Why Darwin Matters »
Posted By Neophile 1 year, 9 months ago in Science & TechnologyCharles Darwin had a big idea, arguably the most powerful idea ever. And like all the best ideas it is beguilingly simple. In fact, it is so staggeringly elementary, so blindingly obvious that although others before him tinkered nearby, nobody thought to look for it in the right place.
Read Full Story at guardian.co.uk »
272 Views Share Story 32 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Neophile
I'm a Propeller Scout so if you have any questions or concerns, send me a message and I'll be happy to help.
Other Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 155 (view all)
-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 9 months ago
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's just a symptom. Ignorance will be the hallmark of the first decade in the 21st century. It has been given media and political credibility, which feeds those who choose it over enlightenment. Once educated people get what's happening, & they are 'getting it', it will again be pushed down. But it will surface another day. There's no way to completely eliminate it, & I believe modern societies now and in the future will just have to deal with it as well as its consequences.
Reply -
Neutral
Spadecaller1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks for posting this.
RFE:
"With many of the US political 'leaders' making claims they don't believe in evolution to pander to the cults and the horrifically unintelligent, it is high time to put an end to the ludicrous discussion."
Don't hold your breath!
The need to return to ignorance and darkness is as old as childbirth itslelf. In fact, as Freud so aptly explained it; a person's fear of growing up and going out into the world without protective parents is so great that they often feel the need to recreate an imaginary family. Hence, the Father, the almighty powerful god, and the holy mother.
IN addition to Darwin, many of our great thinkers are still dismissed by ignorance, which stems from fear and emotional immaturity. In addition to Darwin,Freud is a fine example of this too.
Reply -
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The simple truth about evolution is that life changes over time. This truth is supported with evidence from multiple fields of science, no faith required.
All the while evolution has been gaining evidence and support, even when fields of science unknown to Darwin, have been discovered, after all this time, the best Creationists have been able to offer, is they changed their names a couple of times.
Reply -
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Please educate us, science gladly dismisses ideas that are proven false. It does not cling to theories that are disproven. The fact is natural selection is observable. Also please tell us all what "the rest of your lies" are. We are apparently so ill informed and now... liars. Please know that ad hominem slurs do not make an argument.
I have observed bacteria become resistant to antibiotics after a number of generations. Isn't this natural selection? Or do you have a better explanation? Surely the entire world would want to know if your explanation is valid.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am here to share my opinion, your welcome to disagree. My opinion is that it is foolish to dismiss science in favor of what some self proclaimed religious "expert" says. I may have indeed been condescending about voicing this opinion because yes I strongly think it is SO! Should I have said foolish instead of unintelligent? Yes but I've already said that.
If you can give an example where some religious group opposed science and the religious group ended up being right, I will cease and desist all criticism of anti-evolutionists.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would no more vote for a person who denies evolution than I would vote for a person who denies gravity.
If a person is capable of denying such strong evidence, who knows what else they will ignore and what sort of damage they could cause to this country and others?
Reply -
-
Neutral
Obaku1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As it turns out, important as natural selection is to the evolutionary process, it is not everything.
The geologic processes of the Earth, and interplanetary bodies have played the crucial role in setting the course for life.
The change of climates, the movement of the continents, volcanoes, comets, asteroids, mass extinctions all changed both the directions and the materials of evolution.
Reply-
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 9 months ago
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Crationism needs to get some testable evidence supporting it, before it should be taught in a science classroom. If people need to go to court to enforce this, so be it. ID is given the same chance in the court as evolution, but it has been unable to prove it anything more than creationism, let alone a science.
I have no problems with creationism, in ALL it's forms, being taught in religious comparison classes, but it certainly doesn't belong in a science class. This means, Hindu and Inuit creationism should be studied alongside Christian creationism, in that comparison course.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
lovemylibs1 year, 9 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
tchef1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's not the schools job t teach religion. That's the churches job. If you include one religions explanation then you have to include all of them. I don't have a problem with a school offering a comparative religion class, in fact in the world we live in today with all the conflicts between the worlds faiths it may be a good idea but it would have to be taught impartially with no preference to any one religion.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Sock_Puppet1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Among the paradigmatic shifts in thought and research in the past several decades, has been the elevation of concern about the future and it's position approaching equality with concern about the past. Just ask any microbiologist. =D
But I'm also afraid of the dumbing down I see in America and the world at large. Without a reference to the past, how will the youth of today be able to plan, execute and deploy future assets in a Global Economy?
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 9 months ago
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user21 Replies
-
Neutral
tchef1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm still waiting for creationists to explain to me why if God created everything that he only takes credit for the good things that I do and I get the credit for the bad things. Last time I checked the dictionary everything meant everything, good and evil. God created Satin according to the bible, he was his favorite angel. Then he fell from grace and became evil. God supposedly knowing past, present, and future knew full well where the creation of Satin would lead so doesn't that make him responsible? But according to Christianity we pay the price.
I have found that since leaving the church looking back at it it falls apart on all levels.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
eugenegerard1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is really comfortable to think that reality is just a poof of magic dust that just happened all of a sudden.
It is harder to realize the interconnections that make reality possible. That is what science is about. Science is the defining of reality in mathematical and empirical definitioins that explain what is observed. Poof doesn't cut it. At no time does defining reality negate the belief in a Supreme Being. It can enhance the concept of this reality.
Reply -
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Further back I answered that question, but I will give you another thing true about evolution. It passes the test, unlike creationism.
The field of genetics, being discovered was a major test for evolution and creationism. Genetics could have proven life to be unique creations, unrelated to one another, instead it showed amazing connections and that all life is related, exactly as Darwin predicted.
How reliable is the field of genetics? Reliable enough to allow people off of death row or to put them there. Not believeing in paternity tests, which use the same type of genetic markers we use to compare similarities between species, won't get you out of paying child support.
Reply -
-
-
lovermanComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
Neutral
Sock_Puppet1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"yet know this, it takes far more FAITH to believe in Darwins theory of evolution than it does to believe in ANY God."
Not really. Faith is Faith. I bet you don't bother to think about what happens when you flip a light switch, because you know the light will come on. You have faith in your Utility Company that they will deliver. God & Science are no different.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
r3alitycheck1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is no doubt that evolution is a fact and there is no doubt that Origin of the Species is sadly deficient. The reality is that nothing comes from nothing and for a big bang to have occurred there had to be particles and gases, something even an atom had to exist of some type. Where did it or they come from? Ah another galaxy, Hmm where did that galaxy come from? The fact is science doesn't have the answers, they have theories that must be disproved and not proved just evidence that hasn't been disproved not proved. But religion doesn't get the same accord,God has to be proved not disproved, why?
Reply-
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Theories explain facts and evidence. Testable, evidence that produces repeatable, predictable results.
For religion to be given the same accord, you have to present some facts and evidence on this god you speak of. Lots of beleivers of gods out there, I grant you, but interestingly, to a person, they each have their own definitions of these gods.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nicely said, Ricky.
"There remain deep questions, in physics and cosmology, that await their Darwin. Why are the laws of physics the way they are? Why are there laws at all? Why is there a universe at all? Once again, the lure of "design" is tempting. But we have the cautionary tale of Darwin before us. We've been through all that before. Darwin emboldens us - difficult as it is - to seek genuine explanations: explanations that ex"plain more than they postulate."
Reply -
Neutral
rez-erection1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
how can some people be so freaking ignorant? i read a story last night from a guy who said that he believed the earth to be only 6000 to 12000 years old!i was raised catholic but there was no way that i was going to believe something that there is not one shred of proof for! jesus was a man, he existed. he was a MAN! people back in the old days were stupid,they needed something to believe in to make the world an easier place for themselves. a volcano blows up,, must be god,eclipse,god,sneeze, its your soul leaving your body. c,mon,give me a freaking break.evolution may be a theory but there is tons of evidence to back it up.god? hmm, nothing. then they say,,"you gotta have faith". well, when a guy has faith that he can fly and jumps off a building they call him loony,,but to believe in a man floating around in the sky is acceptable?!? get real.religion is for simple-minded people that just cannot fathom the real world. deal with it
Reply -
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Darwin was not a scientist. He went to a seminary. Therefore he didn't use the scientific method to create his philosophy.
There are 7 distinct stages of evolution.
1. Cosmic Evolution. The development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing.
2. Stellar Evolution. The development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements.
3. Chemical Evolution. The development of all chemical elements from an original two.
4. Planetary Evolution. The development of planetary systems from swirling elements.
5. Organic Evolution. The development of organic life from inorganic matter (a rock).
6. Macro-Evolution. The development of one kind of life from a totally different kind of life.
7. Micro-Evolution. The development of variations within the same kind of life.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Darwins theory only looks at stage 6. The only one provable and demonstrable is stage 7. The others are assumed. Dealing with that one the evolutionists keep making the number larger and larger for it to have occurred. The problem now is they are running into a hard limit. The universe is expanding at a specific rate so the big bang can be calculated to a point of time.
"The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born."
(http://co...">http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big...
This is science? There was nothing then there was something and it blew up.
Reply -
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No theory really posits that there was 'nothing' before the Big Bang. I suspect the quote you provided is an example of someone being very sloppy with the meaning of 'nothing'. In the hypothesis of 'vacuum fluctuations' to which you refer, the fluctuations would occur within vacuum energy. There may have been no matter (hence the vacuum state), but there would have been vast quantities of energy. As Einstein pointed out, the sum of matter and energy in the universe never changes, but one can change into the other.
Reply -
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Notice the nice words they use. Vacuum fluctuation and singularity are ideas presented as facts. There is no God so something has to do it. Faith.
Each stage except 7 has major problem in science. Of course the evolutionists claim that with enough time anything will happen is their explanation. They look at patterns and decide that that is proof but it also proves a God just as well.
Stage 5 the horrendous problem is how complex we know today a single cell is. There is a concept of irreducible complexity. That is taking away one part and the unit does not work. An old time TV maker was reported to do this. They were the cheap manufacturer and it was said they would take a design that another company created and part by part they would remove a part. If the TV didn't work they would put it back. When they were done there were no parts that could be removed. That was their final production design.
Reply -
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A single cell is incredibly complex. removing any of its parts makes it cease to exist. Evolutionists want us to believe that these incredibly complex parts just came together at random and made life. Odds quoted by various scientists state that 1 in 10 to the 50th up to 1 in 10 to the 40,000th.
Not in the realm of possibility.
Macro evolution has a large problem in the lack of evidence that it occurred. They are now coming up with explanations why it is not in the fossil record the way they used to say it had to be. They change the what they say as evidence fails to appear. What had to be there is not so lets figure out why it isn't instead of changing the theory. Because it just has to be true. Faith.
Reply -
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Scientific method has been used to support evolutionary theory, however. Scientific method has not provided any evidence of a supernatural deity, nor have any of evolution's detractors. Darwin was a thoughtful human being who gave us a departure point. The ID fluff doesn't rely on scientific method. It attempts to build an argument by building a framework, much like an attorney would build an argument to present a case in a courtroom. That's not science.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
lvrofwolves1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
earthlingerer- Consider the two situations: sixteen year old boy has consensual sex with a sixteen year old girl, and a 40 year old man has consensual sex with a sixteen year old girl.
In this case the 2 sixteen yr olds if the age of consent was 16 neither broke the law, if the age was higher, they BOTH broke the law. Either way it wouldn't be evil, just be sad from the parents point of view.
And the 16yr old with 40yr old regardless of age law, it's disgusting, if he broke the law-it's still disgusting and punishable by law. who knows if they will be 'punished' after life.
I'm using the word evil from a religious point of view, I'm not religious, and certainly not a creationist but I wanted a creationists point of view on my question, thinking they believe in evil. Also I don't want to get into a million different scenerios of man, his laws, morals etc..., just the 'creation' of God, Satan, and.....
Reply-
Neutral
lvrofwolves1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
One man shoots a black man because he's black and on "his people's land", another man shoots a man because he's black and on "his people's land". Neither shooter is black.
One's in VietNam 1968, the other is in Mississippi 1968. Is there really a difference?
p.s hmmm...I thought the vietnamese tried to shoot everyone on their land, not just blacks.
Well regardless I wouldn't call either of those evil either, but war in itself comes close to making people do what might be labeled as evil things, just as racial hate does.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
undrgrndgirl1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
NEW FLASH - darwin does NOT matter. it doesn't matter where we came from or how we got here or how we might change...it matters that we are currently here and need to take care of each other here...PERIOD.
has anyone ever noticed that richard dawkins has the same possessed look of an evangelical born again?? scary stuff if you believe too deeply in the ideas of man; be they scientific or religious.
Reply -
More News
Download Squad
Engadget
Science Daily
Drunken Fruit Flies Help Scientists Find Potential Drug Target For Alcoholism
1930s Drug Slows Tumor Growth: Gonorrhea Medication Might Help Fight Cancer
New Computer Simulator Helps Design Military Strategies Based On Ants' Movements
New Way To Attack Inflammation In Graves' Eye Disease
Magnetic Nanoparticles To Simultaneously Diagnose, Monitor And Treat
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.