Darwin v Lincoln
Posted by: Don Atkinson on 12 February 2009
Darwin v Lincoln
Both were born 12th February 1809. 200 years ago today.
Clearly completely different spheres of influence but which one has had most influence on world affaires?
Cheers
Don
Both were born 12th February 1809. 200 years ago today.
Clearly completely different spheres of influence but which one has had most influence on world affaires?
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 12 February 2009 by FlyMe
A difficult one to call. I have a huge admiration for Darwin and he gets my vote. I just have a nagging doubt though - would his theory of evolution by natural selection have come about anyway - possibly through the work of Wallace?
As for Lincoln - perhaps his murder robbed the world of even more progress - dying early makes it an unfair contest!
As for Lincoln - perhaps his murder robbed the world of even more progress - dying early makes it an unfair contest!
Posted on: 13 February 2009 by Consciousmess
Darwin totally gets my vote.
Jon
PS I just feel it is such a shame that he doesn't know NOW how much support his original theory has and what its additional details are.
Jon
PS I just feel it is such a shame that he doesn't know NOW how much support his original theory has and what its additional details are.
Posted on: 13 February 2009 by FlyMe
Darwin is one of the few people from history I would have loved to meet. Such a gentle unassuming man of great humanity (and humility).
Posted on: 13 February 2009 by BigH47
Darwin 2 -1 after extra time.
Posted on: 13 February 2009 by droodzilla
Darwin for me - the central ideas (random mutation + natural selection) is so simple, yet utterly profound, and far reaching in its implications. If you want to understand the underlying principles of Darwin's theory of evolution, I strongly recommend Daniel Dennett's book, "Darwin's Dangerous Idea". I found Dennett's other books on consciousness and religion unsatisfying, but his account of Darwin's theory of evolution and its importance is a classic.
Regards
Nigel
Regards
Nigel
Posted on: 13 February 2009 by Adam Meredith
Tyler Durden: "OK: any historic figure."
Narrator: "I'd fight Gandhi."
Tyler Durden: "Good answer."
Narrator: "How about you?"
Tyler Durden: "Lincoln."
Narrator: "Lincoln?"
Tyler Durden: "Big guy, big reach. Skinny guys fight 'til they're burger."
Narrator: "I'd fight Gandhi."
Tyler Durden: "Good answer."
Narrator: "How about you?"
Tyler Durden: "Lincoln."
Narrator: "Lincoln?"
Tyler Durden: "Big guy, big reach. Skinny guys fight 'til they're burger."
Posted on: 14 February 2009 by Consciousmess
quote:Darwin for me - the central ideas (random mutation + natural selection) is so simple, yet utterly profound, and far reaching in its implications. If you want to understand the underlying principles of Darwin's theory of evolution, I strongly recommend Daniel Dennett's book, "Darwin's Dangerous Idea". I found Dennett's other books on consciousness and religion unsatisfying, but his account of Darwin's theory of evolution and its importance is a classic.
Regards
Nigel
Thanks for that, Nigel. I havent read any of these texts by Dennett, will will endeavour to do so ASAP. I am seeing him in a lecture next month on the evolution of religion.
Regards,
Jon
Posted on: 14 February 2009 by mikeeschman
i'm waiting to pick Lincoln or Darwin until after the talent contest. i also think superman will whip spiderman's ass in a parallel contest :-)
Posted on: 14 February 2009 by Wolf2
Darwin was amazing and so miss used and battled over. They still have to call it a theory, oh my.
Christians said for years that he had renounced his theory when he was old. I've read an interesting review of that book and that statement was totally false. He had an amazing wife and great relationship even tho she didn't agree with him. Don't forget the women behind the men, just like Elanore and FDR.
Lincoln has been our most written about president in biographies. So sad he didn't live longer, his few speeches and writings are superb spiritual thought.
Christians said for years that he had renounced his theory when he was old. I've read an interesting review of that book and that statement was totally false. He had an amazing wife and great relationship even tho she didn't agree with him. Don't forget the women behind the men, just like Elanore and FDR.
Lincoln has been our most written about president in biographies. So sad he didn't live longer, his few speeches and writings are superb spiritual thought.
Posted on: 14 February 2009 by winkyincanada
The interesting (and misunderstood) thing is that to call natural selection a "theory" is not to diminish it. Science has laws and it has theories (and many other things). Laws are like recipes - they are mechanistic and predictive. "If you do this - than that happens". The LAW of gravity lets us predict what satellites and pendulums will do - but it tells us nothing of why they do it. Theories are often much more interesting and sophisticated - they explore the underlying CAUSES of observed behaviour, rather than posit heuristics that just predict future outcomes.
Although the LAW of gravity has been accepted for a long time (Admittedly, Newton's law was shown by Einsten and experiments to be imprecise at the limits ), there is still no universally accepted THEORY of gravity.
It is a common mis-conception that theories "become" laws once enough evidence is gathered. The corollary is that theories are subservient to laws. This is to completely misunderstand the distinction between the two.
To say that natural selection remains a theory is in no way to diminish it. There is no better theory that explains the natural world.
BTW - Evolution is neither a theory nor a law - it is a fact.
Although the LAW of gravity has been accepted for a long time (Admittedly, Newton's law was shown by Einsten and experiments to be imprecise at the limits ), there is still no universally accepted THEORY of gravity.
It is a common mis-conception that theories "become" laws once enough evidence is gathered. The corollary is that theories are subservient to laws. This is to completely misunderstand the distinction between the two.
To say that natural selection remains a theory is in no way to diminish it. There is no better theory that explains the natural world.
BTW - Evolution is neither a theory nor a law - it is a fact.
Posted on: 15 February 2009 by Don Atkinson
quote:BTW - Evolution is neither a theory nor a law - it is a fact.
Oh!
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 15 February 2009 by Don Atkinson
Not much support for Lincoln's effect on world affairs then?
Cheers
Don
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 15 February 2009 by Mat Cork
Darwin...but agree, evolution would have been understood soon anyway.
Posted on: 15 February 2009 by Derek Wright
"would have been understood soon anyway"
but he or she who publishes first wins.
So first prize goes to Charles D.
For anyone within striking distance of the Natural History Museum in London take a trip the the Darwin exhibition.
see web site
The show is on until 19th April
but he or she who publishes first wins.
So first prize goes to Charles D.
For anyone within striking distance of the Natural History Museum in London take a trip the the Darwin exhibition.
see web site
The show is on until 19th April
Posted on: 15 February 2009 by Consciousmess
quote:The interesting (and misunderstood) thing is that to call natural selection a "theory" is not to diminish it. Science has laws and it has theories (and many other things). Laws are like recipes - they are mechanistic and predictive. "If you do this - than that happens". The LAW of gravity lets us predict what satellites and pendulums will do - but it tells us nothing of why they do it. Theories are often much more interesting and sophisticated - they explore the underlying CAUSES of observed behaviour, rather than posit heuristics that just predict future outcomes.
Although the LAW of gravity has been accepted for a long time (Admittedly, Newton's law was shown by Einsten and experiments to be imprecise at the limits ), there is still no universally accepted THEORY of gravity.
It is a common mis-conception that theories "become" laws once enough evidence is gathered. The corollary is that theories are subservient to laws. This is to completely misunderstand the distinction between the two.
To say that natural selection remains a theory is in no way to diminish it. There is no better theory that explains the natural world.
BTW - Evolution is neither a theory nor a law - it is a fact.
Well put, Winky.
Jon
Posted on: 15 February 2009 by Don Atkinson
Agree with all that Winky said, with the exception of his last line.
And although the last line might be right, at present I just don't see enough evidence to turn Darwin's idea into "fact"
Cheers
Don
And although the last line might be right, at present I just don't see enough evidence to turn Darwin's idea into "fact"
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 15 February 2009 by winkyincanada
Hi Don,
There seems to be plenty of evidence that evolution is occurring (and has occurred). Take the way viruses evolve to become resistant to drugs. An interesting area I come across in my work is that of sulphide-eating bacteria. These little guys grow in acid solutions and assist in the chemical recovery of copper from large-scale dump leach mining operations. In spite of efforts to use specific species of the bacteria to maximise copper recovery, frustratingly they tend to evolve into other species before our (microscope assisted) eyes.
I think evolution is pretty well accepted as fact. You can see it happening in real time and there is a plethora of evidence that it occurred in the past. The theory bit is really about natural selection - the "why and how" of evolution. To go back to the gravity analogy - gravity exists, that is a fact, there are laws that allow us to predict its behaviour, but there is still no theory as why.
So when I say that evolution is a fact, I am not claiming that natural selection is other than a theory. But it is a really great theory that has been developed and improved continuously since the time of Darwin.
Winky
There seems to be plenty of evidence that evolution is occurring (and has occurred). Take the way viruses evolve to become resistant to drugs. An interesting area I come across in my work is that of sulphide-eating bacteria. These little guys grow in acid solutions and assist in the chemical recovery of copper from large-scale dump leach mining operations. In spite of efforts to use specific species of the bacteria to maximise copper recovery, frustratingly they tend to evolve into other species before our (microscope assisted) eyes.
I think evolution is pretty well accepted as fact. You can see it happening in real time and there is a plethora of evidence that it occurred in the past. The theory bit is really about natural selection - the "why and how" of evolution. To go back to the gravity analogy - gravity exists, that is a fact, there are laws that allow us to predict its behaviour, but there is still no theory as why.
So when I say that evolution is a fact, I am not claiming that natural selection is other than a theory. But it is a really great theory that has been developed and improved continuously since the time of Darwin.
Winky
Posted on: 15 February 2009 by Don Atkinson
I feel it only fair to post a couple of points in Lincoln's favour, since most seem to find Darwin has been more influential.
Schoolboy info only, but Lincoln did help to sort out the American Civil War and started the end of slavery in the US - without which the present presidential incumbant might not be in office......and of course an awful lot of american citizens might still be considered second-class etc etc. And the effects might have had a more global significance............I wonder?
Cheers
Don
PS Hi Winky
Schoolboy info only, but Lincoln did help to sort out the American Civil War and started the end of slavery in the US - without which the present presidential incumbant might not be in office......and of course an awful lot of american citizens might still be considered second-class etc etc. And the effects might have had a more global significance............I wonder?
Cheers
Don
PS Hi Winky
Posted on: 16 February 2009 by Wolf2
Great info on science and theory, thanks. I do remember school book illustrations of a moth in England that was white but in the industrial age soot made them more visible, thus the gray variations blended in more and are now dominant.
I was a Horticulture major, but the serious science I had to take went over my head. What can I say, I'm really an artist, details I can handle only so much of. LOL
Some day I'll post my orchid etchings...
-----------
Lincoln made so many things possible. It took decades to sort out. But I remember there being laws on the books in the 50s that were enforced, that you could not marry a different race. That blew up in their face in the 60s along with so many other ridiculous laws. Now it's gay marriage that's going to the supreme court.
Lincoln and Martin Luther King were our best orators with deep meaning for the world.
I was a Horticulture major, but the serious science I had to take went over my head. What can I say, I'm really an artist, details I can handle only so much of. LOL
Some day I'll post my orchid etchings...
-----------
Lincoln made so many things possible. It took decades to sort out. But I remember there being laws on the books in the 50s that were enforced, that you could not marry a different race. That blew up in their face in the 60s along with so many other ridiculous laws. Now it's gay marriage that's going to the supreme court.
Lincoln and Martin Luther King were our best orators with deep meaning for the world.
Posted on: 20 February 2009 by Jet Johnson
quote:Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Not much support for Lincoln's effect on world affairs then?
Cheers
Don
Darwin had such an effect on World affairs that 30% of all Americans still believe in the creationist theory! ... I'd go for Lincoln not because Darwin was in anyway wrong but simply because creationist beliefs are (astoundingly)on the increase!
Posted on: 20 February 2009 by Jet Johnson
quote:Originally posted by Jet Johnson:quote:Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Not much support for Lincoln's effect on world affairs then?
Cheers
Don
Darwin had such an effect on World affairs that 30% of all Americans still believe in the creationist theory! ... I'd go for Lincoln not because Darwin was in anyway wrong but simply because creationist beliefs are (astoundingly) on the increase!
Lincoln certainly seems to have been a major influence on Obama.
Posted on: 24 February 2009 by Chillkram
Darwin has better awards!
Posted on: 05 March 2009 by JWM
The danger of worshipping Darwin
"His vast brow hangs over us all. His foamy white beard cascades down in the familiar Michelangelo Old Testament style.
He speaks to mankind of ancient origins and end times.
"In this year of his double anniversary, are we in danger of turning Charles Darwin if not into God, at least into the founder of a secular religion?..."
Andrew Marr, Presenter, 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea'
"His vast brow hangs over us all. His foamy white beard cascades down in the familiar Michelangelo Old Testament style.
He speaks to mankind of ancient origins and end times.
"In this year of his double anniversary, are we in danger of turning Charles Darwin if not into God, at least into the founder of a secular religion?..."
Andrew Marr, Presenter, 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea'
Posted on: 06 March 2009 by Don Atkinson
Watched the first episode last night.
Not much detail on explaining just what Darwin's theory actually is and even less information about the scientific evidence that supports it.
Not impressed, but will continue to watch nontheless.
Cheers
Don
Not much detail on explaining just what Darwin's theory actually is and even less information about the scientific evidence that supports it.
Not impressed, but will continue to watch nontheless.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 20 March 2009 by Don Atkinson
Not a lot of factual evidence provided in Andrew Marr's programme to support Darwin's idea, but what there was, was fairly sound. This allowed Marr to concentrate on the diabolic interpretations and consequences abstracted from Darwin's theory by equally diabolic people. So the title fairly accurately described the programme.
Only moderately interesting IMHO.
Cheers
Don
Only moderately interesting IMHO.
Cheers
Don