Why Did Darwinism Emerge?
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
That's certainly the Jehovah's Witnesses view of the matter, but I think you'll find that more orthodox religions regard themselves as entirely rational.
You should not allow the beliefs in which you were raised to color your opinion of religion in general.
Sure. Among other things, the K-T event refuted Darwin's gradualism.
As I'm (almost) sure you know, Darwin believed evolution was a gradual process. And the K-T event was most certainly not gradual.
Is that enough or do you want some more?
bi0boy
Power User
I don't see how the K-T refutes evolution by natural selection, could you explain?
If you think "Darwinism" means something other than "the theory of evolution by natural selection", could you explain that also?
Also more about Adam Smith, that was good.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
No, I didn't "agree with your arguments", I stated that they might have a partial basis. Not the same as agreement.
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
I may have to read Darwin's blinkin' book now.
Did he really not allow for future discoveries like plate tectonics and genetics ?
Does the occaisional reboot really kill the theory ?
Did he really not allow for future discoveries like plate tectonics and genetics ?
Does the occaisional reboot really kill the theory ?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Surely what you actually mean is "certain perceptions and understandings of the K-T event can be used to refute Darwin's gradualism"?
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
Just how punctuated is your view of evolution, Phil ?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Nope. That's the thing. You can only "kill" it if you happen to believe that Darwin's theory is the sine qua non of evolutionary theory. It isn't.
alsoknownas
some bloke
Mr Dwyer you have misunderstood Darwin. You are adapted to survive your environment. Your fitness to continue your lineage is challenged in relation to your environment just the same whether you are clubbed to death by a rival, felled by a falling tree, or die as a result of the aftermath of a worldwide meteor impact. It's all survival of the best adapted.
In conventional science you can not 'credit' the tree, nor the person killed by it, with 'causing' an evolutionionary event. Evolution is the sum total of what happens when trees, people, meteors, clubs, and genetic mutation (very important that bit!) come together.
In conventional science you can not 'credit' the tree, nor the person killed by it, with 'causing' an evolutionionary event. Evolution is the sum total of what happens when trees, people, meteors, clubs, and genetic mutation (very important that bit!) come together.
Before I do so, do you accept that it refutes his gradualism?
The reason I ask is that this seems to me undeniable. So if you continue to deny it, I'll have to conclude that you are no better than Truxta--whose fundamentalist upbringing has forever prejudiced him against both religion and reason, leaving him incapable of discussing either.
Furthermore, Darwin's gradualism is central to his entire theory. If that is exposed as erroneous the entire Darwinist edifice must topple.
bi0boy
Power User
^^^ I already said don't bother, you seem to lack a basic scientific education.
With respect, that is not what Darwin says. Darwin very clearly says that evolution is a gradual process. And he has long been proved wrong about that. The only question is whether he is now proved sufficiently wrong to enable us to speak of a "post-Darwinian" era.
For the last time: do you accept that the K-T event refutes Darwin's gradualism?
YES/NO.
This is a test designed to discover whether you are an irrational fanatic. Failure to respond will be taken as failure.
alsoknownas
some bloke
No it doesn't refute gradualism (by which I assume we agree a gradual degree of adaptation passed on by genetic mutation). If I throw a bomb into the room some people will die, based on a number of factors (speed of reaction, position in room, underlying weakness, etc.). Same if I throw a massive rock at the planet. Evolution continues regardless in either case. Gradually.
Yes, evolution happens gradually... until a bloody great asteroid slams into the earth, killing 70% of all existing species. Nothing gradual about that eh?
Now Darwin was not aware of the influence of asteroid impacts on evolution, so he based his entire theory on the idea that evolution takes place gradually.
Darwinists don't usually understand how centrally important this assumption is to his theory. It is so important that it led him to blithely disregard the fossil record, which indicates that evolution takes place by punctuated equilibrium. He had to disregard such evidence because he assumed that the cause of evolution must be located at the level of individual organisms.
And he assumed that because he was quite openly and consciously following the lead of Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus, with their individualist theories of economics.
bi0boy
Power User
Yes there is. The event didn't create any new species, that happened gradually afterwards
Please do so, and report back here. I also recommend taking a look at William Paley's Natural Theology and SJ Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Along with Darwin himself those are my main sources for the case I'm making here.
No. But as I say, I think we've now reached the point where enough additions and qualification have been made that we can speak of a "post-Darwinist era" in evolutionary theory.
You are really clutching at straws now. Nothing could be less gradual than a fucking comet impact.
I find your wriggling quite sickening, frankly.
You're intelligent enough to see that I'm right, but you're just too bloody petty to admit it publicly. Shame on you.
bi0boy
Power User
A comet impact is not "evolution".
Any organism dying is a sudden event.
Organisms die suddenly, evolution happens gradually.
bi0boy
Power User
That "case" appears to be: "when things die, it's sudden - Darwinism is gradual therefore Darwinism is flawed and anyway, it's based on Adam Smith economics, which is flawed."
Bioboy. You're either as stupid and ignorant as Truxta, or you haven't thought what I'm saying through yet. I suspect the latter, so I'll respond one more time.
No, it is a cause of evolution. By far the most important cause, unbeknownst to Darwin.
We are not talking about organisms dying are we? We are talking about species becoming extinct.
Do you get it now? Seriously, take a while to think about it, it does take a while to see the implications ime.
No, it is a cause of evolution. By far the most important cause, unbeknownst to Darwin.
We are not talking about organisms dying are we? We are talking about species becoming extinct.
Do you get it now? Seriously, take a while to think about it, it does take a while to see the implications ime.
stuff_it
Too skool for cool
At his most predictable, you mean?Superb thread. Phil at his best
bi0boy
Power User
species becoming extinct due to poor adaptation to a changing environment, exactly as Darwin predicted.
Similar threads
