What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
The camera starts rolling on Best Buy holiday campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - A behind the scenes look at one employee's singing debut.
105 Comments
- gllopc, on 06/29/2009, -3/+54"...most people credit (Darwin) as the father of a theory that explains the origins of life"
Nope - evolution is not about the origins of life. That's abiogenesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
"In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time." - inactive, on 06/29/2009, -1/+27It's Yahoo news, you can't expect basic scientific understanding to be present.
- inactive, on 06/29/2009, -1/+23Wallace came up with some similar ideas but admitted himself that Darwin had carried through with the most profound insights. Remember, they presented together: "His theory was presented together with Darwin's by the Linnean Society of London on July 1, 1858." What the quote should have said was "Darwin's theory was presented with Wallace at the Linnean Society of London on July 1, 1858.
Yeah, I read a couple Darwin biographies and that's what I remember. From what I understand, Wallace was okay with being in the background and he only had the highest praise for Darwin. Maybe this tenet will be overturned as more stuff comes out? In any regards, it's not as fun as the controversy surrounding Newton and Leibniz. - jerrykew, on 06/29/2009, -0/+19Darwin had written up his theories years before, but didn't publish for fear of the Church's response, when he knew Wallace was going to publish he contacted Wallace, and Wallace demurred to Darwin. They remained firm friends for life. Darwin's wife was very religious, and was quite unhappy with the effects of his theories.
On another note, it is a joy to see Digg being at the forefront of breaking news like this! ;-) - Dimensio, on 06/29/2009, -0/+18" The fact is the inspiration for Mr Darwin's errant theory was racism."
Please substantiate this assertion.
" Go back and review the entire, original title of the book and only focus on the words "favoured races"."
The word "races", within the context of the book, referred to variances of biological life within a species. This is evidente from reading the book itself, wherein Mr. Darwin first makes mention of "races" of cabbage. Human "races" are not addressed with any depth within the work. It would appear as though you have not actually read the work upon which you are commenting, which means that your commens are inherently dishonest.
" He was trying to prove "scientifically" that white people were superior and deserved to own the earth."
Your assertion is substantiated by no fact. It would appear as though you are lying; as such, nothing that you claim should be considered credible.
" Everyone who embraces the theory today tacitly advances the continuing pursuit of that agenda--whether or not you are aware of it."
Your conclusion is based upon no demonstrable fact. - FordSVT1, on 06/29/2009, -0/+14Yeah, and strange how when creatures physical features change over time and allow them to adapt, their DNA has also changed. Buried for idiocy and the creationist link.
- Dimensio, on 06/29/2009, -1/+14Have you any rational or relevant commentary to offer?
- inactive, on 06/29/2009, -6/+18Wow dude it's a pro-evolution article.
You really are way over-defensive. - realmadrid2727, on 06/29/2009, -1/+13I was going to comment on how he didn't try to explain the origin of life, but the origin of species. Glad someone else did so as well.
- Windfish, on 06/29/2009, -0/+12Hardly forgotten, Russel Wallace had a huge article in National geographic a while ago, and anyone who has studied evolution is likely to have heard of him. This is like saying Copernicus - forgotton heliocentrist lives in Galileos shadow, you'll have heard of him if you've ever studied it.
- bombula, on 06/29/2009, -0/+12The idea of evolution - that one species gave rise to another - was centuries old, probably dating back to when humans first domesticated animals. Credit for the idea that natural selection was the explanation for _why_ evolution occurrs goes to Darwin.
- covertbadger, on 06/29/2009, -0/+12@Proletarian:
They were unpublished AT THE TIME. They are now published as The Origin Of Species. - Jovian84, on 06/29/2009, -3/+15burried for using the term evolutionist
- ApokalypseNow, on 06/29/2009, -0/+11Crazed, as usual, you have no idea what you're talking about, but even if Darwin was attempting to promote some racist agenda, that has no bearing on the actual science in the field.
- Disgod, on 06/29/2009, -0/+11Adaptation = Evolution
Evolution does not specifically mean changes in DNA. DNA mutations are a part of evolution, but not the whole of evolution. The most basic definition of evolution is: Change in allele(versions of genes) frequency over generation. If a species is adapting and changing, it means that there is a variation in allele frequency. - homercles337, on 06/29/2009, -0/+11Still pounding away at the keyboard hoping if you pound long and hard enough you make some sense? If a million monkeys at a million keyboards...
- Mnementh2230, on 06/29/2009, -1/+12Hard to believe folks are still arguing this crap after so many years. Is our education system really so bad that we're failing to educate THAT many people on the basics of biology?
- Apokalyps2547, on 06/29/2009, -0/+11Adaptation to a changing environment over a span of multiple generations through genetic differentiation and natural selection IS evolution. Creationists constantly misrepresent evolution, because if they allowed the simple facts to be presented honestly their bogus worldview would be rejected even more than it already is.
- Vektuz, on 06/29/2009, -2/+12Its a misnomer because its intentionally misleading. Evolution is as solid as gravity, chemical theory, etc. You'd have to similarly call someone a 'gravityist' for 'believing' that gravity exists.
- ApokalypseNow, on 06/29/2009, -0/+10What, Gentry's ***** again? He's a physicist, not a biologist - he's not qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject of what does and does not count as evolution.
Besides that, his work on PO halos is ***** too. Every single one of Gentry's halos has been found along a cleavage surface in a mineral called biotite. These cleavage surfaces constitute porosity into which hydrous fluids carrying radon gas can move. Given that every single Po-halo-bearing rock that Gentry has produced is from a uranium-rich region, it should come as no surprise that elements and evidence from the uranium decay chain are present in those rocks. Even Donald B. DeYoung, author of several creationist books, admits that polonium halos are always found near uranium halos. Find us a halo that did not occur along a crack and was not near any uranium halos if you want Gentry's hypothesis to stand up to any scrutiny.
Also, contrary to Gentry's claims, his work has been refuted numerous times - here's a small sampling of refutations, in handy MLA format:
Ellenberger, C.L. 1986. "Absolute Dating," unanswered surrebuttal to Gentry, Physics Today. March 1986. pp. 152, 156
Osmon, P., 1986, "Gentry’s pleochroic halos: Creation/Evolution," Newsletter, Feser, Karl D., Editor, v. 6, no. 1, Concord College, Athens, West Virginia
Schadewald, R., 1987. "Gentry’s tiny mystery, Creation/Evolution" Newsletter, Fezer, Karl D, Editor, v. 4, no. 2 & 3. Concord College. Athens. West Virginia, p 20.
Wakefield, J. R., 1987-88, "Gentry’s Tiny Mystery - unsupported by geology," Creation/Evolution, v. 22, p. 13-33.
Moazed, Cyrus; Richard M. Spector; Richard F. Ward, 1973, Polonium Radiohalos: An Alternate Interpretation, Science, Vol. 180, pp. 1272-1274.
Odom, L.A., and Rink, W.J., 1989, "Giant Radiation-Induced Color Halos in Quartz: Solution to a Riddle," Science, v. 246, pp. 107-109.
York, D., 1979, Pleochroic Halos and Geochronology, EOS, v. 60, no. 33, pp. 617-618, Aug. 14, 1979 (publication of the American Geophysical Union).
Henderson, G. H., A quantitative study of pleochroic halos, V, The genesis of halos, Proc. Roy. Soc. , A, 173, 250-264, 1939.
Henderson, G. H., and F. W. Sparks, A quantitative study of pleochroic halos, IV, New types of halos, Proc. Roy. Soc., A, 173, 238-249, 1939.
Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery", J. Richard Wakefield, Journal of Geological Education, May 1988. - ApokalypseNow, on 06/29/2009, -0/+10Origin of the diversity of life, but not of life itself.
- KomodoDave, on 06/29/2009, -1/+9HAHAHA, thanks bugwayji, you made me laugh for the first time today! It makes me grin inanely, knowing you have seen the copious quantities of scientific evidence for evolution, yet still choose to believe in an omnipotent being who lives in the sky - and not only that, you think such a choice is the logical one! Hilarious.
- alpharaptor, on 06/29/2009, -1/+9It could have been worse with AOL news and an article touting Kirk Cameron's profound insights on the subject...
- bombula, on 06/29/2009, -0/+8You have no facts to back up your assertions, and your assertions make no logical sense.
You, sir, are simply retarded. - Mujokan, on 06/29/2009, -0/+8How could Darwin be "stealing" Wallace's theory if he'd already been working on it for 20 years?
- nem0, on 06/29/2009, -0/+8I'm not sure where the "forgotten" comes from in the title. I learned about Wallace 30 years ago in high school. Most biologist and archeologist are aware of Wallace's contributions. Even Wikipedia states "the theories of natural selection were independently discovered by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace."
- inactive, on 06/29/2009, -4/+11Did you give your kid vaccinations? Thank the study of evolution for it, cause prayer sure as hell didn't kill polio...
Evolution is a real process whether you superstitious nutbars like it or not. No matter how many lies, mistruths, and non-sequiturs you nutbars spout here. Evolution is a real process even if you're offended by it. Evolution is a real process even if you feel it contradicts your religion. The fact of the matter is that evolution is a real process, a proven process - a real part of our objective universe. So, if Truth is something that matters to you, then you cannot 'disbelieve' in evolution or preach against it. Then again, if you don't care about lying, deceiving, and misleading others, then you can obviously do and say whatever you want - regardless of whether it's true or not.
Evolution is biology, the evidence is there for it. The evidence for creation? All you can come up with is 'look around'? Not science, sorry. - Agalychnis, on 06/29/2009, -0/+7Well, that would probably speed up the spread of resistant phenotypes in the population. He may have been taking the long view. Most people these days prefer that their kids don't die in a random die roll for a more resistant future. Most diseases evolve pretty fast anyway, so the random mutation route wouldn't be a sure thing even if it worked (though that's sorta true for vaccines too).
- Vektuz, on 06/29/2009, -0/+7lol
I'd say more, but you're not worth it :) - adamwho, on 06/29/2009, -4/+11Any title that uses the word "Evolutionist" should be buried. It isn't a believe system or any sort of "-ism," it is a well pr oven theory based on facts and observations.
- christoast, on 06/29/2009, -2/+9Darwin wrote the most, thought the most and was the most insightful, obsessive empirical evidence gatherer of all time. He was SO observant. Anyone could have been a Darwin, but thank... "goodness" we got a GREAT Darwin. It doesn't matter who was first to have an idea but who was best about developing it and making it good science.
- shcforward, on 06/29/2009, -0/+6Aristotle mentioned other ancient Greeks who had theories that were strikingly similar to evolution through natural selection. He brushed them off with the still-common "watchmaker" style argument, but still. Ideas about biological evolution have been around for a long, long time.
- bombula, on 06/29/2009, -0/+6@godspeed
Wow, you ARE retarded. From the same page you just quoted:
"In the early 1980s, two books, one written by Arnold Brackman and another by John Langdon Brooks, even suggested that not only had there been a conspiracy to rob Wallace of his proper credit, but that Darwin had actually stolen a key idea from Wallace to finish his own theory. These claims have been examined in detail by a number of scholars who have not found them to be convincing.[67][68][69]"
And from the Origin of Species page:
"By December 1838, Darwin had his basic theory of natural selection "by which to work", yet when Wallace's letter arrived on 18 June 1858 Darwin was still not ready to publish his theory."
Note that the gap between 1838 and 1858 is TWENTY YEARS.
Suck what, now? - sndream, on 06/29/2009, -0/+6I wouldn't use the word forgotten, he's just as well known as Darwin.
I mean how many ppl here can name the scientists who discovered DNA.
By the way, it's:
James D. Watson
Francis Crick
Rosalind Franklin
Maurice F. Wilkins - Dimensio, on 06/29/2009, -0/+6"Evolution: is the change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.
Adaptation: is one of the basic phenomena of biology. It is the process whereby an organism becomes better suited to its habitat.Also, the term adaptation may refer to a characteristic which is especially important for an organism's survival."
How does the latter occur without the occurrence of the former? - FakeHipster, on 06/29/2009, -1/+7Not well known outside of scientific circles? I remember being taught about him a variety of different times in high school and college. Benefit of being a damn northeastern liberal elitist I guess ;-)
- kingmanic, on 06/29/2009, -0/+5Darwin had a work in progress and had a extreme amount of rigour to it because he knew it was goign to be controversial. When he heard wallace may publish a similar theory before him he rushed out the origin of species which was a subset of the work he had been doing. He knew it was going to be controversial so rigorous data would be required. Wallace was on a similar track but lack the reputation or influence to get his ideas widely circulated and he added ideas which are relevant but somewhat different from darwins. The modern synthesis takes a few ideas from wallace as well but Darwins angle on it was the initial basis.
- Mujokan, on 06/29/2009, -0/+5Oh, really, he wrote some confession about how he stole everything from Wallace, which his wife knew all about and burned? And this was all "proven" somehow? Darwin wrote it all down but never admitted it while he was alive, and he didn't make any provision to make sure it became known after his death, either?
What rubbish. I'd love to hear your take on what exactly Darwin admitted to. - Mujokan, on 06/29/2009, -1/+6"The Darwin industry is what has distorted the whole of history," Beccaloni said."
Somehow it seems to me this guy is being overly dramatic to try and generate publicity for his project. Darwin is a controversial figure (which is stupid, of course) and any kind of second-guessing of him creates headlines.
Of course it's fine to give context and make sure historical figures aren't unduly idolized, or unduly vilified, but some of the stuff that goes on with e.g. Abe Lincoln (first case) or Joe McCarthy or Nixon (second case) is pretty overwrought.
Seems like Beccaloni himself is downplaying Wallace's spiritualism because it's inconvenient for his goals. Better just to put the whole picture out there.
Huxley's review of the Origin sums up the reasons for Darwin's prominence pretty well.
"Questions of this kind have assuredly often arisen, but it might have been long before they received such expression as would have commanded the respect and attention of the scientific world, had it not been for the publication of the work which prompted this article. Its author, Mr. Darwin, inheritor of a once celebrated name, won his spurs in science when most of those now distinguished were young men, and has for the last 20 years held a place in the front ranks of British philosophers. After a circumnavigatory voyage, undertaken solely for the love of his science, Mr. Darwin published a series of researches which at once arrested the attention of naturalists and geologists; his generalizations have since received ample confirmation, and now command universal assent, nor is it questionable that they have had the most important influence on the progress of science. More recently Mr. Darwin, with a versatility which is among the rarest of gifts, turned his attention to a most difficult question of zoology and minute anatomy; and no living naturalist and anatomist has published a better monograph than that which resulted from his labours. Such a man, at all events, has not entered the sanctuary with unwashed hands, and when he lays before us the results of 20 years’ investigation and reflection we must listen even though we be disposed to strike." - Dimensio, on 06/30/2009, -0/+5"And his wife, religious or not, did destroy evidence."
I believe that you have inadvertently neglected to reference the actual evidence in support of these allegations. - melisaki, on 06/29/2009, -2/+7Evolution theory at the time that it was expressed, it wasnt a breakthrough theory, rather, the maturity & converge of science at that moment.
It would have been formulated around that time even if darwin or wallace never existed.
In fact the very first publicized version of evolution theory was on "Naval Timber & Arboriculture" published in 1831 by Patrick Matthew that nobody actually bought or read ^^
quote:
"In last Saturday Gardeners' Chronicle, a Mr Patrick Matthews publishes long extract from his work on "Naval Timber & Arboriculture" published in 1831, in which he briefly but completely anticipates the theory of Nat. Selection. -- I have ordered the Book, as some few passages are rather obscure but it is, certainly, I think, a complete but not developed anticipation! . . . Anyhow one may be excused in not having discovered the fact in a work on 'Naval Timber'."
Charles Darwin. Letter to Charles Lyell, April 10, 1860. - Dimensio, on 06/30/2009, -0/+5" The real Truth of creation created by a loving and personally involved Creator."
Please substantiate this assertion. - Harabeck, on 06/29/2009, -0/+5Belief does not imply faith. Belief just means you hold that thing to be true, it has nothing to do with how much evidence you put into it.
- theodenking, on 06/29/2009, -0/+4This isn't one of them.
- FordSVT1, on 06/29/2009, -0/+4^Indeed. People seem to forget that humans who lived a thousand or ten thousand or a hundred thousand years ago were really just like us in most ways. They didn't know as much about the world as we did, but they were just as curious and just as creative. They didn't have as much of a foundation to build their own knowledge on, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some person who lived 30,000 years ago might have looked at a number of animals in their life, saw the bones and remains of long dead creatures, they way the horns of the gazelles in one hunting area are different than the ones they hunt in another, on and on, and perhaps felt on some rudimentary level that animals were related and descended from one another and changed over time. They wouldn't have been able to grasp the scale of time or any of the specifics but they had access to the natural world on a macro scale just like any of us do. I'm just talking out my ass lol.
Darwin was simply the first to express these ideas in an accessible, eloquent and scientific manner. - andygavin, on 06/29/2009, -2/+6...lives in Darwin's shadow...
He's not living at all. The headline is dreadful. - kingmanic, on 06/29/2009, -1/+5biologist is all that is required. You don't see any gravitiest do you? How about a thermodynmist?
- ApokalypseNow, on 06/29/2009, -1/+4Evolution is not a directed process, there is no forwards and backwards.
- kingmanic, on 06/29/2009, -0/+3Wallace would never have been published or gotten any recognition without Darwin. They both had mostly correct but different angles on the problem and likely helped each others work. Wallace remained friends with Darwin because Darwin helped Wallace gain some respect in the scientific community. Wallace didn't have the resources to obtain the vast rigour required to get people to accept the theories. Darwin could just sit on his ass and do science while Wallace had to work.
Darwin actually lobbied the UK gov. to award Wallace a scientific pensions to help Wallace stay solvent and continue his scientific work. Both men were well regarded in the scientific community and likely their shared insight helped propel biology forward. - Agalychnis, on 06/29/2009, -0/+3Natural selection is a very simple idea, and one that looks pretty apparent after any basic view of biological interactions (or any random interaction between things of different quality). The hard part was putting together a good pile of evidence for it and not just saying that it makes sense so it must be true.
It's probably one of the most intuitively obvious ideas science has ever produced. -
Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is