Why are you so amazed that life has a structure and that living things share similar features? This diagram does not prove evolution. Not shown or indicated are the contra examples – very selective. Humans, cats and horses all share the same digestive systems (stomach, small bowel, appendix, large bowel) does this mean that they are related to each other?
As a theory Evolution is very political and intrusive - more so than any other. It would be good if there was a bit of mathematics to show that it does represent nature and is impartial.
My question is why are there no equations? Is there a good reason for this?
Not that they are related to each other, but that they all underwent a similar process of developing a very efficient digestive system. A good University develops many individual great minds, but it’d be quite a claim to say that because of that, it is good logic to assume they are related in origin.
Equations and mathematic proofs with no tangible applications can be misleading and shouldn’t be the pivotal point of this discussion or any. If you want a good example, take this fun little mathematic proof:
The use of math and equations doesn’t make science more impartial. Just the part where the equations are used. All science is built on fallible observations of the real world, not from foolproof logic. And biology is much much more complex than physics, so it is harder to make it as rigorous as physics.
But that doesn’t mean evolution is a ‘biased’ theory, or at least not any more biased than any other. You only perceive evolution as political and intrusive because it conflicts with your (probably religious) beliefs. By itself the theory does not make any political or religious statements.
I am glad you’ve said this, I agree until the last sentence. It might not make any political or religious statements itself, but the direct implications of it shatter traditional religious thought such as a complex God being the origin of the universe.
You seem happy enough to have a critical look at Newton but when it comes to Darwin the critical functioning of you brain seems to be impaired. It then becomes the tedious chore of others to point out the obvious.
A horse is an herbivore, a cat is carnivorous and humans are omnivorous the idea that these three would evolve the same digestive system is a bit far fetched.
I would welcome anything that compares and contrasts Darwin’s evolution with Christian concepts. But if you are going to continue with defending “Evolution†don’t expect me to respond.
I’m pretty sure some solid defenses of Evolution have been given, the problem lies in your inability to reconcile fact with your opinion.
A bit of contrast:
Evolution by natural selection shows us that life in this universe progresses gradually down a one way street–from simplicity to complexity. So, after following the regression of life from now back to a common ancestor, back to single celled organisms, back to amino acids, back all the way to the beginning of the universe and then attribute it all to a God who by all standards has to be extremely complex indeed doesn’t make much sense.
I think that the idea of Christianity as a successful meme across cultures is an interesting question and one that is worth pursuing. Tracing the adaptations of this meme as it progressed from a sub-set of Judaism to the official religion of the Hellenic world to the unifying thread of Christendom (modern Europe) and how it adapted to Germanic and Gallic cultures – couple that with the fact that romance-speaking countries remained Catholic whereas Germanic speakers went Protestant, I think there is a lot of group for fertile discussion in using an evolutionary perspective on Christianity. Couple that with the various awakenings in America and the new variants of Christianity as it is synthesized with other religions (such as Hari Khrisna or Japanese New Religions). It would be interesting to trace.
I’ve argued before that a phylomemetic tree of various philosophies would be very interesting.
It will take a bit more to convince me of the existence of memes. It seems needlessly complex. For me the industrial/social conditions of England at the time of Darwin required a more business friendly world view than that of Christianity. Darwin’s evolution fit the bill perfectly and was taken up with unseemly haste by moneyed interests. For the industrialist it provided an excuse for inhuman working conditions. For government the evolutionary world view meant that it was “natural†to have people who were down and out. They then painted themselves as champions who protected those whom nature found unsuitable. Replacing God with an evolutionary world view reduced governmental accountability. The Theory of Evolution was accepted more for selfish reasons than for science.
Enter Darwin, a man with a checkered past who appropriates a few key concepts from Christianity. “Transformation†and “salvation†become “mutation†and “survival†with the stroke of a pen. A few tense moments but no one seems to notice. Presto instant “scientific†success!! Though his ideas lack the structure to even be called a theory this is overlooked and Evolution is taught as not a theory but a “factâ€. Something fishy here? Yes I agree.
I will agree that Spencer and the misappropriation of Darwinian Evolution and reason in general (after all, it was more ‘rational’ to use women and children laborers since they cost less) in the pursuit of Social Darwinism is a rather nasty model. However, I am unconvinced that saying this replaced the business-unfriendly Christianity is being truly historical. While the Church has been involved in many notable charitable ventures, there were many, many people who were able to happily ignore basic Christian virtues and/or misappropriate them, such as in Calvinism when wealth became a sign of God favor and the distinction between Divine Favor and Earthly success became non-distinct.
Also, while Darwin talked about the transmutation of species, since he was unaware of genetics, he never spoke of ‘mutations’ per se – he limited his discussion to ‘natural selection’ and did not propose a mechanism. So I am unsure such a comparison is really valid.
As for memes – I’m not even sure whether I buy memetic theory. However, it is a useful tool for discussing the history and development of ideas so in that sense, I think it is interesting to apply tools that we developed from the study of Evolution to see what happens when applied in other areas. I though some of the phylogeny was interesting, though I wish they had included Orthodox Christianity and its splinter-groups and possibly some of the older heresies, but I suppose data is lacking on the heresies. And, obviously, pre- and post-Vatican II RCC. Granted, that is an obvious fork at the end of the RCC-line, but I think it could have affected some other variables.
If somebody were to use multiple accounts to defend themselves in an argument, that would disappoint me quite a bit. But I wouldn’t tell the public the results of an IP check, if one were made.
Fair enough. Darwain was a product of his evnironment and as it is said “There is nothing new under the sun”. My point is that people give Darwin credit for being original when he wasn’t. A deeper understanding would follow people taking a critical look at Darwin just as they do everyone else.
Well, “originality” in general is a tough nut to crack. Aquinas argued that creation was a divine providence alone, and that all people did was shuffle stuff around. This becomes even more extreme when people ‘discover’ something that has been going on with-or-without their knowledge. Indeed, much of science isn’t an act of creation, but rather an uncovering on natural principles already at play.
That said, I think that synthesizers and systematizers do deserve a special place. After all, this information had always been there staring us in the face, but it takes a particular kind of mind to take that information that is already present (or, at the very least, readily uncoverable) and bring it together in a new way. Franklin had the same information that Watson and Crick did (since Watson and Crick stole most of their information from her), but based on her journals she probably never would have managed to unravel the double-helical nature of DNA. History abounds with examples like this, where certain titanic individuals take the information and from it create reality.
I would argue that Darwin was such an individual. Evolution, as a theory, had been around for some time before Darwin, but through natural selection he discovered a manner in which evolution could work. Once natural selection became coupled with genetics, it became a rather unstoppable force.
So, did Darwin act alone? Of course not, people never do, but I think his contribution was weighty enough that he deserves the place he has been given.
I’m not that idealistic. At one time one could prove Astrology by pointing out the metal mercury is a liquid because its planet is so close to the sun – (what other explanation could people give?). Evolution depends on this kind of ignorance and self reference. It is more of a world view than a scientific theory -it suits the selfish needs of our age. And in history it is responsible for more harm than good. I don’t accept it as science and in the present I have to live with the abuse that brings. But in the future others will have to live with themselves for not standing up against something they knew was wrong.