Charles Darwin

B.A._Baracus

We all heard of Darwin. You know, that chap who who said that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors.

Well I just found out he married his first cousin. Ironic isn't it... The man who talked about mutual ancestors liked to keep it in the family :pac:

B.A._Baracus

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

We all heard of Darwin. You know, that chap who who said that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors.

Well I just found out he married his first cousin. Ironic isn't it... The man who talked about mutual ancestors liked to keep it in the family :pac:

One wonders about your ancestors...

AllForIt

who who said who what?

B.A._Baracus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

One wonders about your ancestors...

Why. Does shagging your first cousin hit home for you? :pac:

B.A._Baracus

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Why. Does shagging your first cousin hit home for you? :pac:

Spare a moments taught for the folks of south kk,who rarely go as far as cousins

Harry Palmr

Better to marry your first cousin (who is hot, let's face it) than your minging second.

branie2

Just like the people of Shelbyville in The Simpsons

KungPao

Diddling your cousin is monkey business.

nozzferrahhtoo

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Well I just found out he married his first cousin. Ironic isn't it... The man who talked about mutual ancestors liked to keep it in the family :pac:

His mother's parents were third cousins too for example. It was not uncommon at the time. There was something of a tradition for marriage between the Darwins and the Wedgwoods long before Charles was born. In fact it was not uncommon in prominent Victorian English families to maintain such dynasties.

In fact it was his own work breeding plants that led him to begin to worry that his own marriage might have led to some of the problems his children had. While three of his kids went on to get knighthoods, another three died. One of them from TB if I recall.

So the irony is a little reversed on what you describe. It was his work on shared ancestry that led him to begin question his families tradition of "keeping it in the family". It was not that HE liked to do so as you suggested.

And the question plagued him it seems. Although he knew nothing of genes, he was certainly ahead of his time in linking his floral observations to his own families issues.

We have learnt much more about the effects of inbreeding, especially long term over generations, since then. It is hard to say if his marriage was to blame for anything in his children though. Anyone can catch TB. He himself was always a "sickly" man so it could well be that he was never good breeding stock no matter whom he himself ended up marrying.

randd1

Deleted User wrote: »

Spare a moments taught for the folks of south kk,who rarely go as far as cousins

They're called Waterford people.

randd1

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

His mother's parents were third cousins too for example. It was not uncommon at the time. There was something of a tradition for marriage between the Darwins and the Wedgwoods long before Charles was born. In fact it was not uncommon in prominent Victorian English families to maintain such dynasties.

In fact it was his own work breeding plants that led him to begin to worry that his own marriage might have led to some of the problems his children had. While three of his kids went on to get knighthoods, another three died. One of them from TB if I recall.

So the irony is a little reversed on what you describe. It was his work on shared ancestry that led him to begin question his families tradition of "keeping it in the family". It was not that HE liked to do so as you suggested.

And the question plagued him it seems. Although he knew nothing of genes, he was certainly ahead of his time in linking his floral observations to his own families issues.

We have learnt much more about the effects of inbreeding, especially long term over generations, since then. It is hard to say if his marriage was to blame for anything in his children though. Anyone can catch TB. He himself was always a "sickly" man so it could well be that he was never good breeding stock no matter whom he himself ended up marrying.

He was a noted hypochondriac that rarely got out of bed in his later years unless he had to.

nozzferrahhtoo

More power to him. I intend to do similar with my own retirement when the time comes

A lot of hypochondriacs have imaginary diseases and conditions. He at least appeared to ACTUALLY have had issues. Some have theorised he had a parasite of some sort. So I wonder how accurate that label can be in that case. Without a time machine and modern diagnostic tools I guess we will never know.

I can barely get out of bed when I feel ill, and lack all motivation. Let alone discover and document world and society changing Scientific Theories. I shall not begrudge the oul guy some extended lie ins

Giraffe Box

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

We all heard of Darwin. You know, that chap who who said that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors.

Well I just found out he married his first cousin. Ironic isn't it... The man who talked about mutual ancestors liked to keep it in the family :pac:

I think I read something similar some time ago in that free religious rag 'Alive!', Irish catholicism's version of The Sun newspaper.
Undermine the man, and you undermine his ideas bollox.

Wibbs

Giraffe Box wrote: »

I think I read something similar some time ago in that free religious rag 'Alive!', Irish catholicism's version of The Sun newspaper.
Undermine the man, and you undermine his ideas bollox.

Pity that the Catholic church is and has been OK with evolution and some churchmen helped refine the mechanisms behind it. Abbot Gregor Mendel for one. It was some of the Protestant sects, not the Catholics that had attacks of the vapours over it and continue to do so in places like the US.

YFlyer

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Better to marry your first cousin (who is hot, let's face it) than your minging second.

Wasn't marrying your first cousin accepted yet marrying your second cousin frown upon?

blackbox

randd1 wrote: »

He was a noted hypochondriac that rarely got out of bed in his later years unless he had to.

Oops - I misread that as nymphomaniac!

randd1

blackbox wrote: »

Oops - I misread that as nymphomaniac!

Forget what I wrote, you're version is likely far more entertaining. Please proceed.

Pherekydes

YFlyer wrote: »

Wasn't marrying your first cousin accepted yet marrying your second cousin frown upon?

All in the rules of consanguinity.

quickbeam

Wibbs wrote: »

Pity that the Catholic church is and has been OK with evolution and some churchmen helped refine the mechanisms behind it. Abbot Gregor Mendel for one. It was some of the Protestant sects, not the Catholics that had attacks of the vapours over it and continue to do so in places like the US.

Only sorta. They were okay with the idea of all living things having a common ancestor, sure.

But one of the main tenets of evolution is the randomness of the mutations that develop (and the beneficial ones being passed down). Catholicism does not agree with that tenet, as they believe the mutations were divinely orchestrated as part of the intelligent design theory.

So I'd say that they don't really believe in evolution as such, even if they do believe in common ancestry.

TheValeyard

quickbeam wrote: »

Only sorta. They were okay with the idea of all living things having a common ancestor, sure.

But one of the main tenets of evolution is the randomness of the mutations that develop (and the beneficial ones being passed down). Catholicism does not agree with that tenet, as they believe the mutations were divinely orchestrated as part of the intelligent design theory.

So I'd say that they don't really believe in evolution as such, even if they do believe in common ancestry.

True, think its evolution with the hand of God to it. But they've zero problem with the science of it.

Ipso

TheValeyard wrote: »

True, think its evolution with the hand of God to it. But they've zero problem with the science of it.

Basically their version of the evangelicals intelligent design.

TheValeyard

Ipso wrote: »

Basically their version of the evangelicals intelligent design.

Kinda. But theirs is rooted in scientific method, but have this 'unseen mover' that is the first cause.

Ipso

TheValeyard wrote: »

Kinda. But theirs is rooted in scientific method, but have this 'unseen mover' that is the first cause.

Without trying to find a black cat in a basement at midnight that isn't there, but if Adam and Eve are taken out of the equation then there's no original sin for Jesus to die for. So are they not removing the main part of their belief system?