|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: Are you saying that without him, biologists would not be aware, for example, that the interplay between mutations and natural selection can produce heritable changes in a population? Alfred Russel Wallace co-discovered the theory of evolution, so I think it could be said that if Darwin and Wallace had not co-written the first papers on the theory of evolution then someone else would have in short order. One of the interesting side notes of history is that both Darwin and Wallace were constructing the very same theory in complete isolation to one another. This only proves that the evidence had reached a point where the discovery of the theory of evolution was almost a sure thing. I find it interesting that ID/creationists project their own religious leanings onto science to the point that they think scientific theories are somehow beamed down from some deity. They aren't. If Einstein had not discovered the theory of relativity, then some other scientist would have. If Koch had not discovered germs, then some other scientist would have. If Columbus had not publicized the existence of North America to the rest of Europe, then someone else would have. Scientific theories don't rise and fall because of one person. It just so happens that one scientist is lucky enough to be the first to discover the theory.
Without Darwin, would biologists have discovered drift, lateral gene transfer, recombination, etc, etc? Since we also had Wallace, the answer would be yes.
If Darwin is responsible for nothing more than coming up with the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor, Darwin didn't come up with that theory.
I mean, of what practical use is it to belief that whales evolved from some deer-like creature over a period of 50 million years? You really are anti-knowledge, aren't you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: Yes, sorry; your defintion of evolution is heritable change in a population. So what's this got to do Darwin? Heritable changes in a population has been a known fact for thousands of years. Darwin was able to show that heritable changes, otherwise known as descent with modification, was responsible for the nested hierarchy that Linnaeus first discovered. He showed how the mechanisms of evolution could produce a wide variety of species from a common ancestor. Before Darwin, species were thought to be immutable and not related.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: People were clearly already well aware of the mechanism of natural/artificial selection and its effect on a popularion, so what did Darwin come up with that advanced knowledge of "evolution" (ie, heritable changes on a population)? This:
Darwin was able to apply observations of biogeography, fossils, and human breeding to the larger field of biology and show how species groups could be linked through common ancestry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Dredge writes: I still don't understand what Darwin did to advance biology. So much is obvious. It's not really something to be proud of. Meanwhile we put him on a bank note. One of us is wrong.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Astrophile Member (Idle past 156 days) Posts: 92 From: United Kingdom Joined: |
Heritable change. We've been through this. Perhaps one could say 'continuous and irreversible heritable change'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Astrophile Member (Idle past 156 days) Posts: 92 From: United Kingdom Joined: |
People were clearly already well aware of the mechanism of natural/artificial selection and its effect on a popularion, so what did Darwin come up with that advanced knowledge of "evolution" (i.e., heritable changes on a population)? Darwin was influenced by Charles Lyell's book Principles of Geology, which showed that the Earth was much older than earlier scientists had thought. Perhaps Darwin came up with the idea that natural selection working on small changes for a very long time would produce very large changes, to the extent of creating new species of animals and plants
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Perhaps one could say 'continuous and irreversible heritable change'. It doesn't have to be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2270 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Does nothing in biology make sense except in the light of evolution?
What is revealing is that people actively promoting the importance of the theory of evolution admit that it is little used in day to day biology. most [biologists] can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Witham, Larry A How is it, then, that so few newly minted PhDs in the biological sciences have taken any formal graduate school courses in evolution or biodiversity Leonid Moroz Simply put, much in biology makes sense without the light of evolution. Evolution, that is, in the sense of Darwin's theory of common descent from one or a few original forms of life; the great tree of life. Problem is, Dobzhansky was writing for an audience of science high school teachers, and his statement is patently wrong, as an even cursory examination of the history of biology makes clear. For instance, developmental biologists had done a lot of highly fruitful research throughout the 19th and 20th centuries even as they ignored Darwin. And molecular biologists made spectacular progress from the 1950s though the onset of the 21st century, again pretty much completing [sic] ignoring evolution. This is not to say that evolutionary theory doesn’t help in understanding developmental and molecular systems, but it is a stretch of the record to make claims such as those of Dobzhansky. Massimo Pigliucci One response is the try to expand the definition of evolution to include as much as possible so that almost any change, no matter how minor, can be included in its net. Everything from minor adaptations to genetics. Variation, selection, and adaptation were all recognised long before Darwin. Articles on natural selection had already been published by Blyth and others before Charles Darwin published Origin of Species. Farmers had for millennia been selectively breeding plants and animals without any theory of evolution. Variation, selection, and adaptation are not evolution although they are prerequisites for evolution. Taking the giraffe as one example there are many features that can be understood as functional adaptations without considering evolution.
None of these require any evolutionary history to be understood. In any case the fossil evidence of transitional forms is so lacking that any evolutionary history becomes mere conjecture. Edited by CRR, : html for list added Edited by CRR, : Hyperlink fixed Edited by CRR, : hyperlinks fixed (at last)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Not content with mere fallacious argument, you conclude with a brazen falsehood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
You are making a weird set of arguments
CRR writes: Does nothing in biology make sense except in the light of evolution? most [biologists] can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. It's obviously pedantically inaccurate to say that nothing in biology makes sense without evolution - it's obviously a deliberate exaggeration. If you want to prevent the pedants making pointless points it's better to simply say that the ToE is biology's overarching organising concept. And of course it's possible to do biological work without reference to the ToE. Much of biology ticks away at very detailed levels without anyone having to reach for a formula derived from the ToE. It's not physics, you don't have to use and reuse E=mc2 to do your work. You don't need the ToE to work out how a cockroach's leg works or how a petal forms. But you've also been given many examples of where evolution is used first hand. You're making silly arguments of no consequence, the ToE is biology's user manual - scientists use it to know how everything fits together. It's also a very weird and very, very wrong-headed idea that a scientific concept needs to be practically useful to be useful. Knowledge of how thing work is intrinsically worthwhile. And in any case, the ToE is very obviously very useful - it's one of the most important discoveries mankind has every made about the natural world. The objection to this particular collection of knowledge by a few is not based on any assessment of its worth, it is ONLY because it contradicts a particular ancient mythology. You have forgotten that your belief system had it that everything we see on earth was put here by god as we see it. It's only in the last 300 years that you creationists have been backtracking and fighting rearguard actions with Kinds and microevolution and allowing orgnisms to change over time. Religious ideas are evolving and reforming - they have to if they are to survive at all. It's only the few that can't adapt to the new knowledge environment that are becoming extinct.
In any case the fossil evidence of transitional forms is so lacking that any evolutionary history becomes mere conjecture. And this is just an outright falsehood.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
JonF writes: They were not already well aware that the process, when continued for long periods of time, resulted in wildly different species. Well, I'm not surprised - after thousands of years of using all manner of artificial selection, no one had any reason to believe that it would ever produce "wildly different species"! They must have all been really stupid and Darwin was the only smart one. Besides, this is not my point, which is, to,my knowledge, 150 years of Darwinism - as opposed to 150 years of biology - hasn't improved what animal and plant breeders can do, The theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor hasn't advanced animal and plant breeding one iota. So I think Darwinism is an irrelevance to breeders; it means nothing to them and contributes nothing to their activities. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Coyote writes: "... a valid theory organises (facts) into a far greater usefulness." Robert A. Heinlien Please give me one example of how Darwinism has made facts more useful. By "useful" I mean useful in a practical sense, ie, applied science - as opposed to useless atheist bedtime stories such as whales supposedly evolving from deers.
But to discredit a scientific theory requires evidence ... As far as I can ascertain, the aim of the topic is to discuss the contribution the theory of evolution has made to our understanding of biology. I contend that Darwinism has contributed nothing at all to the advancement of our understanding of biology in any practical sense. Imo, all Darwinism has done is provide a pseudo-scientific creation story for atheists. As a tool that can be utilised by biologists, it's useless, as far as I know. So if you ask me, the claim that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution is perhaps the greatest load of bs ever told in science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
You seem to have missed the point of the topic. It aims to question the significance Darwinism has made to our understanding of biology. I contend that it has contributed nothing to biology in any tangible, real-world sense. All Darwinism has done is provide atheists with bedtime stories about how Harry the Hippo supposedly evolved from Mikey the Mudskipper, etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
This one is funny.
Dredge writes: Oh, I don't know. Even after 2000 thousand years since Jesus was supposed to be alive, fundy Christianity still haven't provided us any knowledge in even trying to describe microbes...
...Besides, this is not my point, which is, to,my knowledge, 150 years of Darwinism -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes: Meanwhile we put him on a banknote. The atheist currency of a deceived society. Charles Darwin is the most overrated figure in history. He contributed nothing worthwhile to biology.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024