Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Dredge

Is Charles Darwin The Most Overrated Figure In History?

Recommended Posts

 

 

Cheeseburger: That's an interesting practical application of the Darwinian legacy. An acquaintance who works in a tertiary psych facility has told me that distinguishing between primitive urges and higher reasoning is an empowerment strategy used with addicts.

Of course this is a good example of the use of epithets to influence the facts rather than letting the facts influence us.

 

It seems that any biological urge could be named as, "primitive", for example we could change the epithets to a more accurate description; "lack of self-will, will-power" or, "caving in".

 

The danger of the foolishness of evolutionary philosophy is the excuses it gives people. "I murdered I was filled with revenge!"

Evo response; "that's okay, you let your primitive urge for fighting for survival kick in".

 

None of this nonsense is testable,. You could get the same results by changing the epithets to; "learn to recognise moments where you are letting feelings/desire override the will". Those, biological "urges" don't come from evolution theory, they come from the facts which you claim evolution created. (not the same thing is it?) This is how a basic study in logic can help us to separate the wheat from the chaff so as to not conflate behaviours with evolution theory.

 

As for biological urges, these urges don't belong to evolution theory, certain instincts and behaviour patterns can be there to protect the individual by design. We so often think of survival as linked to passing on genes but just think how many animals there would be left if none of them had any instinct to flee for their lives. Certain biological features are in organisms but I am afraid putting an evolutionary label on those behaviours doesn't mean that those behaviours came from evolution.

 

It's the biological behaviours and emotions, etc...and the psychology, which is factual, not evolution. You are arguing it as though evolution brings us knowledge of these things but behaviour can be explained in terms of survival, WITHOUT evolution theory.

 

"Primitive" seems a reasonable adjective in context. Neurology considers the frontal cortex the most recent addition to the brain - this is supported by the development of the human embryo and the reality that CVAs are more likely to be lethal the deeper they occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If evolutionary ideas are such an unnecessary irrelevance why do creationists advocate microevolution within kinds?

Because micro' within kinds is a demonstrable fact. Demonstrable facts tend to find practical uses in applied science - such as medicine. On the other hand, it is not a demonstrable fact that man and chimps share a common ancestor, for example ... and surprise, surprise, this non-fact is useless to applied science and useless to medicine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If evolutionary ideas are such an unnecessary irrelevance why do creationists advocate microevolution within kinds?

Because micro' within kinds is a demonstrable fact. Demonstrable facts tend to find practical uses in applied science - such as medicine. On the other hand, it is not a demonstrable fact that man and chimps share a common ancestor, for example ... and surprise, surprise, this non-fact is useless to applied science and useless to medicine.

Facts sometimes have practical utility and sometimes happen not to: goku gave the example of General relativity, Big Bang theory could be another. Primate teeth are an interesting case - and I'm guessing you're not putting humans and chimps In the same kind. Comparison has informed dentistry as to the function and relation to the jaw of specific teeth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If evolutionary ideas are such an unnecessary irrelevance why do creationists advocate microevolution within kinds?

Because micro' within kinds is a demonstrable fact. Demonstrable facts tend to find practical uses in applied science - such as medicine. On the other hand, it is not a demonstrable fact that man and chimps share a common ancestor, for example ... and surprise, surprise, this non-fact is useless to applied science and useless to medicine.

 

 

Don't know why I didn't think of this before, but in essence we do use an underlying principle of ToE when doing a lot of medical research. We use fruit flies for example as a "model organism" to do a ton of genetic research which is then carried over into the human medical field. Another model organism which is often used right before going to human trial is mice. Ideally we would use chimpanzees right before human trials, but beyond cost and efficiency being dismal such a road is deemed unethical. 

 

While it is never explicitly said, a major assumption or axiom of this research is that it is useful because we are related to these other organisms which is why we can use this research and with a few adjustments apply it to our own species. I suppose you could say we can carry out all of this research without ToE, which I guess is true, but ToE explains why this research works and is fruitful; nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it is never explicitly said, a major assumption or axiom of this research is that it is useful because we are related to these other organisms which is why we can use this research and with a few adjustments apply it to our own species.

really?

Mammals don't have any more DNA in their genome than most flowering plants (angiosperms). Or even gymnosperms, for that matter.

- sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/09/genome-size-complexity-and-c-value.html

 

you just can't seem to get that "gradual accumulation" paradigm out of your head.

nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.

darwinian evolution makes absolutely NO sense in the face of modern research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really?

Mammals don't have any more DNA in their genome than most flowering plants (angiosperms). Or even gymnosperms, for that matter.

- sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/09/genome-size-complexity-and-c-value.html

 

you just can't seem to get that "gradual accumulation" paradigm out of your head.

 

I have no idea how that is related to the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

really?

Mammals don't have any more DNA in their genome than most flowering plants (angiosperms). Or even gymnosperms, for that matter.

- sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/09/genome-size-complexity-and-c-value.html

 

you just can't seem to get that "gradual accumulation" paradigm out of your head.

 

I have no idea how that is related to the conversation.

 

to point out the fact that "closely related" is apparently meaningless when it comes to DNA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, we now have to reconsider the genome as a “read–writeâ€(RW) information storage system highly

sensitive to biological inputs. Although there are other cell structures that contain hereditary information[8,9], we know most about how susceptible genomic DNA is to biologically regulated modifications[10]. Indeed, I will argue that one of the main adaptive features of DNA-based heredity is that DNA is a highly malleable storage medium, permitting rapid and major changes to complex organisms without disrupting their functional integrity. Every time we do a molecular genetic intervention to work out the operation of some intricate cell control circuit, we make use of this malleability.

This review will summarize some of the molecular biology lessons acquired since 1953 about

(1) genome structure,functions and organization.

(2) the time scales for genome inscriptions,

(3) proof reading and DNA damage repair,

(4) cell action in restructuring genomic DNA (i.e.,natural genetic engineering or NGE),

(5) the historical role of NGE processes as evidenced by the evolutionary DNA record, and

(6) the conceptual and experimental challenges posed by the success of living cells in creating adaptive genomic novelties in the course of evolution.

- How life changes itself: The Read–Write(RW)genome. Received 27 June 2013; accepted 2 July 2013.

Physics of Life Reviews 10 (2013) 287–323

 

the above seems to imply one of two things:

(1) the cell possesses an intelligence

or

(2) DNA employs a "sandbox" concept to work out the details.

 

i highly doubt if the cell is "intelligent", although there may be some kind of "molecular language" that we haven't discovered yet.

it does appear that transposons (especially in eukaryotes) are "tagged" and this gives rise to a possible "transposon code".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to point out the fact that "closely related" is apparently meaningless when it comes to DNA.

 

Biologists don't really use c-value to determine phylogeny. The sequences of the DNA are immensely more useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biologists don't really use c-value to determine phylogeny.

i wonder why.

could it be that it smashes the crap out of the gradual accumulation paradigm?

 

c-values definitely show that genomes aren't added to, like adding beads to a string.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Biologists don't really use c-value to determine phylogeny.

i wonder why.

could it be that it smashes the crap out of the gradual accumulation paradigm?

 

c-values definitely show that genomes aren't added to, like adding beads to a string.

 

 

Because it doesn't make much sense to do so, and you aren't making any sense here. This has nothing to do with gradualism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Biologists don't really use c-value to determine phylogeny.

i wonder why.

could it be that it smashes the crap out of the gradual accumulation paradigm?

 

c-values definitely show that genomes aren't added to, like adding beads to a string.

 

 

Because it doesn't make much sense to do so, and you aren't making any sense here. This has nothing to do with gradualism.

 

i believe it has everything to do with gradualism.

without gradualism, the entire modern synthesis would fall apart, and that's exactly what's happening.

evolution isn't gradual, nor is it progressive.

this is probably why waddingtons work was outright ignored, and why mcclintok was ridiculed, because they showed changes could happen without the corresponding genetic additions.

 

i have no idea why you are having a problem accepting this, the facts are undeniable.

the natural selection/gradual accumulation paradigm is probably one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated on humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

how so?

 

are you saying a doctor takes into account whether a germ evolved from some other germ when administering their "cure"?

to imply that it matters whether you came from a blade of grass or an oak tree makes a difference to medical diagnosis is ridiculous.

 

 

It has to deal with keeping superbugs under control. We are literally running out of types of medication to give to people because bacteria are evolving resistance to the drugs we use. Any competent doctor or nurse needs to be aware of this in order to properly deal with patients on a daily basis.

That's true, but accepting that all life shares a common ancestor doesn't help the medical profession fight super-bugs, imo. The common ancestor thing is an irrelevance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true, but accepting that all life shares a common ancestor doesn't help the medical profession fight super-bugs, imo. The common ancestor thing is an irrelevance.

scientifically, we came from eukaryote super groups, a group of cells.

this comports well with what glansdorf says, and he also said HGT wasn't as prevalent as some has assumed.

i believe HGT was prevalent during pre eukaryote super groups, but rare after.

this explains why almost all eukaryotes have abundant bacterial sequences.

eukaryote retrortransposons is probably the result of pre eukaryote HGT transfer.

all of the rest of eukaryote HGT events was most likely the result of natural genetic engineering.

 

i'm positive there is yet more to be discovered however.

the possible transposon code and molecular language for starters.

 

i'm quite confident DNA utilizes a sandbox concept, how else can the cell engineer genetic sequences without upsetting the cells functionality without such a concept?

 

no, evolution isn't darwinian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms