got it wrong. Of course when I say religion, I mean the common cults. What I dislike about them is their dogma and use as weapons of hate very often. On the other hand, personal spirituality is another story. People like you, sivason and occipitalred, are very open minded and accepting of science. Also you're very clear cut about your spirituality. If you see doubt, you explore, not shut down. And you use your spirituality to become a better person. You are not 'setbacks' for humanity. On the contrary, you are perfect explorers of the transcendence concept. Also, about the evolution concept. In Islam, the story of Adam and eve is taken literally. We coming from monkeys is a headshot to it. It's hard to see how Islam can make sense coexisting with evolution, and that's where I get the "science is a conspiracy against god" replies, often charged with like a few cases of fossil fraud and an assumption that most scientists are either idiots, or in this game of atheistic economical domination or whatever. Oh, and it's not that science diminishes the concept of god. It diminishes the concept of a god or gods that supposedly control elements of the world, like the planetary orbits and so on. These gods are often used to explain unknowns about the world. God of the gaps. The argument goes that each time we discover something new, it doesn't turn out to be 'motored' but in naturalistic components. So if god of the gaps used to explain 99% of the world, it now describes less. God of the gaps is shrinking. Of course god doesn't need to be controlling our world like some Sim game. Science diminishes that CONCEPT, the concept of god of the gaps.

[Occipitalred]

I find your relationship with Siva inspiring. (to Sivason) I just want to make sure that something I said is clear: I made sure to write "conforming religious people" referring to those religious people who follow the religion of their family/culture, those that are "brainwashed" if you will, (but I do think that what helps with brainwashing, is that there is some practical truth that comes with it). Obviously, there is a large spectrum (and I don't like the word spectrum, it's more complex than that, it's like a 3-dimensional web woven with spectra.) with varying levels of openness, and Sivason, you are evidently someone who has married religion and science the way that I believe should be done. I am personally still agnostic, although, I do talk with God all the time. And I define God differently at different times. I am probably such a exasperating friend. God must be thinking "How can you still be agnostic after all the things we've done together!?" Although, there have been many times that I have felt that I knew for sure, faith is a complex thing, and my relationship with God is challenged all the time, but it doesn't scare me because no matter what, I will always have a relationship with Life. What I have been saying with my post, is that religion is so much more than "closed-mindedness, and blindly following inaccurate biblical facts" so when people make the bold statement that "people who appreciate science are so much more evolved than people who appreciate religion", it will inadvertently scare those who have the opposite view away. I also study science and have an appreciation for evolution, genes, the biochemical mechanism of the brain and it does not deter from the most important aspects of religion. That's why I think the discussion shouldn't not be about destroying religion, so that science can prevail (because that makes no sense), instead it's about how can religion evolve, and how can "science" evolve. I feel religion has become and should become more individualistic, in the sense, that we find God ourselves, without following traditions or the Bible blindly (although, reading holy books can be interesting), and science should also be a tool to better understand our world, not a religion in itself. Denziloe, I do realize, that just like open-minded religious people, there are open-minded atheists and that both have more aspects to their personality than "spirituality or logic", it's a blend, but in the God-science conversation, there does exist this dichotomy still. I can't wait for the day that we move beyond that obstacle, and that arguments can transcend it. Wow, I write a lot, just trying to say one thing "Don't put all the blame on the word religion... The only bothering aspect of it is the misuse of it, just like some people are against technological advancement, it isn't bad in itself, it's great, it's just the misuse that is the problem..." EDIT: For LouaiB I see that you argue with your friend about these things, which I feel that you are justified, yourself being an ex-Muslim, and thus meaning you're probably arguing against yourself simultaneously. Maybe, you should analyze your method of arguing. You could see if your friend is able to consolidate Allah and evolution. You should try saying: imagine that evolution is a real thing, do you think that Allah could still exist in that scenario, and would your relationship with Allah change, given that this scenario is true? What about evolution diminishes your relationship with Allah, if anything? Rather than trying to discredit his beliefs using logic, which really is not involved in faith as much as determining if evolution is true or not.

[Sivason]

Agreed entirely. I am sad that when most people are damaged by their family religion they have a knee jerk reaction against the idea of God or anything remotely religious. It was not God that was the problem it was family and Dogma

[JustASimpleGuy]

Some would argue the expansion of scientific knowledge diminishes God, whatever God might be. I would argue the exact opposite. As for fossils crumbling, Denziloe is spot-on. They are mainly (but not only) mineralized facsimiles of the original organism.

[Denziloe]

What do you mean by "got it wrong"? He never suggested an account of genetics in the first place, because he wasn't aware that genes existed, so there's nothing for him to have gotten wrong.

[LouaiB]

What do you mean by "got it wrong"? He never suggested an account of genetics in the first place, because he wasn't aware that genes existed, so there's nothing for him to have gotten wrong. Of course he didn't know that biological traits where blueprinted by genes. What he suggested was trait wise. He didn't know that animal traits where blueprinted by DNA. That's why I said genetics. The science of genetics not as DNA and genes (lol), but as trait 'transfer'. A better word would be, well, trait passage. So he got that wrong, and that is now known as genetics after we discovered it's basics(DNA) I got this from a Richard Dawkins video. He said "Darwin didn't get it all right. For instance, he got the whole genetics part wrong. Well, what we now know as genetics"

[Denziloe]

Forgive me but I don't think you've really answered the question. Not knowing that DNA causes heredity is not the same thing as "being wrong" about heredity -- as far as I'm aware, Darwin didn't make any hypotheses about the mechanism of heredity. He simply observed that heredity occurs... which is true, regardless of genetics.