I still don't understand what Darwin did to advance biology. 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? Animal and plant breeders had been aware of such things for thousands of years.
Without Darwin, would biologists have discovered drift, lateral gene transfer, recombination, etc, etc? Of course they would have.
If Darwin is responsible for nothing more than coming up with the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor, then he has not contributed anything at all to the advancement of biology - all he's done is come up with a useless idea that is, at best, a curiosity of history. 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? Believing in the Tooth Fairy is more useful than that - at least a little money can be made (I used to get five cents per tooth)!
Could it be that Charles Darwin is the most over-rated figure in the history of mankind?
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)?
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.
"... 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.
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.
At the risk of repeating myself, imo, Darwin contributed nothing to biology that could be considered useful. I could demonstrate this point by becoming a competent biologist. despite being a creationist who rejects Darwinism outright.
ToE is very obviously very useful - it's one of the most important discoveries mankind has ever made about the natural world.
Poor Tangle, you keep throwing up this line, but it's simply a mindless regurgitation of something you learn in atheist Sunday school. You have obviously never stopped to consider it's validity - probably because you are afraid to. Is it often quite difficult for members of a cult to see past the fog of conditioning that they live in. Coming out in the light of reality can be a scary process; I understand that. But you need to first realise that Darwinism is a cult. It hides itself under the cloak of science, but it is a full-blown cult nevertheless.
Try this exercise (which I would recommend to every member of the cult of Darwinism) - write out 30 times every day, "Mr. Charles Darwin is really Mr. Useless", and then, "Evolution = biology + the atheist cult of Darwinism" 30 times, and then, "Evolution is not a fact" 30 times.
And instead of reading atheist bedtime stories about whales evolving from deers and such like, try reading about something more in tune with the real world - Alice in Wonderland, for example. Start out with little simple things like this and slowly add more to the regime. Eventually your resistance to Darwinist conditioning will reach the point where you are not longer psychologically addicted to it.
This is an excellent post, CRR! I must try and find out more about these blokes, Witham, Moroz and Pigliucci. However, I suspect Pigliucci's reference to "evolutionary theory" helping understand "developmental and molecular systems" is being a bit overly generous to the influence of Darwinism. It probably has nothing to do with living organisms, for starters.
I wonder why Darwinists haven't cited the evolution of the car as a practical application of the theory of Common Descent yet. lol