Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
85 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK (2 members, 83 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,836 Year: 1,584/23,288 Month: 1,584/1,851 Week: 224/484 Day: 0/42 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 32 of 1311 (807405)
05-03-2017 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Chiroptera
04-27-2017 9:12 AM


Was biology even a science ... before Darwin?

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Chiroptera, posted 04-27-2017 9:12 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-03-2017 1:50 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 46 by Taq, posted 05-03-2017 10:55 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 49 by Tangle, posted 05-03-2017 4:49 PM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 34 of 1311 (807426)
05-03-2017 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dr Adequate
05-03-2017 1:50 AM


except in the light of evolution

What is "evolution"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-03-2017 1:50 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-03-2017 2:55 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 36 of 1311 (807430)
05-03-2017 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
05-03-2017 2:55 AM


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.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-03-2017 2:55 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-03-2017 3:17 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 43 by JonF, posted 05-03-2017 10:01 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 47 by Taq, posted 05-03-2017 10:58 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 38 of 1311 (807432)
05-03-2017 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dr Adequate
05-03-2017 3:17 AM


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 message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-03-2017 3:17 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-03-2017 3:28 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 44 by JonF, posted 05-03-2017 10:05 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 45 by Coyote, posted 05-03-2017 10:16 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 48 by Taq, posted 05-03-2017 11:00 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 51 by Astrophile, posted 05-03-2017 6:31 PM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 40 of 1311 (807434)
05-03-2017 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Adequate
05-03-2017 3:28 AM


Your straw man doesn't answer my question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-03-2017 3:28 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-03-2017 3:47 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 56 of 1311 (807705)
05-05-2017 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by JonF
05-03-2017 10:05 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by JonF, posted 05-03-2017 10:05 AM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Pressie, posted 05-05-2017 5:45 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 57 of 1311 (807706)
05-05-2017 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Coyote
05-03-2017 10:16 AM


Re: Science and theories
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Coyote, posted 05-03-2017 10:16 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Coyote, posted 05-05-2017 9:16 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 58 of 1311 (807707)
05-05-2017 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Taq
05-03-2017 10:55 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Taq, posted 05-03-2017 10:55 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 60 of 1311 (807709)
05-05-2017 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tangle
05-03-2017 4:49 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tangle, posted 05-03-2017 4:49 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Tangle, posted 05-05-2017 6:06 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 61 of 1311 (807710)
05-05-2017 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Taq
05-03-2017 10:58 AM


Taq writes:

Before Darwin, species were thought to be immutable and not related.

Yes, ok, but what difference has believing Darwin's yarn made to anything in the real world?  None at all, as far as I can tell. Darwin's theory is as irrelevant to real-world biology as a fairy tale.  


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Taq, posted 05-03-2017 10:58 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Pressie, posted 05-05-2017 6:31 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 127 by Taq, posted 05-08-2017 10:44 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 62 of 1311 (807711)
05-05-2017 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Astrophile
05-03-2017 6:31 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Astrophile, posted 05-03-2017 6:31 PM Astrophile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by herebedragons, posted 05-05-2017 9:48 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 72 by Davidjay, posted 05-05-2017 11:02 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 65 of 1311 (807731)
05-05-2017 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Pressie
05-05-2017 6:31 AM


Pressie writes:

Your argument starts like this: ...

Please explain.

I don't believe in Darwin nor his arguments. At all.

This sounds interesting. Please tell me more.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Pressie, posted 05-05-2017 6:31 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 66 of 1311 (807732)
05-05-2017 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Tangle
05-05-2017 6:06 AM


Chicko agrees with me. Are you going to call him "ignorant" as well?

------------------------------

Your comparison to Monty Python is fabulous! What has Darwinism ever done for us? Can I use this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Tangle, posted 05-05-2017 6:06 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 81 of 1311 (807838)
05-06-2017 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Tangle
05-05-2017 2:07 AM


Tangle writes:

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 message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Tangle, posted 05-05-2017 2:07 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-06-2017 9:35 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 96 by Coyote, posted 05-06-2017 9:36 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 82 of 1311 (807839)
05-06-2017 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by CRR
05-04-2017 7:48 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by CRR, posted 05-04-2017 7:48 PM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by bluegenes, posted 05-06-2017 2:43 AM Dredge has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020