In what two ways was Darwin's theory inadequate? How might Mendel have helped?
Im doing Bio homework and this is my last question. I cant think of anything besides genes. Would appreciate some help while I think of something.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
43 Answers
How might Mendel have helped what?
Well that’s exactly what it sounds like. I’d rather have you think of something and then check it with us. This question is what we here at Fluther call a “She Wants Us To Do Her
Homework” question.
Flutherers: resist.
ya, good question pete. don’t let her off the hook.
Darwin’s theory doesn’t explain how as we were able to procreate and evolve to have a different number chromosomes than our ancestors. Lamarckian evolution might explain this but Jean-Baptist Lemarck’s work has been rejected by modern evolutionary scientists.
If we evolved from apes, why are apes still here?
Stratman. When evolution occurs, it doesn’t automatically cause the preceding species to go extinct. Over time, different species can evolve from one original species, but that species can persist if it has a niche. Apes have their own niche, as do we.
We didn’t evolve from apes. We evolved along side them from a common ancestor.
proof that we evolved from apes.
@stratman37 Why do you have to get a new flu shot every year? Could it be because the flu virus evolves?
Also, we didn’t evolve from apes, we have a common ancestor as apes. Ultimately, all living things on earth evolved from single-celled bacteria.
You know what makes me believe in evolution? Humans have actually caused other organisms to evolve. The insulin that keeps me alive is a perfect example. It was created by inserting human DNA into bacteria, causing the bacteria to produce a huge amount of insulin. A genetic change was introduced to an organism that caused it to thrive in its environment. That’s the heart of Darwin’s theory.
@stratman- We evolved along side of the apes. That’s why the search for a missing link has been unfruitful. There isn’t one because we didn’t evolve directly from apes.
Isn’t the insulin thing a product of Operational (Observational) Science, whereas evolution falls under Historical (Origins) Science?
An even easier to understand modern evolutionary example is the emergence of drug resistant bacteria. We started using penicillin in the 1940s, and soon, there were penicillin resistant bacteria that developed, owing to the strong evolutionary pressure to survive in the presence of penicillin (an antibiotic that damages the bacterial cell wall). Soon after, new antibiotics were developed, and as history has shown, bacteria have very rapidly evolved to resist every type of antibiotic thrown at them (penicillins, cephalosporins, aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones, etc.). In fact, within one day in the lab, I can demonstrate this effect by subjecting normal (not resistant) bacteria to antibiotics. In a matter of hours, a small fraction of bacteria will be resistant to the antibiotic. That, stratman, is evolution at work!
That’s still Operational Science, not Historical. And the bacteria is adapting, not evolving.
I MADE myself a sandwich today. Doesn’t that ‘prove’ creationism?
All scientists, creationist or evolutionist, have the same evidence; the difference is the presuppositions that are used to interpret that evidence. All reasoning is based on presuppositions. Biblical creationists start with the assumption that the Bible provides an accurate eyewitness history of the universe as a basis for scientific thought. Evolutionists begin with the presupposition that only natural laws can be used to explain the facts. Facts exist in the present, and our interpretations are an attempt to connect the past to the present. The evolutionists must assume everything about the past, while biblical creationists have the Bible as a “time machine” that can provide valuable insight into the past.
Creationist scientists? Now that’s an oxymoron!
Of course not!
Many founders of scientific disciplines, such as Bacon, Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Maxwell, and Kelvin were Bible-believing Christians. As a matter of fact, the most discerning historians and philosophers of science have recognized that the very existence of modern science had its origins in a culture at least nominally committed to a biblical worldview.
But your writing hints at creationism being a science. Creationism belongs in the realm of spirituality, not science.
@banisgirl- Sorry to hijack this thread.
what does the word science mean?
Science is based on cause and effect, evidence and mathematics. Religion and spirituality are based on faith.
The word science originally means knowledge.
Creationists and Evolutionists are looking at the same evidence, but proceed with different presuppositions.
Neither camp was there at the beginning, but Christians have a eye-witness account in the Bible.
The past is not directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable; so interpretations of past events present greater challenges than interpretations involving operational science.
Neither creation nor evolution is directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable. Each is based on certain philosophical assumptions about how the earth began. Naturalistic evolution assumes that there was no God, and biblical creation assumes that there was a God who created everything in the universe.
Starting from two opposite presuppositions and looking at the same evidence, the explanations of the history of the universe are very different. The argument is not over the evidence—the evidence is the same—it is over the way the evidence should be interpreted.
Creationists and Evolutionists are looking at the same evidence? What? Are you joking? First of all, your words are elegant but lack any real substance. Using the book of Genesis as a foundation of evidence is akin to using the Egyptian Book of the Dead to show evidence of the sun being a god. I can find it written that the Earth is flat and that it lies on the back of a giant turtle. Is that evidence of anything other than someone’s belief? The valuable insight into the past you mention is coming from a book written long ago from stories handed down for generations by word of mouth. This all falls under faith. I find the way you define science “interesting.”
@Stratman. I hate to break it to you, but you don’t know what you are talking about. Adaptations, are in fact, an example of evolution at work. Your semantics are not convincing. You may change the words around all you want, but, the evolution of bacteria (and humans) is directly observable, testable and repeatable (to use your words). If you want, I will happily refer you to thousands of research papers demonstrating evolution in action. In return, I would ask that you provide me with research papers that demonstrate the presence of an omniscient being. Oh, wait, you can’t.
shilolo, yes, please show me the links. Believe it or not, I’m open to changing my mind. (sorry if that sounded sarcastic, I don’t mean it to!) Seriously, knowledge is power, right?
Send ‘em on.
Would you prefer review articles that summarize the data as a start, or do you want to dive right in? There is also a series of New York Times articles on evolution that you can read as well. For example, here is a recent Science Times section devoted to the topic. Here is a story on bacterial evolution, in the lab. If you want direct scientific links, I would happily send them to you, but they can be very dense.
@stratman – I think it’s also important to point out that while “science” may have originally meant “knowledge”, it no longer falls under such a broad definition. Science today refers to a very specific and rigorous method, which scientists use to experimentally verify or disprove hypotheses.
dense is as dense does – bring it!
But, in the interest of not looking like a push over, didn’t you guys agree with evolution “on faith”? I mean, doesn’t it take more faith to believe that the intricacies of the modern human body somehow evolving from a single celled ameba, than it does to acknowledge that a higher being designed all of this?
No. I am a scientist. Evolution is as founded in the scientific method as Newtonian Physics. More to the point, your point is the opposite. Why should an omniscient being need to be invoked? Gods were invented by people who had no ability to ascertain why events occurred around them. Now, we can explain eclipses, volcanoes, earthquakes, tides, the moon, the sun, plagues, etc. scientifically. For the same reason, we can explain how we came to be (through evolution).
Think of it like a mountain – at the base are patterns of very low complexity (molecules, single-celled life-forms, etc), and at the top is very complex life. The theory of evolution states that the top was reached by a slow, slow ascent, with organisms changing very gradually. The idea of Creationism presumes that life jumped from the bottom of the mountain to the top almost instantly. Thus, the Theory of Evolution makes much less demand on our credibility. For a fuller explanation, read “Climbing Mount Improbable” by Richard Dawkins.
Hobbes, thanx for the book recommend.
Thanks, shilolo =] And no problem stratman. Actually, pretty much all of his books are good, and they’ll give you a very clear and interesting picture of evolutionary biology.
Yea, even The God Delusion has a pretty intense section on evolution and Darwin’s ideas. I’ll have to check that one out Hobbes. Thanks for the recommend.
I remember seeing a ‘theistic evolution’ article on the net. If anyone’s interested, I suggest typing ‘theistic evolution’ into Google – you can find a bunch of those articles.
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
