Darwin was born on February 12, 1809, the same day as Abraham Lincoln, who also struggled to reconcile our binary natures in his first inaugural address on the eve of the Civil War: “The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”
Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "Darwin Misunderstood".
Subscribe
Buy This Issue
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
48 Comments
Add CommentYes, it is possible to have an empty water bottle confiscated at an airport. It happened to me in Islamabad 2 years ago. I had kept the empty 48 oz bottle since there was no trash receptacle, but was informed that it could not be taken on the plane because it was a water bottle. I tossed it on the floor, which was perfectly acceptable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael Shermer states, correctly, that evolution has no purpose or direction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever Mr. Shermer quotes Lincoln about "the better angels of our nature" after discussing how species practice mutual aid.
From an evolutionary view a certain behavior is not "better" just because it is nice or kind.
We show altruistic behavior to our own kind, and especially to our closest kin, for a purely selfish reason---it is the best way to insure that our genes (or genes shared with those relatives) make it to the next generation.
A corrollary to this altruistic behavior towards relatives can be, and often is, "inhuman" treatment of peoples only distantly related to us.
Congradulations to Michael Shirmer for his article 'Darwin Misunderstood'. The only thing I would like to add is that Kropotkin was merely the most famous of many Russian and American evolutionists who found that cooperation was an outstanding feature of animal behavior in the ecosystems (harsh climactic conditions) where they did their field work. In more temperate climates animal populations tended to overcrowding, and competition was a much more prominant feature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead of "Survival of the Fittest,"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishow about "Survival of the Most Reproductive,"
or maybe even "Proliferation of the Most Reproductive" would be more accurate
(since the "most reproductive" individuals, the parents themselves,
don't -- such as we seen in fruit flies, etc. -- necessarily "survive"
even though their line, their progeny, flourishes in subsequent generations.
Thus the mythicality of "survival of the fittest" --
Darwin's theory has less to do with the relative "fitness" of the generative individual
in his or her own time,
and more to do with his or her successful representation -- by hook or crook or whatever --
in numbers over time in descendant generations.
Just produce enough children, who can produce enough children, who ...
Even a sickly weakling can do it, if it can successfully mate enough.
So much for popular misconceptions of "social Darwinism"! No virtue required!
"We show altruistic behavior to our own kind, and especially to our closest kin, for a purely selfish reason."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif our behavior towards relatives is to further our development, and with that self benifit in mind, it ceases to be altruistic. any truely altruistic behavior would not distinguish between relative or kin, and would especially run against self benefit.
most takes on evolution seem to always break down to a purely biological basis. most organic life when viewed as a purely biological existance falls well outside of the realm of altruism.
the elements of mind and conciousness which most sciences want to stay away from are at the forefront of all of our questions and observations and should be taken into acount when considering evolution. i think that this route would also alow a bridging of gaps that seem to bring about the extreme feelings towards evolution that we currently face.
I guess survival if the fittest also means survival of the most stubborn. When Darwinists and evolutionists put his THEORY under same critical review they do of creationism. When the two ideas are allowed be be equally discussed then I will wish Chuck a happy birthday. Until Darwins theory has as many years of proven results that creation has he will just have to wait.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause creationism isn't a testable theory. It is not science. Therefor, why would they be in the same discussion?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey are under different review because they are different subjects!
Agenthucky is certainly correct. Let's not combine apples and pigeons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand, let's do subject the Theory of Evolution to the usual tests. So far, it looks like quite a few have been validated - we see gradual evolution in short-lived species - and Darwin's notes cover a big area.
One of the principal attributes of a good theory is that it is capable of being falsified (see Karl Popper). That goes along the lines of "if we see this, then the theory is wrong". I don't think creationism (or ID) has that property, It's more a belief system than a scientific theory.
But the question is, does Evolution have that property?
The first few paragraphs can be pretty much summed up as:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe can invoke natural selection to explain any ecosystem we observe. Lots of small animals? Natural selection at work. No small animals and lots of large animals in exactly the same environment? Natural selection at work. And, we maintain that natural selection is directionless in one breath, while in the other, all our fossil records show a linear progression from simple to complex, and never from complex to simple.
Oh, and we get to toss in a post hoc fallacy as well. To wit: That selection for existing variation within a species automatically extrapolates to new genetic information leading to brand new species, and we'll just conveniently ignore that fact that DNA functions to limit errors as much as possible, or the experimentally verified fact using fruit flies and irradiation that random mutation does NOT cause random morphological changes.
But, we claim the mantle of science and shout down as heretic any that dare challenge us.
Neither is evolution. It is invoked to explain completely contradictory data. The classic example is junk DNA, however, the article's treatment of competition vs. altruism is another good example. Evolution says: It's both!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, having said that, a theory does not have to be falsifiable in order to be a valid theory. The idea of falsifiability is simply a philosophical position taken about forty years ago. Prior to that, a theory was considered valid if it could be used to design experiments.
No one has subjected the theory of evolution to true scientific test. A true scientific test would be an experiment to re-create an evolutionary pathway in the laboratory. Take some prokaryotic bacteria and evolve them into eukaryotic bacteria.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists have subjected the theory of evolution to multiple scientific tests. One of these tests involved fruitflies which are short lived and quik to reproduce. Researchers altered their living conditions and observed change over multiple generations as compared to the controle group. The end results was a distinct species of fruitflies which could no longer reproduce with the controle group (their parent species).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI completely agree - I won't accept any theory that hasn't been replicated in a laboratory setting. For example, I'm not convinced that earthquakes are caused by pieces of the earth's crust moving against each other. Until plate tectonic theory is subjected to a true scientific test in the laboratory I will remain unconvinced. This also goes for cell theory, gravitational theory, the theory of relativity, and the big bang theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHappy Birthday Darwin!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it it also interesting no one mentions luck would also have a factor. Some indivduals can reporduce even if conditions are not favorable some should reproduce but don't because circumstances are against them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know for science that luck and chance do apply . If you mulitply by thousands and thousands of generations then change can build up. Evolution has no agenda or special favor it can show on one group or another. The dynamics of a group to act socialy to help or hinder or interact would defintaly have a impact but it takes thousands of generations.
People wish to think evoution as cold hard rigid . However what it is saying is we are in a long list of survivors who made it to this point. Weather a devine being or luck has any part in it science cannot have much to say . This is usualy left to theogolgins.
Where luck applies in evolution is generally covered by genetic drift. Genetic drift can account for a small amount of the overall change over a certain period of time such as lightning strikes or falling boulders killing individuals, or it can account for a larger amount, for example in the case of meteor impacts that take out large parts of entire local ecosystems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA sizable meteor impact could potentially also induce punctuated equilibrium, since such a drastic change in the environment, both in terms of terrain and co-existing neighboring species, would have a dramatic impact on which genes are passed on compared to what may have been had the impact not occurred. Such a period would likely see comparatively rapid changes over the subsequent generations as the recently-vacated and newly-created niches are filled in, greatly changing the selective factors acting on the resident organisms.
The Theory of Evolution written by Darwin in days of when still the Static model of the globe had " white a stain " with occurrence
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDynamic model site www.mammoths.narod.ru the Theory of Evolution it is necessary to consider from a position both Static and Dynamic
models
The Theory of Evolution written by Darwin in days of when still the Static model of the globe had " white a stain " with occurrence
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDynamic model site www.mammoths.narod.ru the Theory of Evolution it is necessary to consider from a position both Static and Dynamic
models
When you mean static do you mean contential drift for a dynamic system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfrgough,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour arguments reply on oversimplification of an extremely complex theory.
1) read "Full House" by Stephen J. Gould for a great (if overdone) discussion of the illusion of progress created by human perception. Because life started at the simplest of scales, it really couldn't evolve to become more simple. There was a general movement towards greater complexity simply because there was nowhere else to go. That doesn't mean that evolution only moves one way, and will never produce less complex variations from the current complex ones existing now! Also, remember that bacteria have been around a long time, and are still simple, and are no less well adapted to their environment than complex mammals!
2) Who thinks that natural selection causes variation? I've never heard an informed evolutionist say this. I don't even really know what you're talking about. It's pretty basic biology that mutation not random (eg reverse mutations of DNA), and more often leads to deformation than to advantageous variation. But there's a lot of reproduction out there, and every once in a while, something good comes up.
"But the question is, does Evolution have that property?" (falsifiability)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt certainly does. As I've heard it so eloquently said on YouTube, "fossil bunnies in the Cambrian," would solidly falsify the theory of evolution as it stands.
"And, we maintain that natural selection is directionless in one breath, while in the other, all our fossil records show a linear progression from simple to complex, and never from complex to simple."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIncorrect. There is no goal for evolution to attain complexity. The nature of evolution is to cause a population to change over time in accordance to what its gene pool provides for adaptation. That simple creatures become complex is not a goal. Instead, that is simply how the chips fell for adaptation, and those adaptations allowed the population to endure.
As for your use of the term complex, can you explain exactly how one organism is more complex than another, in terms of an ancestor to its descendant, since by your use I must assume you mean all ancestors were simpler than any of their descendants. Would six limbs be more complex than four? Is it the average number of cells in an adult? Is it the number of cell types an adult has (brain, muscle, bone, etc)? Is it the number of organ systems contained in the individual?
Or do you have another definition? Is it the number of genes? Using that definition some species of amoeba would be called more complex than a human. Is it the size of an adult? Giant Sequoia would be the most complex living things in that case. Is it their life cycle? Perhaps some human parasites would be crowned most complex in that case, since some have two-generation cycles (IE, Generation A lives in environment 1, but gives birth to generation B that lives in environment 2 but who in turn gives birth to another generation A, etc).
And please define "genetic information" more specifically, since at face value it is really rather vague. Is a single gene one unit of genetic information? Do the genes that are used count, excluding the junk DNA that serves no function? Would you include only the total number of base pairs, regardless of how many genes they may constitute? If there is a more scientifically specific analogous term, what would it be?
I also fail to follow on your claim of a post hoc fallacy, if you could more specifically explain that that would be nice. I mean, we know that genetic variation in a population is due to the gene pool, so much so that the terms are (almost) interchangeable in some cases. But the theory of evolution doesn't say new species are the result of new genetic variation. A new species is a population whose gene pool has changed enough over time that it can no longer interbreed with other separate populations who share common descent with it.
Real meaning of evolution is survival and reproduction.,That we can see everyday life. All creature do this unconsciously.Survival means avoid the death in any condition reproduction means get immortality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis arise only from fear of death.
Meaning of survival of fittest is adapt and change your self with changing circumstances,for save the life all creature use fight or flight, same way sometime we are cooperative some time competitive. Man is by nature adaptive animal, so he is alive in this unpredictable and uncertain nature
What makes Darwin important in understanding the past is also what makes him irrelevant to comprehending the future. That evolution is without purpose or direction conflicts with our very human need and aspirations for just that. When Mr. Shermer writes: "Darwinism, properly understood, gives us a dual disposition of selfishness and selflessness, competitiveness and cooperativeness." It is the existing balance of those two which is both individually and culturally unstable and unsustainable, yet that is the measure of our human value systems, yet neither Evolution nor any existing established religious concept have demonstrated the potential to resolve that conundrum.?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat makes Darwin important in understanding the past is also what makes him irrelevant to comprehending the future. That evolution is without purpose or direction conflicts with our very human need and aspirations for just that. When Mr. Shermer writes: "Darwinism, properly understood, gives us a dual disposition of selfishness and selflessness, competitiveness and cooperativeness." It is the existing balance of those two which is both individually and culturally unstable and unsustainable, yet that is the measure of our human value systems, yet neither Evolution nor any existing established religious concept have demonstrated the potential to resolve that conundrum.?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://darwiniana.com/2009/02/28/blaming-the-public-for-the-faults-of-theory/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow Darwinists want to blame the public. I find it remarkable that people arent more confused than they are, since there is no real standard for what constitutes an evolutionary theory.
Shermer is an instinctive propagandist, it seems, and his task in life is to keep people confused. To say that two misunderstandings haunt Darwinism is true but misleading. Dozens of things are confusing about this theory.
To exculpate Darwinism by blaming Social Darwinism on the public is outrageous. And it is more than the suggestion of the term natural selection. The Social Darwinism is built into the theory itself. The claim that the theory, as it stands, drives evolution is what keeps the Social Darwinist angle alive.
If Darwinists cant get their act together no use blaming the public.
The theory of Darwin, really Wallaces theory, doesnt work, so it is no wonder the public flounders.
Meanwhile, bringing in Wallace is significant. This is Wallaces theory, and he later repented of it.
Time for Shermer to address the refutation of his views on Wallace, priority, and Darwin, in Roy Davies The Darwin Conspiracy.
Scientists are obviously dreadful communicators. There is a mountain of evidence that evolution is a valid theory. Christians have only the first page of a very old book that has been copied by hand and re-translated many, many times over 6000 years with all the errors that implies. The book contains a very simple, primitive theory that a supernatural being created the world. This is a characteristic of all pre- scienctific communities -invent Gods or spirits to explain what you don't understand. The scientific communication obviously isn't working on these very closed minds. To the Christians who are reading this I pose this question. If we accept your argument that God did indeed create the world why is it necessary to believe that it happened in 6 days? Would it not also be possible that someone so capable of building such a complex universe is capable of constructing a metaphor? Perhaps the 'days' are not meant to be literal days. Perhaps God's day is a billion years. Perhaps he created evolution. Perhaps he'll send you to hell for not crediting him with the creation of evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy not just "Survival"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight, so no one ever show kindness to animals, huh?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution does not mean the survival of the strongest, but the most apt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSickle-cell anemia is a handicapping human disease, but in some parts of africa it means weakened humans can resist malaria, because they are the most apt to survive. Those humans that harbour kindness may prove to be more apt than those that believe in military fire power...
Well clearly intelligence isn't required for people to breed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis new article is very good. I just watched Expelled, finally after reading the first Sketic column about it, where I first heard of it. It was a good experience. Being a SciAm subscriber for years and big Skeptic fan, I started the film completely biased in Shirmer's favor. But the film is much better than he made it sound and I am frustrated to witness the polarization of both sides. The film goes off the deep end plenty too; among all of the sociological references, I was actually most appalled by the referenced connection to Planned Parenthood. Also, the Discovery Institute operates on a $2.9 Billion annual budget (per wikipedia) and their own website shows they are clearly driven by the christian right., clearly not a humble little office in Seattle that is home to a variety of religious and agnostic truth-seekers. By now you can tell that I am political enemy #1: a rationale moderate! I do my best to objectively evaluate issues on a case-by-case basis, not a partisan platform, using as much information as I can collect coupled with my own good sense and instinct. Overall, I don't consider this issue to be all that important or relevant to high school education really at all. I believe a majority of high school students can't explain how a baking soda volcano works, or what the chemical formula for baking soda even is, we don't need to waste precious time and attention in any school addressing where we came from. Like a parent of fighting children, I feel like saying "you both lose, nobody gets ice cream." I'm much more concerned with what humans do while we are here. How to make a good battery for electric cars, that's a good subject to fight about and fund with billions of dollars!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut in the frame of politics and Univerisities, I certainly sympathize with the researchers portrayed in the film who got "Dixie Chicked." As a working-class kid that got an Engineering degree from a major university, I recognize the elitest and conceded nature that is somewhat common in academia, and see this as one of the barriers in increasing the education of the American public. Likewise, anyone who has seen the comedy film Idiocracy can identify with the truth in that...I like the previous thread about "survival of the most reproduced."
Bottom line, I will tell Science the same thing I tell Religion: Failure to hear, consider and debate opposing beliefs shows only the weakness of your own, not the fidelity.
This new article is very good. I just watched Expelled, finally after reading the first Sketic column about it, where I first heard of it. It was a good experience. Being a SciAm subscriber for years and big Skeptic fan, I started the film completely biased in Shirmer's favor. But the film is much better than he made it sound and I am frustrated to witness the polarization of both sides. The film goes off the deep end plenty too; among all of the sociological references, I was actually most appalled by the referenced connection to Planned Parenthood. Also, the Discovery Institute operates on a $2.9 Billion annual budget (per wikipedia) and their own website shows they are clearly driven by the religious agenda, clearly not a humble little office in Seattle that is home to a variety of religious and agnostic truth-seekers. By now you can tell that I am political enemy #1: a rationale moderate! I do my best to objectively evaluate issues on a case-by-case basis, not a partisan platform, using as much information as I can collect coupled with my own good sense and instinct. Overall, I don't consider this issue to be all that important or relevant to high school education really at all. I believe a majority of high school students can't explain how a baking soda volcano works, or what the chemical formula for baking soda even is, we don't need to waste precious time and attention in any school addressing where we came from. Like a parent of fighting children, I feel like saying "you both lose, nobody gets ice cream." I'm much more concerned with what humans do while we are here. How to make a good battery for electric cars, that's a good subject to fight about and fund with billions of dollars!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut in the frame of politics and Univerisities, I certainly sympathize with the articulate and reasonable researchers portrayed in the film who got "Dixie Chicked." As a working-class kid that got an Engineering degree from a major university, I recognize the elitest and conceded nature that is somewhat common in academia, and see this as one of the barriers in increasing the education of the American public. Likewise, anyone who has seen the comedy film Idiocracy can identify with that...I like the previous thread about "survival of the most reproduced."
Bottom line, I will tell Science the same thing I tell Religion: Failure to hear, consider and debate opposing beliefs shows only the weakness of your own, not the fidelity. And on this issue, I think the Costco Magazine does a better job of debating than SciAm
Those attempting to confuse people via creationalism & Christianity & undermine evolution, have an agenda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has been easy until fairly recently to uphold the status quo because individuals enmass would reject acceptance of personal responsibility for every thought they carelessly allow run rampant through their mind.
It is as though we think of the mind as something separate from ourself & we cant control what goes on in this powerhouse that governs our life & health.
But with increasing speed we are realising we can deny responsibility all we like but this ammounts to banging our head against a brick wall & only we suffer.
[When humans attempt to explain something, they can be very aware that what they say may not be of interest to another, how much time they have to express themselves, the mental attention span of another etc etc.
These (& more) can influence what is said & how its said.
Becoming involved in insecurities could be called creating CHAOS.
This background can also make the speaker throw in unnessary
funnies, dramatics even (white LOL) lies to keep the attention]
Look at your mind & how you react to everyday events, people, problems etc. Those thoughts can go back & forth up & down, creating formula's for emotional imbalances & havock within.
This could be called CHAOS.
The emotion builds creating bodily imbalances, until time & necessity forces the individual to face the bare issues at hand cutting the emotional imput...or they simply close down the mind to protect themselves. This is when when the mind presents solutions for them.
Recognising such incidents & learning from these is growth, evolvement.
Once the chaos subsides clarity can begin. When chaos is halted the problem is focused on, tuned into & answers will form.
Order Out Of CHAOS.
When the 2 levels of mind become one, (injected with ONLY one emotion, positive or negative,) a powerful electro-magnetic energy is generated that recreates the order of atoms Etc. to create the conditions required. This is why our failures are in fact our success also.
This process is extremely precise producing the formula's we write for our life, including every minute fear, doubt, insecurity injected into the process, by us.
Obviously my studies ensure I do not believe in the religious spins & additions to the ancients writings that wound up in the bible but I do believe in the basic principles which can be tested & proved
Those who have chosen religion would be pleasantly surprised to find that reading the bible more realistically would enhance their beliefs by removing (1) the insecurity of believing in an invisible god who appears to be too busy to hear many genuine plea's for help.
One reason Religion has been so successful in controling the masses, is because the the teaching are based on scientific fact.
Isaiah tells us there is only one law (lord) [which is why there is a house of lords (lawmakers,) in Britain...you are supposed to see the leaders as gods] there is no other good (god) beside me.
I form the light & create darkness. I make peace & create evil. I the law (lord do all these things.
We choose the intent & events follow.
Now think about:
According to your faith (belief, intent) it is done unto you.
You can harm another accidently (via ignorance) [They know not what they do] ....He maketh the sun shine on the evil & makes rain on the good.
By you words (intent, there were no words) you will be justified by your word you will be condemned.
It all comes back to INTENT...which triggers electro-magnetic energy. The law only rsponds to directives never to excuses ....& EVERYTHING boils down to...AS YOU SOW SO SHALL YOU REAP & our choices.
I hope I have said enough to help those interested.
Life & personal growth involve having a go, making mistakes & learning from these.
Condemnation cripples, limiting courage to further extend the abilities.
TokenGimp: "Until Darwins theory has as many years of proven results that creation has he will just have to wait."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou've got me curious, TokenGimp. Maybe you would care to outline what these "proven results of creation" actually are.
Popper also in his "theory of theories" proposed that a theory did not have to be "true", to be used.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt merely had to be the most "useful" in the sense that it leads to correct predictions, explanations and truer theories.
Clearly Darwin trumps the rest!
There is no need to worry for animals, most of them are extinct and others will become extinct in some time. Only those kept in zoos will be there as samples of the real world that existed. In future we may be able to bring the extinct animals back to life but I am sure there will be no forest left for them to live their natural life (only zoos).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHumans have surely overtaken the planet (may be for short time only, like Dinosaurs did), but we are not sure for how long they can go on. More simplistic forms of life may be more fit to survive longer (who do no need gas, electricity, fire for their survival). Sooner or later we humans have to go from this planet (either by extincting or by moving somewhere else).
Shermer is point is valid, people do not understand Darwin much, but what then? We do no understand most of the other simple things about saving earth, saving environment and animals, we think that god is the creator of this world and he will surely take care of all these things by himself. Did he taken care of the other extinct animals? or this is his way of taking care of things. In that way he will also take care of us. so no worries. It is OK to think (for some) that God created this world in some number of days but making some species extinct - Is it their in God's agenda?
At the rate at which we human beings are growing in number it will be interesting to know how nature decreases our number, because in natural selection when any species increases its number above the natural limit (is there some limit?) nature by its ways and means comes into play (or we can say she is always there playing) and checks the growth.
We have disturbed the natural equilibrium, it will be interesting to know how far we can go like this. In the long run some animals will outrun humans in survival... so may be we should kill most of the animals, but how can we kill all the ants, all the bacteria. They will be there after us.
In near future it is also a probability that life span of humans increase by changing the genes, in that case if we increase our life span to one thousand year or may be ten thousand years in that case we will have no need to procreate more humans.
There are many questions in the future, we need to understand the some old theories , but more that that we need to postulate more and more because eventually some of them will come handy at the time needed.
If we are going to be extinct, then one question which comes in my mind, that to which race (and of course country) that last man or woman will belong?
madsci: "Humans have surely overtaken the planet (may be for short time only, like Dinosaurs did)"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou make a whole string of interesting points here, madsci. But to give the dinosaurs credit, I'd point out that dinosaurs were the supreme land animals for some one hundred and sixty million years, which is actually around forty time longer than humans have so far dominated the planet.
" Natural selection at work. And, we maintain that natural selection is directionless in one breath, while in the other, all our fossil records show a linear progression from simple to complex, and never from complex to simple."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWrong. One example is the starfish and sea urchin family. They have evolved from a species with a brain, however the modern examples do not have one.
A second example is the whale family which has lost the limbs it had as a land based species.
"DNA functions to limit errors as much as possible, or the experimentally verified fact using fruit flies and irradiation that random mutation does NOT cause random morphological changes."
Wrong again. have you looked at the canine species. Every dog can trace its heritage to the wolf, but you still have a variation as big as the miniature lap dogs to the great dane. All from the same basice gene set. Even humans have a huge variation in size, colouration, bodily features, etc.
Skepticism is one of the best tool in science. I think that when you hit a rat with a stick coated with food, the rat will surely protect its life. And this rat is not following natural selection mechanism. I think if we dif further, we will find that life has the meaning to live on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTokenGimp,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI, not being a scientist, do not have to say to you that discussing creationism and evolution in the same conversation is ridiculous. I will say, however, that no discussion of any value can take place unless both sides know their own side well and the other side moderately well.
Your use of THEORY (in that tone of voice) above, tells me that you do not know the meaning of that word (except the new meaning assigned to it by religionists).
Apparently you have no idea of the rigourous examination Darwin's (and others) ideas have received at the hands of the scientific AND the religious communities. If you believers would examine your own "creationism" THEORY as tightly as scientists examine scientific theories, you'd NOT BE religious for long.
So, come to the discussion table, I'll be happy to talk to you. Just get yourself a little education before you come so that we can, at least, speak a language where the very words of the discussion will have reasonably similar meanings.
Shermer mentions Huxley's view, constrasting Kropotkin's and others. It should be noted Huxley used it to defend free-market capitalism, with it's "ruthless competition" (though Gilded Age monopolists like Rockefeller felt competition was "sin"). Kropotkin, the founder of anarcho-communism, attacked this view, along with other critics. His cooperative view of evolution cannot be separated from the politics he espoused. Indeed, Kropotkin firmly believed mutual aid in nature supported his ideas for a society of free cooperation. This see-saw of good v. evil in human nature debates is never-ending I suspect, and basically irrational. As evolution itself shows, it depends on what is best. Cooperation is good, and competition at times. Balance of these, perhaps, if that is possible (not likely). Another reader commented wisely how kin altruism is ultimately selfish-this could extend to wider tribes, or even large societies depending how they are formed. In fact, there are such ideologues as "egoist communists" which seems like a contradiction in terms, but they argue that free cooperation and mutual aid is, if done right, in everyone's rational self-interest, even selfish at the primal level. Ayn Rand would likely turn over in her grave to hear that idea of "selfish" altruism. It brings a smile to my face thinking about that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShermer mentions Huxley's view, contrasting Kropotkin's and others. It should be noted Huxley used it to defend free-market capitalism, with it's "ruthless competition" (though Gilded Age monopolists like Rockefeller felt competition was "sin"). Kropotkin, the founder of anarcho-communism, attacked this view, along with other critics. His cooperative view of evolution cannot be separated from the politics he espoused. Indeed, Kropotkin firmly believed mutual aid in nature supported his ideas for a society of free cooperation. This see-saw of good v. evil in human nature debates is never-ending I suspect, and basically irrational. As evolution itself shows, it depends on what is best. Cooperation is good, and competition at times. Balance of these, perhaps, if that is possible (not likely). Another reader commented wisely how kin altruism is ultimately selfish-this could extend to wider tribes, or even large societies depending how they are formed. In fact, there are such ideologues as "egoist communists" which seems like a contradiction in terms, but they argue that free cooperation and mutual aid is, if done right, in everyone's rational self-interest, even selfish at the primal level. Ayn Rand would likely turn over in her grave to hear that idea of "selfish" altruism. It brings a smile to my face thinking about that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love these converstaions between evolutionists and creationists. Where is there any any concrete proveable macro evolution without an equally intelligent scientific group questioning its validity? The falsification of so much of evolutionary "evidence" is its inconvenient witness that evolutionists pretending to be "scientists" have an agenda for profit, power,and position. I love the creationists discussion mostly because the "state" wants to disallow its discussion in young minds. As for the arguments against Ben Stein's expelled have you scientists applied the same standard to Al Gore's "an inconvenient truth"? Now thats a "scientific"piece of work for profit and fame that was swallowed by 60% of the scientific politically correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSkepticism should first of all apply to the assumptions of a science, increasing cofidence in them by testing them. Where are the carefully constructed tests of Natural Selection? They do not exist, because biology has taken Natural Selection beyond question, making it Law, on which the rules and assumptions of biology are constructed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThomas Huxley accepted beyond question the main part of Darwin's theory, that all species evolved from common origins, but was the first to put in writing his skepticism about Darwin's explanation of the mechanism of change, specifically Darwin's decision to exclude the effect of external conditions, opting instead for improved internal qualities that favoured individuals in struggle, competing for scarce resources.
Cognitive scientists call that an attribution error, attributing outcomes to internal qualities of individuals, rather than to external conditions that determine which behaviours are successful in those conditions. It is the most common error of the brain, most prevalent in individualistic cultures.
In ch. 3 of Origin Darwin rejected the idea that different species predominate in different climates because of the effects of the climate. He argued that it was because different species were favoured in a struggle for existence in that climate. How could that logic pass serious scientific scrutiny? Does that not infer that improved individuals have a mysterious quality of "favouredness" in specific conditions, independent of the effect of those conditions?
For change to occur in a species, Darwin understood that some individuals had to disappear. He called it extermination. Having excluded the effect of external conditions, he was left with the activities of improved individuals as the cause of extermination of their progenitors. Darwin was not so indelicate as to specify how some individuals were exterminated. Nevertheless, he understood that this was a necessary step, without which there would be no change in the species. Surely that logic is suspect?
Most present day biologists accept that external conditions have major effects on species. Other assumptions by Darwin were that the emergence of a favourable variation leads immediately to change, and the more variations, the more change. Genetics has found that change does not come from the emergence of variations, but from elimination of variances by survival pressure from external conditions, the factor that Darwin rejected. Yet biologists cling to Natural Selection to describe a mechanism better described as Natural Deselection.
Forget about Creationism vs. Evolution. The systemic fraud by most paleontologists is shocking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChris McGowan, a zoologist and paleontologist who is the author of five books on the topic of dinosaurs, proved in his book Make Your Own Dinosaur Out Of Chicken Bones: Foolproof Instructions for Budding Paleontologists that animal bones can be reconstructed to become almost anything.
On her July 2010 radio show (WOR 710AM in New York) national talk-host Joan Hamburg spoke about her early career as a paleontologist and confessed “When we dig up something we don’t really know anything. We just make it up.”
Pro-evolutionist, Bill Bryson in his best-seller “A Short History of Nearly Everything” wrote “If you correlate [fossil] tool discovery with the species of creature most found nearby, you would have to conclude that early hand tools were mostly made by antelopes…” Especially read the entry on the ultimate arrogance of The American Museum of Natural History life-sized African diorama with two hairy homonids based on a set of footprints!
On almost every other page he writes about the chicanery, dishonesty, fraud—even murder in paleontology and archaeology. READ HIS BOOK AND FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF.
The reviewer is not skeptical enough about this entire field of "science."
The "polar bear as transitional" idea isn't merely wrong, it's really most sincerely wrong (RIP Meinhardt Raabe). There is no such thing as a "transitional" form except in retrospect. EVERY species is adapted to its environment ALL THE TIME. If Arctic pack ice disappears completely, at least a few polar bears will exapt existing features to the new setting. Some of the strong swimmers may be able to spend more time in the open sea and catch food there. The more terrestrial ones may manage to cope entirely on land. The ones that flourish will pass those newly optimal traits along plus whatever new mutations arise so that in 100,000 years the terrestrial and maritime bears might be different species. But every one of the individual bears will be adapted to the environment it lives in. The ones that aren't will have died off as the ice melted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationists love to ask "What good is half a wing?" The answer is quite a lot: for control and duration in gliding and for maneuverability on the ground (try to catch a chicken some time). Proto-birds weren't somehow hoping to be real birds someday - they were fully adapted runners and gliders who invaded a new ecological niche.
Until natural selection and adaptation are composed into a function of a physical potential defining space interference this battle will never end. The duality in Nature is well known problem and solution to many intelligent people. However, the emergence of a third node (namely the outcome of duality) is essential in the formulation of principles that cycle over years and You and the young generation scientist are forced into never ever ending WAR. Darwin is all about induction while physics is about deduction. Therefore to find the string resonating through ZERO in a bunch of systems we may need redefine what natural selection is and what adaptation is as a function of well defined physical concepts using quantum chemistry theory. This WAR of individual worship must finally END people. Don't you realize that we live as a whole organism, our entire planet and universe are independent only as a function of specific time period. I see everyone as DOGS pulling a piece of large bone that belongs to nobody. Good job on the article!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this