scigirl

I often hear the claim from creationists that scientists are so dogmatic about their "Darwinism" and refuse to challenge the great Charles and his theory.

I read this interesting article in Nature today: <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=120506 52&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">Ecology: Darwin's naturalization hypothesis challenged.</a>

Darwin suggested that "introduced plant species will be less likely to establish a self-sustaining wild population in places with congeneric native species because the introduced plants have to compete with their close relatives, or are more likely to be attacked by native herbivores or pathogens."

This theory was termed "Darwin's naturalization hypothesis."

Scientists from New Zealand discussed how seed plants actually disprove one of Darwin's theories. They analyzed a bunch of introduced plants to New Zealand, and found that they are more, not less, likely to naturalize. Their concluding paragraph starts out,
So. . . are scientists that dogmatic about Darwin's "theories"? It appears that the answer is 'no,' and you can even get published in one of the most prestigious science journals if you question Darwin. However, you have to phrase your question in the form of data.

scigirl

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

Thats the thing about scientists. Because their entire career is spent either formulating theories, or finding out the accuracy of theories, it is natural to expect a scientist to propose a few theories that turn out wrong (is there such a thing as a scientist who never made a mistake?). Thats was science IS. The claim that 'Darwinism' is based on faith in the infallable word of darwin is one of the more giggleworthy creationist claims.

As an aside: Imagine if Alfred Russell Wallace pipped darwin at the post and proposed natural selection first (as he very nearly did). We would all be accused of trusting in the infallable word of 'Wally' and being 'Dogmatic Wallyists', which makes me laugh just thinking about it.

scigirl

HA ha that's a good one, I'll have to remember that.

scigirl

Albion

Well, considering how much he didn't know about the genetic mechanisms, it's astounding how much he did get right. Of course, you can't win - someone will be along to say that because he got one thing wrong, it means you can't trust anything he said.

I think I read that that gigantic ant colony in Europe is also not behaving exactly as predicted by theory and they're trying to figure out why.

nogods4me

Oooooohh, I bet they get their membership cards revoked. Or, at the very least, they will have to sit in the corner at the next Evolution Conspiracy Conference.

Xeluan

As I understand it, violating any of the major tenets of the Great Evolutionist Conspiracy means that you must participate in a forced 5 mile run carrying a copy of Stephen Jay Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory."

If you trangress a second time then you've got to actually read the book.

Xeluan

scombrid

If you transgress a third time it's off to BOJO. U. for a year to shock you back to the true path of the G.reat E.vilustionist C.onspiracy.

GunnerJ

"Oh, but they weren't challenging real evolution, just some stuff on the side. The main tentents of faith are intact."

Nevermind that the "main" "tenents" "of" "faith" are just those theories that have evidence to back them up, and for which there is no contradicting evidence.

GeoTheo

Realizing this fact is actually one of the things that put me over the edge. I was surprised to read that Richard Leakey has serious doubts that "Lucy"
really walked erect like we do or was even a human ancestor. I also learned that biochemists challenged anthropologists all the time with their mitochondrial DNA studies. He quoted one feisty biochemist as telling Leakey: "I know my mitochondrial DNA has ancestors; Can you be as sure that the bones you find left descendants?"
I was then more open to look at the evidence and conclude that there really are transitional fossils between apes and humans like Turkana boy.

Oolon Colluphid

That’s a major difference between you and creationists, Theo. You’ve realised that that’s how science works. As I pointed out about <a href="http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number9/Darwin9.htm" target="_blank">this bit of James Foard’s site</a> in <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001133&p=2" target="_blank">this thread he started</a>, creationists love to portray scientific controversy and revision as if they’re all bouncing around changing their minds, and don’t really have a clue.

The fact of the matter is that they do have clues, lots of them, but it’s fitting them all together that can be difficult. None of the clues actually refute evolution though; and new clues can show that frameworks they were fitted into weren’t quite right.

So, uh.... science is constantly being revised and is in disarray... and, scientists never challenge Darwinian dogma. Hmmm.....

Ref the molecules, the quote is either Vincent Sarich or Allan Wilson (I can check which if you like), joint ‘inventors’ of the molecular clock.

Cheers, Oolon