Cop for this Darwin.
- Thread starter HillBill
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
When I was 18 I was asked by my boss to do some work for a wonderful old professor in Cambridge who lived next-door to our offices in Grantchester. He was born in 1902 (I met him in 1996, so he was well into his 90s by then, still raring to go!). He asked me to transcribe his notes onto a computer for a paper he was writing on the development of pineal eye spots in nemertine worms. He had a very distinguished career as Professor of Histology in Cambridge* from 1930s, and when describing the research he told me that "Darwin had real problems with proving how something as complex as the eye could come about through natural selection, as he couldn't see the half-way stage. I rather think I've cracked it at last but it's taken me a while to prove it the way I want".
I can't remember all the details but it was along the lines that a random mutation in worms allow some of them to discern the difference between salt and fresh water. This helps them feed and survive so they flourish. Then a further development enhances these sensors to spot basic light and shade varients. Also useful for finding food. Then you get to spot basic movement, allowing worms to evade predators. All the while endless generations "test" these facilities and if they are useful they get carried on down the line.
So effectively these little worms do indeed have "1% of an eye", through their ability to detect salt water or fresh.
One of the most interesting jobs I've done, and I hope I'm still sharp enough to go paddling about in rivers catching the local wildlife when I'm in my 90s!
*Here's a reference to one of his best known works: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120071450/abstract
Prof Wilmer said:
That might as well be in Greek as far as I'm concerned though! I'm not sure what "elaboration of the placodal folding of the ectoderm" is, but I bet it stings if you get it caught in a zipper.
That sounds really interesting.
I found a video clip that explains the evolution of the eye in such simple easy steps with examples still found in nature - the flat worm with light recpetive cells, the nautilus with a pinhole opening to focus the light and then to how the lens formed to sharpen the light
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duBW9QabXfw
Totally reducable!
I guess I have faith that Darwin was right. Or maybe I don't really care. Or maybe I think it doesn't matter two hoots what I think since I am an engineer and although I am an avid watcher of nature documentaries I know that I am never going to be qualified enough to mix it up with the real experts.
My attitude towards most folk who debate or discuss whether, or how much, Darwin was wrong is somewhere between amusement and puzzlement. Amusement because many who question it come over like they are stretching a little above their intellectual pay grade. I don't know why Evolution attracts this, you don't tend to hear the same people getting into interested debates over astro or particle physics. I think that this is one of the first discussions that I have seen where folk who really know about the science have taken part and I think it has made a big difference to how the thread has unfolded. Usually people who talk about this stuff either seem to have an agenda (religion) or a world view that says that there is some moral superiority in questioning EVERYTHING and there is rarely anyone to ballance that out.
The puzzlement comes in because I really can't see the purpose in the question "Was Darwin Right?" for most people. I don't understand what there is to be gained by the man on the street trying to poke holes in what is by far the best and most thoroughly tested way of modelling how the natural world works. Lets say that one looks at Natural Selection is just a tool, rather than saying it is a universal truth. Just as it stands, it is a useful tool for explaining and predicting a whole host of observable biological events and processes. It seems to me (as yet another numpty stretching beyond his pay-grade) that for the most part it is irrelevant whether Darwin wasn't able to explain the creation of life, or detailed every way in which it might change over time. This doesn't detract from the usefulness of his work, and if there ARE any holes or stunning (counter)proofs to be found, they aren't likely to be discovered first by Joe Blogs on the internet
The PhD qualified boffins will get to them first and the plebs will only get to hear about it way down the line when the hard science has been thoroughly masticated and regurgitated by several layers of reporters and comentators.
My attitude towards most folk who debate or discuss whether, or how much, Darwin was wrong is somewhere between amusement and puzzlement. Amusement because many who question it come over like they are stretching a little above their intellectual pay grade. I don't know why Evolution attracts this, you don't tend to hear the same people getting into interested debates over astro or particle physics. I think that this is one of the first discussions that I have seen where folk who really know about the science have taken part and I think it has made a big difference to how the thread has unfolded. Usually people who talk about this stuff either seem to have an agenda (religion) or a world view that says that there is some moral superiority in questioning EVERYTHING and there is rarely anyone to ballance that out.
The puzzlement comes in because I really can't see the purpose in the question "Was Darwin Right?" for most people. I don't understand what there is to be gained by the man on the street trying to poke holes in what is by far the best and most thoroughly tested way of modelling how the natural world works. Lets say that one looks at Natural Selection is just a tool, rather than saying it is a universal truth. Just as it stands, it is a useful tool for explaining and predicting a whole host of observable biological events and processes. It seems to me (as yet another numpty stretching beyond his pay-grade) that for the most part it is irrelevant whether Darwin wasn't able to explain the creation of life, or detailed every way in which it might change over time. This doesn't detract from the usefulness of his work, and if there ARE any holes or stunning (counter)proofs to be found, they aren't likely to be discovered first by Joe Blogs on the internet
The PhD qualified boffins will get to them first and the plebs will only get to hear about it way down the line when the hard science has been thoroughly masticated and regurgitated by several layers of reporters and comentators.
Nonsense!
I have faith that my car will get me from A to B. That faith is based on my logic. I know how old the car is, and the service history, and the mileage, and have experienced how reliable it is.
I have faith that when I get in an plane, it will get off the ground and land safely. My logic tells me that the principles of lift generated by airflow around the wing are sufficient to get it off the ground, and that the airline would have appointed a trained pilot.
My car still might break down or the plane might crash, but my faith would still be logical. Faith is merely putting your trust in something that you believe to be true.
Chris, please don't take this the wrong way, but I think that you are perhaps under-informed about the size of the remaining questions left unanswered by evolution. There are "boffins" who have a good deal of difficulty with some elements of evolutionary theory. Some are experts in their fields. Some quotes for you (none from religious believers to my knowledge):-
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theoryis it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creationboth are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."L.H. Matthews, "Introduction" to The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin pp. x, xi (1971 edition).
"[Karl] Popper warns of a danger: `A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched dogma.' This has certainly been true of evolutionary theory."Colin Patterson, Evolution (1977), p. 150.
"Evolution is sometimes the key mythological element in a philosophy that functions as a virtual religion."E. Harrison, "Origin and Evolution of the Universe," Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974), p. 1007.
"In October 1980, . . a conference was held in Chicago on one of the hottest issues in evolutionary studies. The respected magazine, Science, organ of the American Association of the Advancement of Science, called it `a historic conference' which `challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis.' `We all went home with our heads spinning,' said one participant. `Clashes of personality and academic sniping created palpable tension in an atmosphere that was fraught with genuine intellectual ferment,' Science reported."G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 55
"The central question of the Chicago conferences was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution."Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," in Science, November 21, 1980.
"At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No."Roger Lewin, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 12.
More recently, Michael Behe (PHD and Professor of Biochemistry), a specialist in this area, has caused uproar with his books, "Darwins Black Box" and "The Edge of Evolution" arguing the case for "irreducable complexity", which has been already discussed in this thread. These works are very detailed and the arguments scientifically stated. Whilst many (most?) others disagree with him, it is foolish to say that he has not raised any legitimate problems with current Darwinian theory.
As to why people are/should be interested in whether Darwin was right, I think it is because Darwinian theory has philosophical implications, for both theists and atheists. Those who would love to have faith that there is no God seize on evolution as being a way of undermining belief in an external Creator, who by definition would therefore have a right to a say in their lives. Those who have faith in a Creator feel that the implications of evolution taken to the ultimate are not compatible with their beliefs.
However, faith stances are taken on both sides. It is not just the God Squad who are guilty of this. The vast majority of people know little or nothing about evolution, beyond GCSE science textbooks (if they were ever opened past the "reproduction" chapter!), but they are sure that the "boffins" must have got it right.
Undoubtedly some critics of evolution have a religious agenda, and will not therefore be objective, but some supporters are equally blinkered. Dawkins, whilst an expert, is hardly unbiased in this respect, being the most vociferous and aggresive opponent of religion of our times! His book, "The God Delusion" is a good example of his agenda straying from the scientific to the philosophical. See a review by another boffin, Sir Antony Flew, who you may remember was a strident atheist for most of his life, but eventually changed his mind after serious misgivings about the evidence.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/antony-flew-reviews-dawkins-the-god-delusion/
Not sure if any of the above will interest anyone, I just thought that the point needed to be made that a questioning attitude to certain elements of evolutionary theory does not require a low IQ, rather it can sometimes indicate a healthy curiousity and desire for answers!
I'm off to eat bananas and comb my face.
As a former biology teacher, I used to get accosted every once in a while by people who clearly had a religious and/or political axe to grind regarding Darwin. They were always quoting some religious group's "interpretation" of Darwinism.
I always like to let them talk on for a while and then, at some point, ask them if they had ever actually read "On the Origin of the Species", or did they just uncritically accept someone else' opinion without looking into it themselves? Never met a one that had ever read the book. Interestingly, their answer never seemed to embarrass them in the slightest degree.
Although, religion and politics are in the forefront of 50 percent of these "debaters", It is my opinion that the real culprit is simply the lack of critical thinking skills. They cannot, or will not, think critically about many things.
Once, many years ago, I read a book about what the role of a teacher should be. The author claimed that the main role of a teacher should be to leave your students with a "built in crap detector," (his words, not mine) so that they might recognize "crap" when they see it. His contention was that this would do you more good in life than anything else you could possibly learn at school.
Apparently, this sage advice never made it into the curriculum of most schools. The proof would be, to simply watch how demagogues manipulate the public and lead it wherever they choose.
I always like to let them talk on for a while and then, at some point, ask them if they had ever actually read "On the Origin of the Species", or did they just uncritically accept someone else' opinion without looking into it themselves? Never met a one that had ever read the book. Interestingly, their answer never seemed to embarrass them in the slightest degree.
Although, religion and politics are in the forefront of 50 percent of these "debaters", It is my opinion that the real culprit is simply the lack of critical thinking skills. They cannot, or will not, think critically about many things.
Once, many years ago, I read a book about what the role of a teacher should be. The author claimed that the main role of a teacher should be to leave your students with a "built in crap detector," (his words, not mine) so that they might recognize "crap" when they see it. His contention was that this would do you more good in life than anything else you could possibly learn at school.
Apparently, this sage advice never made it into the curriculum of most schools. The proof would be, to simply watch how demagogues manipulate the public and lead it wherever they choose.
I think when a website called "All About Science" offers less science info than a Wikipedia entry and the website is merely a front for a website called "All About God" then there is an agenda which has little to do with learning but much to do with imposing a view. "Very Little about Science" might be a better name for that website. There is simply nothing there that would constitute science just a convenient "cherry picking" of scientific ideas for use in pushing an agenda.
I want to think for myself and form my own opinions. It is hard work for me to understand many of the concepts and ideas that shape our world but I muddle through it because I want to understand for myself not just adopt someone else's view of the world. I want to understand Darwin's ideas so I may test them for myself. Perhaps our world is only 5,000 years old but this is not what my experience and knowledge tells me.
Surely scientific theories become the fashion of the day, a substitute for religion, but not for those that think, experience, and investigate for themselves. I feel that the most dangerous aspect of 'faith' is when the faithful rely on others to supply the ideas behind their faith. "Do as I say because it is the Word" comes from both sides; to simply follow along makes me a sheep.
I am a man and it is my nature to ask "why?". To allow others to answer my questions for me, to assume they know and understand more than I, is to deny my nature and become less of a man. If I base my faith on the views of others I stand on shaky ground. I may end up standing alone on a tiny island of faith but the island is real, it is solid and it belongs to me.
I want to think for myself and form my own opinions. It is hard work for me to understand many of the concepts and ideas that shape our world but I muddle through it because I want to understand for myself not just adopt someone else's view of the world. I want to understand Darwin's ideas so I may test them for myself. Perhaps our world is only 5,000 years old but this is not what my experience and knowledge tells me.
Surely scientific theories become the fashion of the day, a substitute for religion, but not for those that think, experience, and investigate for themselves. I feel that the most dangerous aspect of 'faith' is when the faithful rely on others to supply the ideas behind their faith. "Do as I say because it is the Word" comes from both sides; to simply follow along makes me a sheep.
I am a man and it is my nature to ask "why?". To allow others to answer my questions for me, to assume they know and understand more than I, is to deny my nature and become less of a man. If I base my faith on the views of others I stand on shaky ground. I may end up standing alone on a tiny island of faith but the island is real, it is solid and it belongs to me.
Perhaps faith has to do with that which is beyond the capacity of logic
. Greater than logic, not less than. Faith does not propose ignorance but ignorance is often involved. Faith in my car is an extension of logic. The other kind of faith will unlikely be reduced to a mathamatical equation or a logical thesis. It could be said that putting your trust in something you do not believe in, something you truly do not understand, is called faith.ATB
B4
I think I was fortunate enough to have had a few good teachers in my life thank the Gods. ( Who died many years ago in my opinion. )
Perhaps faith has to do with that which is beyond the capacity of logic
ATB
B4
Well put - I doubt many people take a journey on "faith". Faith would be climbing in an unkown machine and believeing it will get you to a destination without evidence pointing to it. Logic is knowing how to drive a car, that the car is fuelled and roadworthy and has functioned in this way repeatedly. I think there is a large difference between believing something based on evidence and demonstrable, repeatable experience and "faith" which requires belief in the absence of such evidence.
Which is preferable or superior is for others to choose or to combine in whichever way suits them best
Red
In my opinion realigion and half logic can be deadly. As soon as you tell someone that they are right becouse God says so, all reasone goes out the window. I have been to Iraq and can clearly say that its a great example of too little logic and too much realigion.
I say listen to the storys, all of them. Take what you can from them then learn more. But never try to use religion to prove science wrong. It just does not work I mean for how long did the the church try to prove that the world was flat. The answer is as long as they could get away with it.
Next how long did they try to prove that the sun orbited the earth. The answer is as long as they could get away with it.
Faith is beleaving in something that you cant prove. So stop trying to prove it.
I know that science and evolution has taken they wind out of realigions sails for awile now. I mean a long time ago when someone asked how the moon stays up in the sky then saying becouse God wills it to be so was a very exeptable answer. Now even a preist would probably look at you and say gravity.
Mabie someday we will learn enouph that organised realigions will take a huge fall and no longer have the ability to influence our personell decisions and world veiws.
I am not an Athiest but i definetly dont beleave in the God there trying to sell me.
I say listen to the storys, all of them. Take what you can from them then learn more. But never try to use religion to prove science wrong. It just does not work I mean for how long did the the church try to prove that the world was flat. The answer is as long as they could get away with it.
Next how long did they try to prove that the sun orbited the earth. The answer is as long as they could get away with it.
Faith is beleaving in something that you cant prove. So stop trying to prove it.
I know that science and evolution has taken they wind out of realigions sails for awile now. I mean a long time ago when someone asked how the moon stays up in the sky then saying becouse God wills it to be so was a very exeptable answer. Now even a preist would probably look at you and say gravity.
Mabie someday we will learn enouph that organised realigions will take a huge fall and no longer have the ability to influence our personell decisions and world veiws.
I am not an Athiest but i definetly dont beleave in the God there trying to sell me.
No, I mean Sir Antony Flew! Check out the link in my previous post, repeated here
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/antony-flew-reviews-dawkins-the-god-delusion/
It seems he is a bit exasperated with Dawkins, to say the least!!
Considering the use of language and the errors held within I think that two things are clear, an Englishman didnt write that and whomsoever did, had not read Dawkins book. I stand by my comment, Roy Varghese is using Flew name to put across his own slewed agenda.