Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Starboy · 07-14-2002, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Infidel Pariah:
The only people who use Kuhn nowadays are Postmodernists and Pseudoscientists. His theory of scientific change has little going for it, evidence wise. Einstein's revolution was not a revolution in the Kuhnian sense. So was Darwin. Or most other major scientific changes.

That may be so, but the idea of fashion in science if not Kuhn's idea was presented by Kuhn, and I can say that I have personally experienced that phenomena first hand.

Starboy

Starboy · 07-14-2002, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
Starbody:

Obviously you just haven't looked.

No I haven't. Does it bother you that I ask about it here? You seem kinda touchy about it. Do you think of yourself as a Darwin robot?

Starboy

[ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]

Christopher Lord · 07-14-2002, 03:02 PM

Not to speak for tron, but I would guess it bothered him because your writing implied that you have looked.

IIRC is "If I Recall Correctly".

Doubting Didymus · 07-14-2002, 03:02 PM

Starboy,

There is no such thing as a modern biologist who sticks entirely to the theory as darwin described it. ALL modern evolutionary biology is the modern synthesis, combining genetics with natural selection. This is the only way that biology makes any sense. Because of this, any modern evolution literature you can find will be talking about the three examples you cited. (by the way, internal organ and mitochondrial evolution is fully understood, and does not need a new theory to explain it)

The "Darwinian" theory of evolution only has darwins name because he made a really really big breakthrough in the field. He didn't discover evolution as such, only natural selection. Much of his theory has been completely rewritten, but we still use his name both because he was great and because it sounds good. Similarly, Newtonian physics (I would assume, this not being my field) has been largely updated, but retains the mans name. No one is a 'darwin robot', we (biologists) are using all the most modern, fully updated theories.

as for theoretical biologists, the field is ready to bust!

Starboy · 07-14-2002, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Christopher Lord:
Not to speak for tron, but I would guess it bothered him because your writing implied that you have looked.

IIRC is "If I Recall Correctly".

Sorry, I didn't know that, I am new to web sub-culture. In a previous post on this thread I specifically asked what IIRC meant.

So are you implying that tron thought that I knew the answer to my own original question and that I was asking the question for some ulterior motive? Or has this thing just been blown completely out of proportion and what is needed is just apologies all around? If that is the case, I apologize. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

For what it is worth, I am trying not to be ignorant, but the only cure for that condition that I know of is education. That is one of the reasons why I am here.

Starboy

Starboy · 07-14-2002, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
Starboy,

as for theoretical biologists, the field is ready to bust!

Thanks Didymus. How can one find out more about the modern theory of evolution and what the theoretical biologists are up to?

Starboy

Starboy · 07-14-2002, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
Starboy,

Similarly, Newtonian physics (I would assume, this not being my field) has been largely updated, but retains the mans name. No one is a 'darwin robot', we (biologists) are using all the most modern, fully updated theories.

Whew! I am glad to hear it. I see Darwin�s name plastered around here so much it was making me think that not much in the way of new evolutionary theory has happened since his very important contribution.

Starboy

Doubting Didymus · 07-14-2002, 05:07 PM

Hello again, starboy. It is very refreshing to see someone approaching this subject with an open and willing mind. Many people have already made up their minds in the negative before they even bother to look.

Where to find biological theory? I strongly suggest that you start with richard dawkins, the man who first proposed the meme theory. His style is so accessible that you will not need any prior biological knowledge.

If you want to know about memes or altruism, read his first book 'the selfish gene'. If you want to know about how evolution explains complexity, read the blind watchmaker, which also has a section near the end that deals with modern biological theory as opposed to archaic and alternate forms of the theory.

My favourite dawkins book is climbing mount improbable, which is an extremely thorough series of case studies and has several sections that deal with genes specifically. This is the book that you will want to read if you are unsure how evolution and genetics works in the real practical world.

Once you are finished with his main works, you can look up some of the many other theorists that he references.

Starboy · 07-14-2002, 05:20 PM

Thank you again Didymus! It is also refreshing to find an open mind here. I was beginning to think that a new religion had been born and that Darwin was its prophet.

Starboy

Doubting Didymus · 07-14-2002, 05:29 PM

It can be confusing, can't it? The tradition of attaching peoples names to theories is probably not the best way to go about things. Darwin is often given full credit for proposing evolution first, when that is not the case. Darwin only proposed natural selection, and giving him credit for all evolution is unfair to the great scientists that came before him in the field, like Lamark.

Speaking of Lamark, he is the perfect example of why we shouldn't really attach names to theories. Lamark was a great scientific mind and made great progress in evolutionary theory, but he is remembered forever for his mistake (inherited phenotypes), and not his many great achievements.

All scientists stand on the shoulders of giants.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-14-2002, 03:02 PM	#13
Christopher Lord Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 808	Not to speak for tron, but I would guess it bothered him because your writing implied that you have looked. IIRC is "If I Recall Correctly".

07-14-2002, 03:02 PM	#14
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Starboy, There is no such thing as a modern biologist who sticks entirely to the theory as darwin described it. ALL modern evolutionary biology is the modern synthesis, combining genetics with natural selection. This is the only way that biology makes any sense. Because of this, any modern evolution literature you can find will be talking about the three examples you cited. (by the way, internal organ and mitochondrial evolution is fully understood, and does not need a new theory to explain it) The "Darwinian" theory of evolution only has darwins name because he made a really really big breakthrough in the field. He didn't discover evolution as such, only natural selection. Much of his theory has been completely rewritten, but we still use his name both because he was great and because it sounds good. Similarly, Newtonian physics (I would assume, this not being my field) has been largely updated, but retains the mans name. No one is a 'darwin robot', we (biologists) are using all the most modern, fully updated theories. as for theoretical biologists, the field is ready to bust!

07-14-2002, 05:07 PM	#18
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Hello again, starboy. It is very refreshing to see someone approaching this subject with an open and willing mind. Many people have already made up their minds in the negative before they even bother to look. Where to find biological theory? I strongly suggest that you start with richard dawkins, the man who first proposed the meme theory. His style is so accessible that you will not need any prior biological knowledge. If you want to know about memes or altruism, read his first book 'the selfish gene'. If you want to know about how evolution explains complexity, read the blind watchmaker, which also has a section near the end that deals with modern biological theory as opposed to archaic and alternate forms of the theory. My favourite dawkins book is climbing mount improbable, which is an extremely thorough series of case studies and has several sections that deal with genes specifically. This is the book that you will want to read if you are unsure how evolution and genetics works in the real practical world. Once you are finished with his main works, you can look up some of the many other theorists that he references.

07-14-2002, 05:20 PM	#19
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Thank you again Didymus! It is also refreshing to find an open mind here. I was beginning to think that a new religion had been born and that Darwin was its prophet. Starboy

07-14-2002, 05:29 PM	#20
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	It can be confusing, can't it? The tradition of attaching peoples names to theories is probably not the best way to go about things. Darwin is often given full credit for proposing evolution first, when that is not the case. Darwin only proposed natural selection, and giving him credit for all evolution is unfair to the great scientists that came before him in the field, like Lamark. Speaking of Lamark, he is the perfect example of why we shouldn't really attach names to theories. Lamark was a great scientific mind and made great progress in evolutionary theory, but he is remembered forever for his mistake (inherited phenotypes), and not his many great achievements. All scientists stand on the shoulders of giants.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.