Was Darwin Wrong?

[The Princess Bride]

New studies are suggesting that the "theory" of evolution presented by Mr. Darwin may have more flaws than most science buffs are willing to admit, due to the re-consideration of [French naturalist] Jean-Baptiste Lamarcks theories.

While many of his [Darwin] "theories" may be accurate over a longer span of time, scientists studies are concluding there is a faster adaptation process occuring, also giving indication that exposure to certain elements or environmental sources may affect DNA to following generations, indicating perhaps that "survival" is not always the means of adaptation.

Source is Newsweek.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/180103?gt1=43002

Thoughts?

 

[Tenka]

Thoughts?

"Why" are you putting "quotation" marks around certain "words"?

 

[PantsMcFist]

Of course Darwin will be wrong about some things. Very few people who put forth original theories before post modern times were 100% right. To assume otherwise would be short sighted.

 

[BlackAndy]

Was Darwin Wrong?

Yep.

 

[Avatar]

"Why" are you putting "quotation" marks around certain "words"?

"That" "drives" "me" "insane".

The only thing worse is air quotes.

 

[70x7]

Science books should be written in pencil.

 

[Avatar]

Science books should be written in pencil.

And doused in gasoline. And burned. Yes?

 

[keith99]

Of course Darwin wa 'wrong' I'd say in hte same range (adjusting for the discipline) as Newton.

The article is garbage. It is a very disingenious attempt to claim inherited traits on a scale not supported by the evidence, it looks like it mainly calles differences in expression of traits due to environment inherited traits.

 

[The Princess Bride]

"Why" are you putting "quotation" marks around certain "words"?

If you aren't of the intention to answer the "question", why must you reply?

And...I put quotes around "theory" because a theory is something that is plausible and acceptible by science, yet not conclusive. Therefore you should not take it for more than it is.

Of course Darwin will be wrong about some things. Very few people who put forth original theories before post modern times were 100% right. To assume otherwise would be short sighted.

Very true.

Science books should be written in pencil.

HAHA....Good luck with that thought!

 

[jsn112]

New studies are suggesting that the "theory" of evolution presented by Mr. Darwin may have more flaws than most science buffs are willing to admit, due to the re-consideration of [French naturalist] Jean-Baptiste Lamarcks theories.

While many of his [Darwin] "theories" may be accurate over a longer span of time, scientists studies are concluding there is a faster adaptation process occuring, also giving indication that exposure to certain elements or environmental sources may affect DNA to following generations, indicating perhaps that "survival" is not always the means of adaptation.

Source is Newsweek.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/180103?gt1=43002

Thoughts?

Oooo...you are not supposed to attack Darwin. Now, you're asking for it.

 

[JGL53]

The only thing Darwin was wrong about was his conclusion that natural selection acting on inherited variability was the only force driving evolution, excepting a minor role for sexual selection. He also thought in terms of extreme uniformism and gradualism.

We now know that a great deal of randomness or chance has just as much to do with evolved forms and that periodic catastrophic events shape evolution as much as the underlying force of natural selection.

The idea that evolution did not take place - and that complex life forms were just zapped instantly into existence by some unseen immaterial invisible all-pervading supermind or superperson is, of course, just crazy talk.

 

[peanutbutter12]

All science is theory.

I do enjoy all the Christian finger pointing at Darwin's theory of evolution for no good reason other than some extremist religious political agenda about 40 years ago. There is nothing in the Bible that states that evolution isn't possible and nothing in the theory that discredits Christianity or God.

 

[The Princess Bride]

Oooo...you are not supposed to attack Darwin. Now, you're asking for it.

Oops, guess I didn't get the memo!

The only thing Darwin was wrong about was his conclusion that natural selection acting on inherited variability was the only force driving evolution, excepting a minor role for sexual selection. He also thought in terms of extreme uniformism.

We now know that a great deal of randomness or chance has just as much to do with evolved forms and that periodic catastropic events shape evolution as much as the underlying force of natural selection.

True, and I am sure as time continues other potential leaks or discrepancies may be found as well, because we simply don't know what all exactly can influence variabilities, there are tests we have now that Darwin never dreamed of possible.

The idea that evolution did not take place - and that complex life forms were just zapped instantly into existence by some unseen immaterial invisible all-pervading mind or person is, of course, just crazy talk.

Let's not make this a evolution vs creation debate, ok?

All science is theory. Science is nothing more than proving what things aren't than what things are and developing theories from that.

So what happens when scientists run out of theories to prove and disprove?

I do enjoy all the Christian finger pointing at Darwin's theory of evolution for no good reason other than some extremist religious political agenda about 40 years ago. There is nothing in the Bible that states that evolution isn't possible and nothing in the theory that discredits Christianity or God.

No one was "pointing" fingers, nor has any mention of Christianity been brought up.

As yet not a one has disputed if evolutionary processes are not or are Biblical.

 

[JGL53]

Evolution means change. Everything changes or evolves.

Galaxies evolve:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121144051.htm

And there is no reason not to assume the Big Bang evolved and that ours is just one evolutionary stage among infinite universes in an infinite multiverse.

Magical beings and ghosts are supererogatory to any ultimate explanation of anything.

 

[SiderealExalt]

True, and I am sure as time continues other potential leaks or discrepancies may be found as well, because we simply don't know what all exactly can influence variabilities, there are tests we have now that Darwin never dreamed of possible.

Of course, that's the nature of science and technology. Talk about a duh statement. For that matter, it's long been known that other factors than survival, and that article seems to use the terminology rather cavalierly. So this is nothing new.

Let's not make this a evolution vs creation debate, ok?

Definitely not, especially since there never was such a debate. Creationism didn't just lose, it never got into the game.

So what happens when scientists run out of theories to prove and disprove?

Here we have boys and girls, a good example of someone stumbling into the same ignorance so many others do. Namely not knowing what the hell a scientific theory is, and why it is not a layman's use of the term, "theory."

As yet not a one has disputed if evolutionary processes are not or are Biblical.

A nonsensical query anyway.

 

[wpiman2]

Scientific theory is always open to change. Darwin would welcome us questioning his theories and hypothesis. He would want us to prove him wrong.

King James though wants you to take his word for it. He would love nothing more than to strike you down for questioning him.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Scientific theory is always open to change. Darwin would welcome us questioning his theories and hypothesis. He would want us to prove him wrong.

King James though wants you to take his word for it. He would love nothing more than to strike you down for questioning him.

What always strikes me as sad is that it seems no matter how many times you remind some Christians that the self correcting nature of science is a STRENGTH, they still don't get it.

 

[Tenka]

If you aren't of the intention to answer the "question", why must you reply?

I believe that if someone chooses to insert their personality into a topic then it becomes fair game for discussion.
Was Darwin wrong? Darwin's tentative early works represented a quantum leap forward in our understanding of the natural world at the time, but he was still guessing at the picture from what he could see from the few puzzle pieces available to him at the time.
To put Darwin's achievement in perspective, it would be like if Newton had predicted black holes.

Lamarckian evolution hit a wall and died because his mechanism was, essentially, magic.

And...I put quotes around "theory" because a theory is something that is plausible and acceptible by science, yet not conclusive.

And you are wrong in the sense that yours is an absolutely terrible description of what a scientific theory is.

Therefore you should not take it for more than it is.

You've taken it for far, far less than it is.

 

[Baggins]

This is an easy one:

Q. Was Darwin wrong.

A. No

Anyone who believes the answer is yes is just scientifically ignorant.

Of course neither was darwin completely correct, if he had of been we wouldn't still be researching evolution today.

Darwin's theory is the foundational idea of biology, before that it was just "stamp collecting".

 

[trunks2k]

Was Darwin wrong? Yes and no.

There's no doubt of his basic idea of evolution - living things share a common ancestor. Some of his specifics were wrong, but I don't know of anybody that thinks that Darwin was 100% correct. Our understanding of evolution has gone well beyond Darwin so to talk about whether Darwin was right or not is a moot point.