Greeks

[dan_the_man]

I don't think I ever really studied evolution in depth until I was a freshman in high school(and I was taking a junior year Biology course). The kid just needs to do a little bit of research about Charles Darwin and his theories to get started.

 

[gluadys]

actually, aristotle thought about darwinism, and then rejected it. he said that things don't happen by accident (a tooth doesn't come into being by chance or accident) but things have a pointedness (a tooth comes into being because there is this action called chewing).

In other words he proposed an argument from design.

Evolution turns this around. Chewing comes into existence because teeth came into being. (Actually I believe biting preceded chewing by a long, long time.)

 

[troodon]

. The kid just needs to do a little bit of research about Charles Darwin and his theories to get started.

A simple task so few are willing to undertake.

 

[Dal M.]

actually, aristotle thought about darwinism, and then rejected it. he said that things don't happen by accident (a tooth doesn't come into being by chance or accident) but things have a pointedness (a tooth comes into being because there is this action called chewing).

So the notion that certain traits develop because they're useful runs counter to the theory of natural selection?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

..

 

[gluadys]

So the notion that certain traits develop because they're useful runs counter to the theory of natural selection?

No. The notion that certain traits originate because they are useful runs counter to the theory of evolution. That they are preserved and spread through the population because they are useful is the theory of natural selection.

 

[Illuminatus]

Prax, what on earth is that supposed to be? I can't even come up with a witty one-liner to describe it.

 

[Self Improvement]

A man with a big nose choking a foot.

 

[USincognito]

The reason I think the evolution theory is so dumb, is that the ancient Greeks came up with it. It's just so old and out dated, and there's been nothing to prove it.

You might be confusing Aniximander's musings about life coming from the sea (I cannot know, since you didn't elaborate), but to he has generally been shown by the evidence to be correct. If we want to stick to vertebrates, lobe finned fishes eventually colonized the land and amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds and mammals eventually evolved from those first colonists.

His musings, however, weren't very well evidenced and certainly were not an influencing factor in Darwin's formulation of the Theory, nor the 150 years of fossil and genetic evidence that have followed since he first published them. Anaximander was, at best, prescient, but not the inventor of evolutionary theory as it it studied today.

As far as the evidence for evolution goes... I'll let others pile on with links supporting it. I'd rather you first show a willingness to do your own research rather than provide bald assertions before I start doing your homework for you.

 

[wagsbags]

Ok while a 12 year old is very unlikely to understand evolution let's let the age thing go and simply suggest that he learn about what he's talking about. Go to http://www.talkorigins.org/ and peruse the articles. The problem is that honestly you're not going to understand most of it. Some of the articles are very technical, as in, despite being in college the fact that I'm not a biologist means that I don't understand a lot of it.

 

[dan_the_man]

Here are a few links to get the kid started:

What is evolution?
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_what.htm
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/evolve.html

Who is Charles Darwin?
http://thesong of thecoyote.tripod.com/id27.htm
http://www2.lucidcafe.com/lucidcafe/library/96feb/darwin.html

Don't you just love how they automatically categorize the theory of evolution under Atheism in the first link?

 

[Praxiteles]

Prax, what on earth is that supposed to be? I can't even come up with a witty one-liner to describe it.

Why, it is a man pulling a leg. Of course.

 

[Aggie]

You might be confusing Aniximander's musings about life coming from the sea (I cannot know, since you didn't elaborate), but to he has generally been shown by the evidence to be correct. If we want to stick to vertebrates, lobe finned fishes eventually colonized the land and amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds and mammals eventually evolved from those first colonists.

His musings, however, weren't very well evidenced and certainly were not an influencing factor in Darwin's formulation of the Theory, nor the 150 years of fossil and genetic evidence that have followed since he first published them. Anaximander was, at best, prescient, but not the inventor of evolutionary theory as it it studied today.

As far as the evidence for evolution goes... I'll let others pile on with links supporting it. I'd rather you first show a willingness to do your own research rather than provide bald assertions before I start doing your homework for you.

I figured it was Anaximander of Miletus that the OP was referring to, but I generally give him more credit than that. One of the things that led to the development of his ideas (he also proposed that humans were descended from other types of animal) was his observation that nature always appeared to work using the same set of principles, so it seemed likely to him that it had worked by these principles in the past also. And since Anaximander didn’t see any present examples of living things being created directly by gods (This was ancient Greece, so it would have been gods like Zeus and Hera), he assumed that life had arisen in the past through mechanisms similar to the ones that currently sustained it.

But I also agree with some of the other posters; the ancient Greeks proposed several ideas that evidence has now shown to be years ahead of their time, such as the circumference of the earth. I consider Anaximander’s primitive version of evolutionary theory to be an example of that also.

 

[Andrelj]

Ok. Now that you guys have just ripped my opinion apart, I see that I really don't have much of an argument. Let's say that I don't belive in evolution and leave it at that.

 

[David Gould]

Ok. Now that you guys have just ripped my opinion apart, I see that I really don't have much of an argument. Let's say that I don't belive in evolution and leave it at that.

Maybe you should examine why you do not accept evolution. Perhaps you will learn that you actually have no reasons to reject it at all.

 

[USincognito]

I figured it was Anaximander of Miletus that the OP was referring to, but I generally give him more credit than that.

Who? Anaximander or the original source of the OP? (I doubt, given the, but not to denigrate, the Andrelj's youth that he was aware of the direct correlations between the Creationst claims and a certain Milesian philosopher. And Kudos to you for catching a rather arcane "backstory" behind a Creationist claim. As a History major in the late 80s/early 90s, I was aware of Anaximander, but didn't understand his role in the CvsE debate until just a few years ago when I happened to Google him.

But I also agree with some of the other posters; the ancient Greeks proposed several ideas that evidence has now shown to be years ahead of their time, such as the circumference of the earth. I consider Anaximander’s primitive version of evolutionary theory to be an example of that also.

Seconded, but in the persuit of truth I must offer two ceveats:

The Greek philosopers were faulty in their method. They considered a gedankenubungen* is the equivilent of actual research, and that thinking about something would be as good as studying it. While science in the West is rooted in a lot of the discoveries of the Greeks, it wasn't until the Christian scientists of the West sought to know their creator by studying the creation that the scientific method really bore fruit.

That said, I can't help but wonder where we would be today science wise, if the knowledge gained by Archimedes, Eratosthenes and Anaximander had survived and flourished during the Dark Ages. There were plenty of things wrong with Pythagoras' ideas of tones and shapes, Plato's utopian Republic and other ancient Greek ideas (not my sig line), but that does nothing to lessen who sweet the cream that rose to the top was.

* As far as I can research, this is not an actual German word, but it would mean "thought exercise."

 

[Aggie]

Who? Anaximander or the original source of the OP?

Oh come on, you should know from the rest of my post who it I have all this respect for. I even have "Anaximander" on my interests list at LiveJournal.

That said, I can't help but wonder where we would be today science wise, if the knowledge gained by Archimedes, Eratosthenes and Anaximander had survived and flourished during the Dark Ages. There were plenty of things wrong with Pythagoras' ideas of tones and shapes, Plato's utopian Republic and other ancient Greek ideas (not my sig line), but that does nothing to lessen who sweet the cream that rose to the top was.

Don't forget about Democritus, too. He proposed the idea that all matter is composed of basic units that are too small to be visible, and that the various properties of matter are determined by what types of these units it contains and how they're arranged. The name he came up with for these units was “Atomos”. Does that theory sound familiar at all?

 

[USincognito]

Oh come on, you should know from the rest of my post who it I have all this respect for. I even have "Anaximander" on my interests list at LiveJournal.

We're one of very few, even in the greatly exaggerated Netverse who are actually familiar with him and his theories, so I'm sure you're catch the irony in my disdain for those Creationists who suggest that that Darwin/evolutionary theory is nothing more than rehashed Hinduism via the Hanuman narratives from the Gitas.

Don't forget about Democritus, too. He proposed the idea that all matter is composed of basic units that are too small to be visible, and that the various properties of matter are determined by what types of these units it contains and how they're arranged. The name he came up with for these units was “Atomos”. Does that theory sound familiar at all?

Since I was a Poli-Sci major as well as History, my list would have been nothing but a paragraph sized list of names had I included every Hellenic/Hellenistic Greek worthy of mention in terms of nascient scientific, philisopical, political, military etc. contributions to the subsequent 2500 years.

I'm at a loss as to where to take this thread except to note that while certain ideas of the Greeks (see my sig) have come a long way in the intervening 25 centuries, it's interesting to note how many of them are still rejected by people who have no problem with microwave ovens and genetic testing for paternity.

 

[HRE]

Guys, I just got this PM from Andrelj:

...I would also like to say that I will be staying away from that area [C&E forum] in the future seen as I am upset and hurt.

Andrelj

Now, I've pleaded with him to re-consider, but let's just think about that for a minute or two...

 

[pantsman52]

Guys, I just got this PM from Andrelj:



Now, I've pleaded with him to re-consider, but let's just think about that for a minute or two...

Boohoo, he made a horribly ignorant statement and got ripped apart.