Does Biology make sense without Darwin?

[paarsurrey]

Yes. And it developed to the extent that it could without the discovery of biological evolution before him, as well.

Darwin found out about evolution, as did Wallace some years later. The findings were confirmed and corrected many times since.


That is actually a valid view, although the god-belief part is a personal call given the lack of evidence.

Thanks and regards for one's valuable input.
I give here history on evolutionary thought prior to Darwin:

'"Evolutionary thought, the conception that species change over time, has roots in antiquity – in the ideas of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Chinese as well as in medieval Islamic science. With the beginnings of modern biological taxonomy in the late 17th century, two opposed ideas influenced Western biological thinking: essentialism, the belief that every species has essential characteristics that are unalterable, a concept which had developed from medieval Aristotelian metaphysics, and that fit well with natural theology; and the development of the new anti-Aristotelian approach to modern science: as the Enlightenment progressed, evolutionary cosmology and the mechanical philosophyspread from the physical sciences to natural history. Naturalists began to focus on the variability of species; the emergence of paleontologywith the concept of extinction further undermined static views of nature. In the early 19th century Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744 – 1829) proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, the first fully formed theory of evolution.

In 1858 Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace published a new evolutionary theory, explained in detail in Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859)"
History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

One thing to consider is that we do not "trust" Darwin or even Wallace. We do not have to.

 

[dust1n]

So you can be a perfectly good Dr or Nurse or technologist or farmer or car mechanic
What would be the lack without Darwinism

Depends. You can be a good Dr, Nurse or Mechanic without knowing anything about Darwinism. I mean, most of that stuff... diagnosing problems, applying treatments you've already learned from others... not that requires some sort set of knowledge of evolution. If you are medical researcher trying to find a cure for cancer, or figuring out how to treat a virus, then yea you'd be the most useless researcher if you didn't understand evolution, as least insofar as it's relevant to your work.

and actually, if one cannot question Darwinism, is that an impediment to science? Science questions everything

There is no rule saying "one cannot question Darwinism." In fact, millions have questions it as well as various aspects it. We know far more about evolution than was conceived by Darwin in the 19th century... That's the result of 1000's of scientists either questions or trying to make better sense of various aspects set out in Darwin's original hypothesis.

I mean, if by "one cannot question Darwinism" you mean "People who just make blanket statements about Darwinism being wrong despite the fact they have no familiarity with the issue and are presenting no fulfilling evidence to back up their claim, aren't taken seriously by anyone," then yes. If you contesting evolution on some faulty reasoning, I wouldn't expect anyone to take that seriously. That doesn't really mean you can't question Darwinism, it just means no one is going to take it very seriously, unless their is incredible evidence to the contrary.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Depends. You can be a good Dr, Nurse or Mechanic without knowing anything about Darwinism. I mean, most of that stuff... diagnosing problems, applying treatments you've already learned from others... not that requires some sort set of knowledge of evolution. If you are medical researcher trying to find a cure for cancer, or figuring out how to treat a virus, then yea you'd be the most useless researcher if you didn't understand evolution, as least insofar as it's relevant to your work.



There is no rule saying "one cannot question Darwinism." In fact, millions have questions it as well as various aspects it. We know far more about evolution than was conceived by Darwin in the 19th century... That's the result of 1000's of scientists either questions or trying to make better sense of various aspects set out in Darwin's original hypothesis.

I mean, if by "one cannot question Darwinism" you mean "People who just make blanket statements about Darwinism being wrong despite the fact they have no familiarity with the issue and are presenting no fulfilling evidence to back up their claim, aren't taken seriously by anyone," then yes. If you contesting evolution on some faulty reasoning, I wouldn't expect anyone to take that seriously. That doesn't really mean you can't question Darwinism, it just means no one is going to take it very seriously, unless their is incredible evidence to the contrary.

Interestingly there have been lists of the top 100 inventions in the last century and non of them inherently rest on Evolution

 

[ChristineM]

Interestingly there have been lists of the top 100 inventions in the last century and non of them inherently rest on Evolution

The greatest invention for the human race was the genetic modification of grain by Norman Borlaug. It is reckoned to have saved over a billion lives (beat that religion). Genetic modification of biological material is highly evolution based.

Interestingly most religious groups try to play down and disrespect the accomplishments of genetic research

 

[whirlingmerc]

The greatest invention for the human race was the genetic modification of grain by Norman Borlaug. It is reckoned to have saved over a billion lives (beat that religion). Genetic modification of biological material is highly evolution based.

Interestingly most religious groups try to play down and disrespect the accomplishments of genetic research

Genes do not inherently rest on Darwinism
by the way... the Cornel Professor who was inventor of the gene gun became a creationist

Genetics are common to creationary views and evolutionary views

 

[LuisDantas]

Interestingly there have been lists of the top 100 inventions in the last century and non of them inherently rest on Evolution

I take it that you are not aware of biotechnology?

 

[LuisDantas]

Genes do not inherently rest on Darwinism
by the way... the Cornel Professor who was inventor of the gene gun became a creationist

You are truly grasping at straws and selective ignorance, you know.

 

[whirlingmerc]

You are truly grasping at straws and selective ignorance, you know.

Ad hominem and straw men arguments remain logical fallacies

 

[whirlingmerc]

Lokking at the top 10 inventions of all time none inherently rest on evolution

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/inventions-what-are-the-10-greatest-of-our-time/

 

[ChristineM]

Genes do not inherently rest on Darwinism
by the way... the Cornel Professor who was inventor of the gene gun became a creationist

You said, and i quote "Interestingly there have been lists of the top 100 inventions in the last century and non of them inherently rest on Evolution"

Now you change the goalposts because you have been proven wrong??? How creationist of you.

And you add a strawman to try confusing the issue.

FYI, Borlaug was a christian too. And still he proved you wrong

 

[whirlingmerc]

You said, and i quote "Interestingly there have been lists of the top 100 inventions in the last century and non of them inherently rest on Evolution"

Now you change the goalposts because you have been proven wrong??? How creationist of you.

And you add a strawman to try confusing the issue.

FYI, Borlaug was a christian too. And still he proved you wrong

Genetics does not inherently rest on evolution, both creationist (and intelligent design people) as well as Darwinists appeal to genetics... as I said

"non of them inherently rest on Evolution" and thy do not

and none of the top 10 inventions of all time do either

 

[ChristineM]

Genetics does not inherently rest on evolution, both creationist (and intelligent design people) as well as Darwinists appeal to genetics... as I said

"non of them inherently rest on Evolution" and thy do not

and none of the top 10 inventions of all time do either

If you cant be honest there is no point having an honest discussion with you.

Here is one of yours from creation wiki
http://creationwiki.org/Biological_evolution

"Biological evolution is the process through which the characteristics of organisms change over successive generations, by means of genetic variation and natural selection."

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes. And it developed to the extent that it could without the discovery of biological evolution before him, as well.

Darwin found out about evolution, as did Wallace some years later. The findings were confirmed and corrected many times since.

That is actually a valid view, although the god-belief part is a personal call given the lack of evidence.

"god-belief part is a personal call"

Please elaborate the above. I made no personal claim, please.

Regards

 

[dust1n]

Interestingly there have been lists of the top 100 inventions in the last century and non of them inherently rest on Evolution

Uh... that's because most of those would have absolutely nothing to do with biology. Evolution doesn't actually do anything good if you are inventing a ball bearing, or refrigeration, or a calculator...

Is there some specific invention that even vaguely relates to needing to understand evolution you had in mind?

 

[LuisDantas]

Ad hominem and straw men arguments remain logical fallacies

Indeed. But you were warned, right?

 

[LuisDantas]

"god-belief part is a personal call"

Please elaborate the above. I made no personal claim, please.

Regards

Belief in God is a personal matter. There is nothing in biology that changes that.

 

[nPeace]

Can you teach medicine, technology and agriculture with no practical loss of benefit to mankind
Is insisting Darwinism is the one essential grand unifying theme of science OR merely a dogma justifying atheism?

Hubris? or truth? or merely truthy

from Wiki
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" is a 1973 essay by the evolutionary biologist and Eastern Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, criticising anti-evolution creationism and espousing theistic evolution. The essay was first published in American Biology Teacher in 1973.

Dobzhansky first used the title statement, in a slight variation, in a 1964 presidential address to the American Society of Zoologists, "Biology, Molecular and Organismic", to assert the importance of organismic biology in response to the challenge of the rising field of molecular biology The term "light of evolution"—or sub specie evolutionis—had been used earlier by the Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and then by the biologist Julian Huxley.

Did biology make sense centuries ago?

The term biology is derived from the Greek word βίος, bios, "life" and the suffix -λογία, -logia, "study of. The Latin-language form of the term first appeared in 1736...
Although modern biology is a relatively recent development, sciences related to and included within it have been studied since ancient times. Natural philosophy was studied as early as the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indian subcontinent, and China. However, the origins of modern biology and its approach to the study of nature are most often traced back to ancient Greece. While the formal study of medicine dates back to Hippocrates (ca. 460–370 BC), it was Aristotle (384–322 BC) who contributed most extensively to the development of biology. Especially important are his History of Animals and other works where he showed naturalist leanings, and later more empirical works that focused on biological causation and the diversity of life.

Would motor mechanics make sense without a motor car?
Would biology make sense without living organisms?

Loved the video
28:50 100% true.

 

[paarsurrey]

Belief in God is a personal matter. There is nothing in biology that changes that.

G-d exists irrespective of what I personally believe or not believe.
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

G-d exists irrespective of what I personally believe or not believe.
Regards

Or fails to, far as I can tell.

Yet I think I see where you are coming from. And that makes one wonder why there is so much denial of evolution in certain circles that swear to be motivated by belief in God.