Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9079 total)
107 online now:
Daniel Grossman, Theodoric (2 members, 105 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,332 Year: 6,444/6,534 Month: 637/650 Week: 175/232 Day: 8/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwin- would he have changed his theory?
tubi417
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 195 (118140)
06-24-2004 1:55 AM


Back when Darwin created his theory, he really did not know of how complex a single cell actually is. Do u think if he had known this, would he have change around his idea of evolution in any way?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by coffee_addict, posted 06-24-2004 2:25 AM tubi417 has not replied
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 06-24-2004 2:28 AM tubi417 has not replied
 Message 5 by Mammuthus, posted 06-24-2004 4:05 AM tubi417 has not replied
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 06-28-2004 3:49 PM tubi417 has not replied
 Message 9 by Steen, posted 06-30-2004 12:51 AM tubi417 has not replied
 Message 10 by Loudmouth, posted 06-30-2004 12:57 AM tubi417 has not replied
 Message 114 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-23-2004 2:57 AM tubi417 has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 195 (118143)
06-24-2004 2:01 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
coffee_addict
Member
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 3 of 195 (118147)
06-24-2004 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tubi417
06-24-2004 1:55 AM


Nope. If you are refering to the concept of complexity-indicates-intelligent-design, go here.


The Laminator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tubi417, posted 06-24-2004 1:55 AM tubi417 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8971
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 4 of 195 (118148)
06-24-2004 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tubi417
06-24-2004 1:55 AM


How and why
I can't see any reason why he would. Can you suggest any possible connection?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tubi417, posted 06-24-2004 1:55 AM tubi417 has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5798 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 5 of 195 (118167)
06-24-2004 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tubi417
06-24-2004 1:55 AM


Darwin would certainly have changed his theory if he had known about genetics i.e. he would have known the source of the variation upon which natural selection operates and how it is spread from generation to generation...i.e. he could have scooped the geneticists of neo-darwinism by about 60-70 years.

As to knowing how complex nature can be, that was obvious long before Darwin's time and does not require incorporation of the supernatural to explain it...in fact, nothing in science benefits from incorporating or postulating mythical supernatural causes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tubi417, posted 06-24-2004 1:55 AM tubi417 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by KCdgw, posted 06-24-2004 10:40 AM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 29 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-21-2004 8:44 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
KCdgw
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 195 (118230)
06-24-2004 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mammuthus
06-24-2004 4:05 AM


I don't think knowing Mendel's work would have helped Darwin much. Just look at the mess it caused at the turn of the century. What genetics did for Darwin wasn't apparent until the 1920's and 30's, when Fisher, Haldane and Wright showed how selection acted on genes in populations. By showing that even slight selective advantages could produce significant changes in the genetic structure of populations over time, Darwin's idea of gradual change was saved from being thrown out altogether.

KC


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mammuthus, posted 06-24-2004 4:05 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Mammuthus, posted 07-02-2004 6:23 AM KCdgw has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 667 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 7 of 195 (119561)
06-28-2004 3:05 PM


my vote is "no"

he spent some time answering claims of complexity etc in the origin of species actually. what difference is it if it's big organs or small molecular systems?


  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 195 (119582)
06-28-2004 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by tubi417
06-24-2004 1:55 AM


No, he would not have.
Darwin's theory is this:

Observation 1: Most individuals produce far more offspring than is needed to replace themselves.

Conclusion 1: Most individuals must die without reproducing.

Observation 2: In any population, there is a wide range of variation.

Assumption 1: Those individuals that survive and reproduce will be the ones whose characteristics make it more likely that the individual will survive.

Observation 3: Much of this variation is hereditary.

Conclusion 2: This "natural selection" will cause certain characteristics to decrease in frequency, perhaps even disappear completely; and cause other characteristics to increase in frequency, perhaps to become evident in every member of the population.

Observation 4: Humans have bred many varieties of plants and animals with characteristics that are not observed in the wild ancestral species.

Conclusion 3: There is a source of new heretable characteristics.

Conclusion 4: The production of new characteristics with natural selection will cause a species to undergo a tremendous amount of change over very long time periods.

Observation 5: For each domesticated species, humans have bred a large number of different breeds.

Observation 6: Life can be classified in a heirarchical system.

Conclusion 5: All current (and known past) species evolved from a small number of, perhaps only a single, ancestral species.

Note that there is no assumption whatsoever about the structure of the cell, or even that organisms are composed of cells.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tubi417, posted 06-24-2004 1:55 AM tubi417 has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 195 (120209)
06-30-2004 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tubi417
06-24-2004 1:55 AM


Darwin looked at the structure of change in populations (which is what the Scientific Theory of Evolution is all about). He didn't know about genes, as the DNA and genes weren't discovered until a long time after his death. Darwin's theory stands on the observations of his day. If he knew more of the research that has been done since, he would have been able to expand on his model, but it wouldn't have changed much.

This is like asking if the Wright Brothers would have changed their idea about flight if they had known about the jet engine. They would have been able to build a bigger, stronger plane, that's all; they would not have changed the idea of flight of the basic processes of flight. On the other hand, the Wright brothers writings are not closely consulted when designing space shuttles; we don't have to worry about whether flight is possible. It is kind of the same with Evolution. Science looks at the new information, not the stuff that has long ago been established because it already have been proven many times.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tubi417, posted 06-24-2004 1:55 AM tubi417 has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 195 (120214)
06-30-2004 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tubi417
06-24-2004 1:55 AM


tubi,

Darwin did deal with macroscopic complex systems, namely the mammalian eye. He was amazed at the complexity of the organ, but he found that every step of eye evolution was present in living organisms, starting with a photosensitive spot right up to a lensed eye with a retina. He felt that evolution does address complexity, and explains it well in that evolution would add layers to already existing systems, therefore building up complexity over time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tubi417, posted 06-24-2004 1:55 AM tubi417 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-21-2004 8:56 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 195 (120215)
06-30-2004 12:57 AM


What about Moses?
Hmmmm, I wonder if Moses would have rewritten his first two chapters of Genesis if he new what we know today.

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by arachnophilia, posted 07-01-2004 10:10 PM wj has not replied
 Message 18 by 1.61803, posted 10-19-2004 11:38 PM wj has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 667 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 12 of 195 (121012)
07-01-2004 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by wj
06-30-2004 12:57 AM


Re: What about Moses?
or, more importantly, DID moses write the first two chapters of genesis at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by wj, posted 06-30-2004 12:57 AM wj has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5798 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 13 of 195 (121128)
07-02-2004 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by KCdgw
06-24-2004 10:40 AM


Perhaps not Mendel's work specifically, but if he had known of genetics and DNA as the mode of transmission of variation, it would have filled in some gaps. However, it would not have changed his theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by KCdgw, posted 06-24-2004 10:40 AM KCdgw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by KCdgw, posted 07-07-2004 11:58 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
KCdgw
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 195 (122700)
07-07-2004 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Mammuthus
07-02-2004 6:23 AM


quote:
Perhaps not Mendel's work specifically, but if he had known of genetics and DNA as the mode of transmission of variation, it would have filled in some gaps. However, it would not have changed his theory.

Agreed.

KC


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Mammuthus, posted 07-02-2004 6:23 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
SEBASTES
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 195 (151202)
10-19-2004 8:36 PM


WOULD DARWIN CHANGE HIS THEORY?
Watching the various posts within this site makes me question peoples knowledge of Darwins own theory. I've talked to many people who call themselves evolutionist and try to site Darwin without even reading for themselves what his theory really was. Again, most of the people who are oppose creation have not even read the Bible.
To be fair, I have talked to many Creationist who have not read the Bible nor any of Darwin's works.
Which animals did GOD create?
What was Darwins thoughts in the last few chapters of "The Origin Of Speicies"?
And no, the condensed version of either the Bible nor the Origin of species is not allowed. Too many things were removed from both.
To answer the question posted: Darwin did change his own theory within his own works. Being an outstanding Naturalist, I'm sure he would have changed alot of ideas knowing what we do today!

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by CK, posted 10-19-2004 8:54 PM SEBASTES has not replied
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 10-19-2004 9:43 PM SEBASTES has not replied
 Message 19 by idiot, posted 10-20-2004 5:29 AM SEBASTES has not replied
 Message 27 by coffee_addict, posted 10-20-2004 9:41 PM SEBASTES has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022