NationStates Jolt Archive

Firstly, I find nothing wrong with evolution. It's true, end of story. However, I do question the claim that some make that it is the greatest scientific discovery since Newtonian physics. It is a nice theory, but whenever I read about it in a scientific context, I just come off feeling that it's not that amazing, and that Darwin's discovery was not so much revolutionary so much as, perhaps fittingly, the result of a long evolution of thought.
What do people here think? If it weren't for the pseudoscientfic community's backlash against the theory, would it be that esteemed? Or would it be placed alongside the many perfectly-respectable-but-not-mind-boggling theories such as kinetic molecular theory, or tectonic plates theory?

heh what i was thinking: i dont get why people dont believe in evolution... its just a simple principle, nothing complicated about it, perfectly logical anyone could have com up with it... darwin wasn't that smart.

I think its political, religious and social implications are far greater than many other scientific discoveries, at least in the 19th century.

It's special and useful in its own right, but it's not something to celebrate. I take it for granted, until its disproven. I think the whole "taking it for granted" part is what really annoys the subcultures that feel it contradicts their Truth.

How DARE you compare the mind-boggling kinetic molecular theory, one of mankind’s greatest scientific discoveries in it’s revolutionary conclusions, with that, Meh, Darwin came up with! I’m offended that you even put both theories in the same paragraph!


j/k :D

Well, the idea is simple (but so are the ideas of newtonian physics), the work of darwin was more about finding clues and "proofs" of evolution, and explaining in details how it works.

But I think the most important part of evolution is the philosophical consequences, about how we perceive the world and ourselves, about how it solves the "mystery" of how men happened to exist.

And of course, the bigotry of people refusing it so violently because it's against what is written in a book gives a lot of importance to it ;)

heh what i was thinking: i dont get why people dont believe in evolution... its just a simple principle, nothing complicated about it, perfectly logical anyone could have com up with it... darwin wasn't that smart.

That I disagree with. I think Darwin was very smart. He was an excellent observer, and throughout his whole life did experiments on a myriad of different subjects which he wrote about. Most of them are about things such as barnacles and climbing plants, and don't have as much popular appeal as evolution, but intelligent, all the same.
You're right though in that if Darwin didn't write The Origin of Species, someone else would have done something similar. In fact, I think that's why he published when he did, because he got a letter from someone who had discovered it independently and he didn't want to lose the credit.

i dont know how one compares the greatness of scientific theories but evolution did require revolutionary thinking. so revolutionary that it has utterly changed our thoughts on biology until it seems glaringly obvious.

surely the miracles of modern biological, genetic and medical sciences are made possible by this "simple" understanding of how life works.

The concept of evolution dates back at least as far as the ancient Greeks, according to a history textbook that I read many years ago. Apparently, studying fossils prompted them to come up with the theory that all creatures, including humans, descended from fish.

I'm no expert on what Darwin was or wasn't theorising, but it seems to me that he was putting a more modern scientific framework on older ideas, including those put forward by his own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin.

I agree with Chumblywumbly that it has strong religious implications, but I'm not sure that it has any genuine social or political relevance. People may try to appropriate it to support their own particular ideology, but that's another matter.

Firstly, I find nothing wrong with evolution. It's true, end of story. However, I do question the claim that some make that it is the greatest scientific discovery since Newtonian physics. It is a nice theory, but whenever I read about it in a scientific context, I just come off feeling that it's not that amazing, and that Darwin's discovery was not so much revolutionary so much as, perhaps fittingly, the result of a long evolution of thought.
What do people here think? If it weren't for the pseudoscientfic community's backlash against the theory, would it be that esteemed? Or would it be placed alongside the many perfectly-respectable-but-not-mind-boggling theories such as kinetic molecular theory, or tectonic plates theory?

I have a feeling you're correct on the assertion of it not being considered all that phenomenal if it wasn't for the fact that it went against certain peoples religious convictions... It's the modern day equivalent of the Copernican Model...

What do people here think? If it weren't for the pseudoscientfic community's backlash against the theory, would it be that esteemed? Or would it be placed alongside the many perfectly-respectable-but-not-mind-boggling theories such as kinetic molecular theory, or tectonic plates theory?
Darwin's ToE was certainly revolutionary, in that it (finally) provided an elegant, consistent explanation for the vast diversity of life on the planet without having to call upon some supernatural entity. Its impact was, and remains, huge across a vast array of fields of inquiry.

Considered against the scientific background that existed at the time that Darwin published it can only be seen as revolutionary. It directly contradicted the accepted wisdom of the day as well as opening the door to scores of new directions for research - for example, further investigations into the age of the Earth. As ever in science, it was a case of one thing leading to another... the hitherto undreamed-of scale of years that his theory required to have passed in order to make sense allowed his field to become consistent with new theories in geology (the other major Victorian science pursuit of the otherwise unoccupied young gentleman) - ultimately leading to theories such as those of plate tectonics, that you referred to in your post.

Just as some others have already said, I'm really not sure how one might go about quantifying "greatness" in a scientific theory. I am, however, pretty sure that Darwin's one would qualify, however we measure it.

It's a theory about how we became what we are, biologically. Which is quite important it would seem to me. What's more important to us that biologist yet have to find than our origin? Although the human genome was pretty big too.
But yeah, I don't think it's that important there should be a topic about it each two weeks. I don't see why some people get so mad about it, and not about for instance the human genome project, I mean, how can it be possible that a whole human can be summarized in a few billion pairs of fairly uncomplicated chemicals? I don't see a lot of fundamentalists ranting about that. (not that I want them to...)

i dont know how one compares the greatness of scientific theories but evolution did require revolutionary thinking. so revolutionary that it has utterly changed our thoughts on biology until it seems glaringly obvious.Darwin's theory is hardly revolutionary, in that sense, though. Lamarck and all the other real scientists laid plenty of groundwork that simply turned out to be mistaken. Evolution: The Concept! predates Darwin's Evolution: The Theory!

Darwin's theory is hardly revolutionary, in that sense, though. Lamarck and all the other real scientists laid plenty of groundwork that simply turned out to be mistaken. Evolution: The Concept! predates Darwin's Evolution: The Theory!

that the theory of evolution doesnt rest totally on darwin doesnt make the theory of evolution any less revolutionary.

you might note that my post did not reference darwin.

I think its political, religious and social implications are far greater than many other scientific discoveries, at least in the 19th century.how so?? does it change anything?

that the theory of evolution doesnt rest totally on darwin doesnt make the theory of evolution any less revolutionary. darwin only opened the door but he didn't really come in. darwin could only observe phenotypes and draw his conclusions, but today we are 100 years ahead of that and determine relationships among organisms by genotypes. DNA doesn't lie.

If it weren't for the pseudoscientfic community's backlash against the theory, would it be that esteemed?

yes. it utterly revolutionized our thinking about life, explained a huge pile of previously unexplainable facts, has been enormously fruitful in making further predictions and discoveries, etc. in short, it is everything a scientific theory could ever hope to be. it's like a grand unification theory of life. and it's so damn simple that it seems obvious in retrospect and can be explained in brief outline form in under a page of writing. it's like the exemplification of the triumph of science.

darwin only opened the door but he didn't really come in. darwin could only observe phenotypes and draw his conclusions, but today we are 100 years ahead of that and determine relationships among organisms by genotypes. DNA doesn't lie.

yupyup. darwin would have loved to know what the mechanism for tramission of inherited traits was. all he could do was make an educated guess which turned out to be wrong.

and it's so damn simple that it seems obvious in retrospect and can be explained in brief outline form in under a page of writing. it's like the exemplification of the triumph of science.

Others have pointed that out, too. Maybe it's because of its simplicity that it doesn't seem as grand as, say, relativity.

and it's so damn simple that it seems obvious in retrospect and can be explained in brief outline form in under a page of writing. it's like the exemplification of the triumph of science.

Others have pointed that out, too. Maybe it's because of its simplicity that it doesn't seem as grand as, say, relativity.

Others have pointed that out, too. Maybe it's because of its simplicity that it doesn't seem as grand as, say, relativity.

ah, but simplicity (that fits with the data and offers fruitful predictions) is a scientific virtue of great importance. you can always offer a more complex explanation for the data, but you shouldn't needlessly multiply explanatory entities.

besides, simple things that can do a huge deal of work are way more elegant than big complex things that always require a bit more tinkering to keep them going.

The concept of evolution dates back at least as far as the ancient Greeks, according to a history textbook that I read many years ago. Apparently, studying fossils prompted them to come up with the theory that all creatures, including humans, descended from fish.I don't think it had much to do with fossils; but was more a matter of philosophy. Newborn humans can't take care of themselves, so they had to be preceded by something that could. For some reason or other the philosopher settled on fish. (It couldn't be a mammal for obvious reasons, they all need a mother for milk).
That was the gist of it in the book I read, I think; I'd have to find it to be sure.
Of course, regardless of the specifics, it shows the idea of evolution is pretty old.

Lamarck and all the other real scientists [..]Are you suggesting Darwin wasn't a real scientist? (Well, as much as Lamarck and the rest).
He was already a very accomplished scientist before his "On the Origin of Species". Well respected by his peers.

I agree with Chumblywumbly that it has strong religious implications, but I'm not sure that it has any genuine social or political relevance. People may try to appropriate it to support their own particular ideology, but that's another matter.
how so?? does it change anything?Well, there's social Darwinism and the related eugenics and the extreme form of it found in Nazism.

It ties together with the problem that if humans are not "special", but just another form of animal, then morality and values can become ungrounded. One response was to take evolution as a moral guide: evolution is progress, fitter is better. In economics this was taken as an argument for laissez-faire capitalism: the stronger businesses survive. In politics it was an argument for racism: the fact the west dominated the world was the result of biological superiority of the white race. Overall the "winners" of the world took it as justification for their position in it.
Funnily enough, evolution was very much the conservative shtick of the time; now, not so much.

The first chapter of "What makes us moral" by Neil Levy gives a nice overview of these things (much better than the few things I've picked out; I'm not good at making summaries).

However, I do question the claim that some make that it is the greatest scientific discovery since Newtonian physics.

And who makes that claim?

Anyone?

I doubt anyone in the scientific community (of importance) gives it any more credit than it's worth.


It is a nice theory, but whenever I read about it in a scientific context, I just come off feeling that it's not that amazing, and that Darwin's discovery was not so much revolutionary so much as, perhaps fittingly, the result of a long evolution of thought.
What do people here think? If it weren't for the pseudoscientfic community's backlash against the theory, would it be that esteemed?

It's not about esteem, it's about media coverage and air time.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution

The scientific value of the Theory of Evolution is enormous. It has shown that the world isn't static, that humans are animals too. It is the basis of all of biology and our understanding of the living world, as any biological characteristic is subject to selection.

Sure, looking back you might think you yourself could have come up with it. Please realise that you've grown up with the concept of evolution and natural selection. Darwin didn't. Some of you have pointed out that there were all kinds of evolutionary thoughts throughout history. The majority, however, were mystical or philosophical, certainly not scientific.

When you realize Darwin grew up in a world where the best answer for why humans existed was essentially, "A wizard did it," you can realize how revolutionary the theory was.

Now, it's just another mountain of evidence that most religions are pretty much wrong in how the world came to be. This is why it's still groundbreaking and revolutionary; people want to believe in their cute little fairy tales on how we were put here because we're special, and that delusion is shattered when evolution says no.

Firstly, I find nothing wrong with evolution. It's true, end of story. However, I do question the claim that some make that it is the greatest scientific discovery since Newtonian physics. It is a nice theory, but whenever I read about it in a scientific context, I just come off feeling that it's not that amazing, and that Darwin's discovery was not so much revolutionary so much as, perhaps fittingly, the result of a long evolution of thought.
What do people here think? If it weren't for the pseudoscientfic community's backlash against the theory, would it be that esteemed? Or would it be placed alongside the many perfectly-respectable-but-not-mind-boggling theories such as kinetic molecular theory, or tectonic plates theory?

Given that we can see how creatures are adapting to their environments before our eyes, it seems silly to me that people claim it's unproven. It's one of those things that basically is assumed true -- like when you throw a ball into the air, it will come back down and not just hang there... and that it's generally a poor idea to insert beans up your nose.

Evolution feels 'meh' about me :p