Evolutionalary theory.

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by Baruch Menachem, Apr 18, 2010.

  1. Baruch Menachem
    Offline

    Baruch Menachem '

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,204
    Thanks Received:
    3,235
    Trophy Points:
    185
    Ratings:
    +3,305
    I noticed in our evolution threads that some of those that are pro evolution, don't know what they are talking about. They have the attitude Science=good, without having a good idea of the science they are defending.

    In particular, there is the problem of how evolution works. Many people here credit Darwin with the concept of inheritance of acquired characteristics. This would upset Chuck because he spent the first third of Origin of Species explaining how this concept was wrong.

    And others who are closer to correct jump on the concept of "Survival of the Fittest." Which also would upset Chuck, because it presumes evolution has a value judgment, which being a blind process, it does not care about. A better frame for the theory is "Survival of the best fit." Lions live in hot places because they fit best in hot places. Polar bears live in the arctic not because they are better than lions in any intrinsic manner, they just are better designed for the cold weather they live in.

    Lots of really cool animals are extinct. Cockroaches and ants can survive anything and thrive. This does not mean they are the best, it just means they are best equipped.

    Both of these scientific mistakes lead to dangerous conclusions. That we can alter the human animal closer to our hearts desire, either by changing the environment, somehow changing the way humans react to each other by fiat, or by getting rid of the 'unfit.'

    Evolutionary theory has moved on a long way from Darwin's time. Much of what he believed and wrote has been proved off kilter or downright wrong. Even though his basic insight that large populations have the members not suited to the environment selected out still stands.

    Evolution is a very useful tool for understanding the way things work. But in the wrong hands it can lead to bad results. It is better to drink deep of the perian spring, than to make assumption from shallow understanding.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    Wrong.

    Fitness is defined as the ability to successful replicate and pass along copies of an organism's or a traits self. It's not a judgement of anything. It's merely a simple matter of whether a given system reproduces/replicates more than another and whether a given trait spreads and becomes predominate.
     
  3. Baruch Menachem
    Offline

    Baruch Menachem '

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,204
    Thanks Received:
    3,235
    Trophy Points:
    185
    Ratings:
    +3,305
    I am going on more about what people assume from the term. A lot of the literature from the 30's and 40's made the assumption I was talking about. You are correct in your reasoning though. That does not mean other people are.
     
  4. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    Good points. The problem for defenders of science who are not scientific-minded, such as myself, is that the opponents usually frame the argument in fairly fundamentalist terms. The word "Darwinist" is a clue. The other phrase is "evolution doesn't explain the causes of life". It's easy to get tangled up while you're trying to explain that science goes forward.

    Lamarckism I think is the only "-ism" to be debunked pretty well and even then I think it would be wise to keep an open mind on it, just in case. Also I think that this discussion was happening before Darwin published "Origin", not sure of that.

    Herbert Spencer has also to be dragged in here as well. And just for interest's sake, let's think about the political and social culture of Victorian Britain and the Empire and how it viewed (when it wasn't protesting on religious grounds) the views of Darwin and particularly Spencer.

    But how the bloody hell do you convince someone that science has moved a long, long way since Darwin published?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    They just need to make it sould like its the ideas of one single man to more easily attempt to discredit the sceince.
     
  6. Amanda
    Offline

    Amanda Calm as a Hindu cow

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2008
    Messages:
    4,426
    Thanks Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,006
    Good post.

    I've seen a lot of misconceptions about evolution being tossed around here lately.
     
  7. rdean
    Online

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,208
    Thanks Received:
    6,905
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +15,047
    You are one of the problems. Someone who has zero idea what they are talking about.

    As I pointed out in the different thread, super computers of today can do, in just a couple of hours, what it would have taken a super computer 90 years to do from just 20 years ago.

    The knowledge about computer processors extends to the molecular level, something undreamed of 30 years ago.

    The point?

    Knowledge in science is across the board. That same "leap" in knowledge that is demonstrated by computers exists in all branches. This isn't 1980. Cretinous right wingers are still fighting a fight that has left them in the dust they claim Adam was made out of. The "knowledge" part of that fight is over and the white wing has lost.

    They can continue this ridiculous insistence that we were put here by "occult" forces rooted in magical beliefs. It's their own kids they are damaging. My kids know better. Since early childhood, they have been exposed to "reality".

    Don't attempt to claim knowledge of science you obviously know nothing about.

    Does this sound like intelligent discourse from someone well versed in the science of evolution?:

    "Lions live in hot places because they fit best in hot places. Polar bears live in the arctic not because they are better than lions in any intrinsic manner, they just are better designed for the cold weather they live in."
     
  8. rdean
    Online

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,208
    Thanks Received:
    6,905
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +15,047
    You can't. That fight is so over. Like I said in my previous post, this isn't 1980 or even 1880. The only thing we can hope to do is limit the damage their incurious minds cost this country because they "delegitimize" science. Science base weaponry will keep us a whole lot safer than "praying and mumbo jumbo".
     
  9. Baruch Menachem
    Offline

    Baruch Menachem '

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,204
    Thanks Received:
    3,235
    Trophy Points:
    185
    Ratings:
    +3,305
    Are you saying bad assumptions using defective information based on disgraced theories are a good thing?

    Lots of folks say "this is science." But what they speak of is just another form of faith. Scientific socialism is still moonshine. Christian Science is still belief in weak minds over hard matter.

    I really don't understand your objection, because you didn't explain it correctly.
     
  10. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    you read literature of the 30's and 40's and you refute their basic premises? wow! you rock.

    who is your audience?
     

Share This Page