Charles Darwin and the "Tree of Life"

[JBeukema]

Let me google that for you

Darwin knew less than we do about DNA, and had nothing more than conjecture to base his primogenitor on.

And yet we have genetics today that shows he was right. We can construct genetic trees to determine lineage and branching points.

No we do not.

google:
pseudogenes
Single nucleotide polymorphsms

What we have is an entrenched philosophy that has spent so much time battling religion that it has left scientific advances behind. You have spent so much time appealing to Darwin

Actually, only you loons do. People who know anything about the subject realize that much has been learned since the time of Darwin.

If we actually examined Darwinism

There's no such science or phenomenon as 'Darwinism'. 'Darwinism' or, as it quickly morphed into, 'Social Darwinism', was an ideology/philosophy that was popular in Germany and the United States for some time before WWII. Many of its thinkers and leaders would also be major characters in the story of the Eugenics movement.

with unbiased eyes we would toss it out in favor of a more comprehensive, and accurate, theory. You yourself have argued against core principles of Neo-Darwinism in this forum, and you are now trying to argue with me that it is right.[/quote]

 

[JBeukema]

Really?

Please point to what Darwin said about abiogenesis that is anything like what is known today.

evolution and abiogenesis are two different things

Which is exactly why Darwin's Tree of Life is wrong.

Just what, exactly, do you think 'Darwin's Tree of Life' is?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let me google that for you



And yet we have genetics today that shows he was right. We can construct genetic trees to determine lineage and branching points.

No we do not.

google:
pseudogenes
Single nucleotide polymorphsms

What we have is an entrenched philosophy that has spent so much time battling religion that it has left scientific advances behind. You have spent so much time appealing to Darwin

Actually, only you loons do. People who know anything about the subject realize that much has been learned since the time of Darwin.

If we actually examined Darwinism

There's no such science or phenomenon as 'Darwinism'. 'Darwinism' or, as it quickly morphed into, 'Social Darwinism', was an ideology/philosophy that was popular in Germany and the United States for some time before WWII. Many of its thinkers and leaders would also be major characters in the story of the Eugenics movement.

with unbiased eyes we would toss it out in favor of a more comprehensive, and accurate, theory. You yourself have argued against core principles of Neo-Darwinism in this forum, and you are now trying to argue with me that it is right.

[/quote]

Why should I google anything?

Adaptive mutations: a challenge to neo-Darwinism? | Science Progress | Find Articles at BNET
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Lynn Margulis challenges neo-Darwinists and teaches somewhere now – but she has interesting ideas | Uncommon Descent

If you catch up with where the science is, instead of clinging to outdated ideas, you might not look so silly when you attempt to talk about things.

 

[JBeukema]

You're the one babbling about 'darwinism' and you accuse someone else of not being up to date on where the science is?



google: nylonase

 

[JBeukema]

and you linked a text from Nov, 1970?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

No we do not.

What we have is an entrenched philosophy that has spent so much time battling religion that it has left scientific advances behind. You have spent so much time appealing to Darwin, just like creationists have appealed to God, that you are forced to cram data that does not fit into his theory. If we actually examined Darwinism with unbiased eyes we would toss it out in favor of a more comprehensive, and accurate, theory. You yourself have argued against core principles of Neo-Darwinism in this forum, and you are now trying to argue with me that it is right.

There's so much of that which is incorrect. First, science does not actually care about battling religion. It certainly did back in Darwin's time and earlier, but today we simply publish in reputable journals, and put things into action, without caring what religion says. I don't know what century you're envisioning here, but the epic Galileo vs church fight has been over for some time now. With that being said, your "conclusion" that science has left advances behind is just foolish.

Second, I do not appeal to Darwin whatsoever. If you look at anything I've said, you'd quickly notice that yourself. Your second "conclusion" that data is coerced therefore holds no weight either.

Third, you are right in stating we need to toss out parts of Darwinism for a more comprehensive and accurate theory. The insight you seem to lack is that such has already happened! That's what both JBeukemia and I have been saying from the start of this thread. YOU are the only one here arguing for Darwin, and then disagreeing with him. I have tried to explain that his theories have been trumped for a long time now with modern genetics, which itself has confirmed a genetic tree of life you seem to ignore for some unknown reason.

I suggest you either do some homework, or start your next post by asking questions to help you better understand the actual topic, instead of the outdated and otherwise fabricated rendition you appear to be conveying. I'm happy to teach, but let's start by having you ask some specific questions.

 

[antagon]

darwin considered heredity in divining his theories. he used what he did know to inform an idea of where life came from, rather than total biblical conjecture. obviously such is scientific, as there certainly isnt an onus on full understanding of a matter to qualify arguing possibilities concerning it.

Really?

yes

Please point to what Darwin said about abiogenesis that is anything like what is known today. Just because I point out that Darwin got some things wrong does not mean I reject everything he said. Your problem is that you, like Dawkins, assume that every person who disagrees with anything you way is ignorant.

darwin's claim re: biogenesis was based on protein evolution, like from ammonia. in turn, that was based in an understanding of the significance of protein to life. observing that there was no spontaneous generation, and that all life seemed to derive from a prior generation, the whole idea that life came from a single ancestor came through an understanding of heredity. all of this is 'anything like' most modern perspectives on evolution or abiogenesis and reproduction.

notwithstanding the more intimate understanding that we have now with regard to how life works, i dont see how your statement that darwin's theories were conjecture is based in reality itself.

about me thinking that you are an ignoramus, could you be projecting an appraisal of yourself on to me? i havent said you were ignorant. you've eagerly put that forward.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No we do not.

What we have is an entrenched philosophy that has spent so much time battling religion that it has left scientific advances behind. You have spent so much time appealing to Darwin, just like creationists have appealed to God, that you are forced to cram data that does not fit into his theory. If we actually examined Darwinism with unbiased eyes we would toss it out in favor of a more comprehensive, and accurate, theory. You yourself have argued against core principles of Neo-Darwinism in this forum, and you are now trying to argue with me that it is right.

There's so much of that which is incorrect. First, science does not actually care about battling religion. It certainly did back in Darwin's time and earlier, but today we simply publish in reputable journals, and put things into action, without caring what religion says. I don't know what century you're envisioning here, but the epic Galileo vs church fight has been over for some time now. With that being said, your "conclusion" that science has left advances behind is just foolish.

Second, I do not appeal to Darwin whatsoever. If you look at anything I've said, you'd quickly notice that yourself. Your second "conclusion" that data is coerced therefore holds no weight either.

Third, you are right in stating we need to toss out parts of Darwinism for a more comprehensive and accurate theory. The insight you seem to lack is that such has already happened! That's what both JBeukemia and I have been saying from the start of this thread. YOU are the only one here arguing for Darwin, and then disagreeing with him. I have tried to explain that his theories have been trumped for a long time now with modern genetics, which itself has confirmed a genetic tree of life you seem to ignore for some unknown reason.

I suggest you either do some homework, or start your next post by asking questions to help you better understand the actual topic, instead of the outdated and otherwise fabricated rendition you appear to be conveying. I'm happy to teach, but let's start by having you ask some specific questions.

First, I did not say science cares about battling religion. I said that the entrenched philosophy of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism only cares about battling religion. This explains why Dawkins is viewed as an imbecile by scientists, yet still cited extensively whenever anyone talks about evolution. If you wish to argue about that, feel free, but please stop setting up strawmen and expecting me to fold.

I actually did the same thing I just pointed out you are doing, and forgot that you are actually capable of articulating an argument without an appeal to authority. My apologies. That said, data is coerced by the very people that the general public turns to for information. Unless, that is, you think that Dawkins and his ilk are credible sources.

JB is not attempting to point out anything but random facts. He is not making a coherent argument because he does not understand the science. You might be able to string those random facts together and add in your knowledge to reach a conclusion, but that does not prove he knows what he is talking about. I would suggest that before you defend him and his ability to make an argument you approach his posts the same way a teacher would, and then tell me that he understands enough to prove me wrong.

He has consistently argued that Darwin is completely correct, and refused to accept that a challenge to Darwin is based on anything other than a belief in creation. If you want to defend him, feel free, but you will receive nothing but scorn from me if you do. I might not understand all the complexities surrounding the science, but I know that I do not understand. He, on the other hand, thinks he understands because he read abook about it at some point, and still has it on his shelf.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

darwin considered heredity in divining his theories. he used what he did know to inform an idea of where life came from, rather than total biblical conjecture. obviously such is scientific, as there certainly isnt an onus on full understanding of a matter to qualify arguing possibilities concerning it.

Really?

yes

Please point to what Darwin said about abiogenesis that is anything like what is known today. Just because I point out that Darwin got some things wrong does not mean I reject everything he said. Your problem is that you, like Dawkins, assume that every person who disagrees with anything you way is ignorant.

darwin's claim re: biogenesis was based on protein evolution, like from ammonia. in turn, that was based in an understanding of the significance of protein to life. observing that there was no spontaneous generation, and that all life seemed to derive from a prior generation, the whole idea that life came from a single ancestor came through an understanding of heredity. all of this is 'anything like' most modern perspectives on evolution or abiogenesis and reproduction.

notwithstanding the more intimate understanding that we have now with regard to how life works, i dont see how your statement that darwin's theories were conjecture is based in reality itself.

about me thinking that you are an ignoramus, could you be projecting an appraisal of yourself on to me? i havent said you were ignorant. you've eagerly put that forward.

What did Darwin base his theory on? He looked around, and made conclusions based on observed data, without doing any experimentation. Mendel was a contemporary, but he did not publish his work on heredity until after Darwin publish Origins. That, like it or not, is conjecture. Fairly solid conjecture, but still conjecture.

 

[geauxtohell]

First, I did not say science cares about battling religion. I said that the entrenched philosophy of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism only cares about battling religion. This explains why Dawkins is viewed as an imbecile by scientists, yet still cited extensively whenever anyone talks about evolution. If you wish to argue about that, feel free, but please stop setting up strawmen and expecting me to fold.

I actually did the same thing I just pointed out you are doing, and forgot that you are actually capable of articulating an argument without an appeal to authority. My apologies. That said, data is coerced by the very people that the general public turns to for information. Unless, that is, you think that Dawkins and his ilk are credible sources.

JB is not attempting to point out anything but random facts. He is not making a coherent argument because he does not understand the science. You might be able to string those random facts together and add in your knowledge to reach a conclusion, but that does not prove he knows what he is talking about. I would suggest that before you defend him and his ability to make an argument you approach his posts the same way a teacher would, and then tell me that he understands enough to prove me wrong.

He has consistently argued that Darwin is completely correct, and refused to accept that a challenge to Darwin is based on anything other than a belief in creation. If you want to defend him, feel free, but you will receive nothing but scorn from me if you do. I might not understand all the complexities surrounding the science, but I know that I do not understand. He, on the other hand, thinks he understands because he read abook about it at some point, and still has it on his shelf.

Dawkins is a scientist. He's done some very good scientific work. That doesn't mean we have to accept his opinions to cite the scientific work he has done on evolution.

Also, I have my doubts that Dawkins ever claimed that Darwin is "completely correct". Darwin had no mechanism for genetics.

It's hard to be completely correct and ignore genetics.

 

[antagon]

you dont have to run experiments. one can just observe nature; one can still observe cause and effect in this manner. in fact, laboratory experiments dont always prove natural plausability, while natural observations will always do so. for the purposes of darwin's framework, i say that's sufficient to elevate them above mere conjecture.

 

[JBeukema]

No we do not.

What we have is an entrenched philosophy that has spent so much time battling religion that it has left scientific advances behind. You have spent so much time appealing to Darwin, just like creationists have appealed to God, that you are forced to cram data that does not fit into his theory. If we actually examined Darwinism with unbiased eyes we would toss it out in favor of a more comprehensive, and accurate, theory. You yourself have argued against core principles of Neo-Darwinism in this forum, and you are now trying to argue with me that it is right.

There's so much of that which is incorrect. First, science does not actually care about battling religion. It certainly did back in Darwin's time and earlier, but today we simply publish in reputable journals, and put things into action, without caring what religion says. I don't know what century you're envisioning here, but the epic Galileo vs church fight has been over for some time now. With that being said, your "conclusion" that science has left advances behind is just foolish.

Second, I do not appeal to Darwin whatsoever. If you look at anything I've said, you'd quickly notice that yourself. Your second "conclusion" that data is coerced therefore holds no weight either.

Third, you are right in stating we need to toss out parts of Darwinism for a more comprehensive and accurate theory. The insight you seem to lack is that such has already happened! That's what both JBeukemia and I have been saying from the start of this thread. YOU are the only one here arguing for Darwin, and then disagreeing with him. I have tried to explain that his theories have been trumped for a long time now with modern genetics, which itself has confirmed a genetic tree of life you seem to ignore for some unknown reason.

I suggest you either do some homework, or start your next post by asking questions to help you better understand the actual topic, instead of the outdated and otherwise fabricated rendition you appear to be conveying. I'm happy to teach, but let's start by having you ask some specific questions.

First, I did not say science cares about battling religion. I said that the entrenched philosophy of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism only cares about battling religion. This explains why Dawkins is viewed as an imbecile by scientists, yet still cited extensively whenever anyone talks about evolution. If you wish to argue about that, feel free, but please stop setting up strawmen and expecting me to fold.

I actually did the same thing I just pointed out you are doing, and forgot that you are actually capable of articulating an argument without an appeal to authority. My apologies. That said, data is coerced by the very people that the general public turns to for information. Unless, that is, you think that Dawkins and his ilk are credible sources.

JB is not attempting to point out anything but random facts. He is not making a coherent argument because he does not understand the science. You might be able to string those random facts together and add in your knowledge to reach a conclusion, but that does not prove he knows what he is talking about. I would suggest that before you defend him and his ability to make an argument you approach his posts the same way a teacher would, and then tell me that he understands enough to prove me wrong.

He has consistently argued that Darwin is completely correct, and refused to accept that a challenge to Darwin is based on anything other than a belief in creation. If you want to defend him, feel free, but you will receive nothing but scorn from me if you do. I might not understand all the complexities surrounding the science, but I know that I do not understand. He, on the other hand, thinks he understands because he read abook about it at some point, and still has it on his shelf.

You accuse me of not understanding the science while you're babbling on about 'Darwinism'?

 

[JBeukema]

He has consistently argued that Darwin is completely correct

Who has?

Why do you lie?

 

[JBeukema]

Mendel was a contemporary, but he did not publish his work on heredity until after Darwin publish Origins.

fail

 

[SmarterThanHick]

First, I did not say science cares about battling religion. I said that the entrenched philosophy of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism only cares about battling religion. This explains why Dawkins is viewed as an imbecile by scientists, yet still cited extensively whenever anyone talks about evolution. If you wish to argue about that, feel free, but please stop setting up strawmen and expecting me to fold.

Ah, I thought you were making a point about science, not the meta-philosophy of science. Sure you could say the philosophy of any subject cares about other philosophies, but we must clarify that it has little to do with the actual topic, being real science.

JB is not attempting to point out anything but random facts. He is not making a coherent argument because he does not understand the science. You might be able to string those random facts together and add in your knowledge to reach a conclusion, but that does not prove he knows what he is talking about. I would suggest that before you defend him and his ability to make an argument you approach his posts the same way a teacher would, and then tell me that he understands enough to prove me wrong.

OK that's true. Looking back, he is just pointing out random facts and I already knew how to connect the dots. Saying "SNPs" over and over again isn't helpful for someone who doesn't have a genetics background. Basically, we can map the genetic tree based on changes in genes over time.

I can't speak to the past, but it doesn't appear too many people here are using Darwin's contribution to science as supporting evidence of the genetic tree. With that being said however, observation can produce legitimate scientific knowledge. All of astronomy is based on observation, as we have no way to experiment on celestial bodies.

 

[Old Rocks]

Indeed, Darwin did do some experimental work in evolution.

Darwin's Pigeons

In early 1855 Charles and his family spent several weeks in London in what was to become one of the coldest winters in living memory, parts of the Thames froze at Richmond at low tide. It was at this time that Charles maybe on one of his regular walks noticed common pigeons foraging for oats from spilt horse feed. Later at home by the fire reading the Illustrated London News, where fancy pigeons featured on the front page, perhaps an idea came to Charles to prove that all fancy pigeons are descended from the common pigeon known as Columba Livia or Rock Dove. This particular research, in turn, would help him with his theories towards the 'Origin of Species'.He finally made up his mind when Yarrell the well known ornithologist persuaded him to try.

So in March 1855 Charles Darwin was to become a pigeon fancier and set up a breeding loft at his home in the village of Downe, Kent.
This site is intended to celebrate the pigeons which played such an important part in Darwin's work. Last year, 2009, was the 150th anniversary since the publication of the 'Origin of Species' and also the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth. I hope to give you some insight into the variety of fancy pigeon breeds that Darwin worked with.
More pages will be added during the year particularly the breeds that Darwin studied.

A book that demonstrated Darwin's wide range of interests, and ability to grasp, ahead of his time, the interconnectivness of life.

Darwin Online: Vegetable Mould and Worms

This last book is outside the main stream of Darwin's work, and reverts to his earlier geological interests. He had indeed published papers on mould in 1838 and in 1840 (Nos 1648 & 1655). The original 'large flat stone' known as the 'worm-stone' was used by Darwin to measure the movement of soil due to earthworms. The stone now at Down House was reconstructed by Horace Darwin's Cambridge Instrument Company. The book was remarkably successful, selling 6,000 copies within a year, and 13,000 before the end of the century. To begin with it sold far faster than The origin of species had.

The first edition went to press on May 1, 1881, and was published on October 10. The issue was said to have been of 2,000 copies, but this cannot be entirely correct because copies of the second thousand have this printed on the title page. However these two are otherwise identical. The binding was standard with the word 'Earthworms' in the spine title, although this does not occur on the title page. The price was 9s. The third, fourth and fifth thousands were printed before the end of 1881, and each states its thousand on its title page. The third has a two item errata slip inserted before page , but the second erratum is itself wrong, attempting to correct 1° 49' to 2° 45', whereas the text reads 2° 4'. 1° 49' is however the figure given in the first two issues. In the fourth thousand these two errata have been corrected; in the fifth there are textual changes which do not affect the collation

 

[Old Rocks]

First, I did not say science cares about battling religion. I said that the entrenched philosophy of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism only cares about battling religion. This explains why Dawkins is viewed as an imbecile by scientists, yet still cited extensively whenever anyone talks about evolution. If you wish to argue about that, feel free, but please stop setting up strawmen and expecting me to fold.

Ah, I thought you were making a point about science, not the meta-philosophy of science. Sure you could say the philosophy of any subject cares about other philosophies, but we must clarify that it has little to do with the actual topic, being real science.

JB is not attempting to point out anything but random facts. He is not making a coherent argument because he does not understand the science. You might be able to string those random facts together and add in your knowledge to reach a conclusion, but that does not prove he knows what he is talking about. I would suggest that before you defend him and his ability to make an argument you approach his posts the same way a teacher would, and then tell me that he understands enough to prove me wrong.

OK that's true. Looking back, he is just pointing out random facts and I already knew how to connect the dots. Saying "SNPs" over and over again isn't helpful for someone who doesn't have a genetics background. Basically, we can map the genetic tree based on changes in genes over time.

I can't speak to the past, but it doesn't appear too many people here are using Darwin's contribution to science as supporting evidence of the genetic tree. With that being said however, observation can produce legitimate scientific knowledge. All of astronomy is based on observation, as we have no way to experiment on celestial bodies.

Same goes for geology.

 

[JBeukema]

Saying "SNPs" over and over again isn't helpful for someone who doesn't have a genetics background. Basically, we can map the genetic tree based on changes in genes over time.

Someone not familiar with genetics should stfu and claim there's no evidence for evolution until they've taken the time to learn about the subject.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why shouldn't they list it under religion?

its science

Evolution is built on imagination and faith it's not science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

​

The religious will tell you because all life was shimmered into being by the same Gawd.

The secularlist will say all life began from a bowl of soup.