Charles Darwin was a very troubled man. His daughter was very ill and he and his wife constantly prayed to God for her recovery but she died anyway. That is when he became a very angry man and became firm in his earlier thinking that it is all about the selection of nature that regarding who survives and who dies God has nothing to do with it. Maybe, maybe not. He was indeed an ambitious man who wanted to be famous and wanted to sell his books just like Sarah Palin. Only difference was that he could write and Sarah Palin could not.
Don't get me wrong, as I am not anti-science. Quite the contrary. Galileo put forward the theory that the planet Earth is round and not flat and that it revolves around the sun. At the time the church condemned him. However, today we have no doubt about his theory as we can go up high on a satellite and see our globe as being round. Likewise Newton proposed the theory of gravity and now we can go in space and feel the weightlessness and have no doubt about gravity. However, Darwin's theory does not fall into the same category. A lot of it is just theory. As he showed how a pigeon can be changed by humans by using different breeding techniques. But that does not put any light on how humans evolved from a single cell into a fish, monkey etc. All a theory. Today a human body has trillions of cells and is put together in a manner that a human can think, love, hate, have children all at the same time. Did all that happened by coincidence? I find the human body a mystery, an extraordinary machine, a miracle. Then there is the mind part and spiritualism part which cannot be explained by modern science and good scientists admit that, including well-known brain surgeon late Dr. Wilder Penfield of Montreal.
Then there is Dr. Deepak Chopra who once indicated that we, in the west, are so obsessed with the physical part of our lives that we forget there is a spiritual part. He comments on how medical science in the west has advanced, how it can replace an ailing heart, lungs, kidneys, knee-caps etc, but that we still know very little about the spiritual part of human lives and how spiritual healing is equally important in order to live a full life.
The most dangerous part of Darwin's theory is "survival of the fittest". I call it dangerous because it negates all ethics and moral humans have to follow. Under the "survival of the fittest" we should let nature take its course and if the weak die, too bad or kill them off. Only thing, theories cannot work in practice. Consider the Soviets who tried to put Karl Marx's theory on communism into practice; we know it is a big failure now. Likewise Hitler tried the "The Survival of the Fittest" theory.
Hitler thought that the Aryan nation was superior and the rest of the minorities in Germany - disabled, Jews and gays - must die as they don't fit the mold of the fittest. We know what disastrous results that brought – concentration camps and genocide.
Even Bush and Cheney can justify mass killing in Iraq under the "survival of the fittest" as they had superior firepower and if Iraqis got killed then they were not the fittest and let them die. Likewise can we object to genocide in Darfur as Sudanese can say it is all the game of the survival of the fittest. Let the nature take its course.
As humans we can do better than that and follow ethics and morals which will stop us from cruelty and genocide. I don't know how life started and I don't pretend to know. Pretty well all religions do teach brotherhood, sisterhood and love but we have effectively rendered them useless by exploiting religions for political purposes and have justified the most brutal of brutal actions using religion. I believe what needs to be done is follow religions in their spirit and learn to live in peace as religions do teach us that. I don't read religious books so I cannot quote from holy books but they do teach us how to be better humans such as "love thy neighbour" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "the meek shall rule the world". If we follow these principles then life on our planet could be much better.
Survival of the fittest is a cruel concept, but that doesn't mean it's an incorrect theory (and certainly not a dangerous one) to explain the diversity of species. We just shouldn't use it as the basis of human society.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, the natural world is a very cruel place. How unfortunate, then, that we base our entire economy and free market principles on it.
But, more to the point, Darwin never said that complex organisms evolved by "coincidence," but rather by the well defined process of natural selection. There's plenty of evidence beyond theoretical speculation to support it, and---on a personal note---it's immensely rewarding to study.
Mark, thank you for your well thought out comment. Indeed natural world is cruel and religion, if followed in true spirit, tames the beast in us.
ReplyDeleteEven if the evolution explains the physical aspect of life well there are still some mysterious aspects of life - the mind which has no physical existence as such. I will recommend reading Wilder Penfield’s books. I know very little about spiritualism but there is something to it. All these prophets and saints and spiritual leaders cannot be crooks. There are certain mysteries of life that some understand and rest of us don't. Life indeed remains a mystery for me.
"A lot of it is just theory."
ReplyDeleteYou are plain wrong here - and that is because you don't know the difference between a scientific theory and what folks typically refer to as "theory".
I suggest you read this first - then better acquaint yourself with the scientific method. After that, you'll understand that, thanks to genetics, molecular biology, cell biology, geology, and numerous other scientific disciplines, evolution is actually a fact of the natural world.
And at the same time, you would better understand evolution itself.
Darwin wrote his book 200 years ago. Yes, he had much genius and vision. But there was a whole "universe" of understanding that he did not have then, but that we do now. That all this new knowledge happened to prove him right is a testament to his genius - however much he did not get it exactly right at the time.
That is why creationists and IDists keep trying to re-argue Darwin as if we were still living in the 19th century, all the while conveniently ignoring all that science has established since then ...
...oh, and by the way: "survivial of the fittest" was something Darwin never wrote. In fact, that is not what evolution is about - period.
ReplyDeleteI thank you not for further promulgating this falsehood, while at the same time using this to further promote the non-argument that Hitler et al. followed this dictate in some manner.
Congratulations for joining the creationists and IDists in their false arguments against evolution - I suppose you must have loved the movie Expelled ...
Survival of the fittest is only cruel if you think cruelty is fitter than kindness. In fact studies have shown that "fitness" has included altruism and social behaviours that are nurturing as individuals survive longer and can pass along their genes. Besides, death isn't the worst thing. Life can be pretty tough and filled with suffering.
ReplyDeleteMentarch, you come across as fanatic as fanatic religious people. No where I promote any creationism in my post or in my blog in general. We claim we know a lot but yet we know so little. Imagine a universe right in an atom which Einstein put some light on – an atom which is invisible to a naked eye. In future we still may know a lot more about the atom. If you think that, "genetics, molecular biology, cell biology, geology, and numerous other scientific disciplines,” have provided all the answers then think again. Life is utterly much more complex that we find something new everyday. Even a single cell in our body is so complex that all the doctors, genetics, molecular biologist do not fully understand yet. How a cell reacts to disease is not fully comprehended yet. The intelligence in each single cell is extraordinary. Why you think all the best medicines have horrible side effects because we still don’t fully understand how human body operates and how each cell in our body is programmed. Again I am not against medicine but it is by no means a definitive science yet. Trial and error continues.
ReplyDeleteAn internationally known brain surgeon Dr. Penfield admitted that he understood the physical part of the brain but the mind remained a mystery to him.
Dude...Darwin simply said: here is what I observe, and here is what I conclude.
ReplyDeleteDispute the observations or conclusions with another scientific finding, if you can; but don't get your knickers in a twist because of moral conclusions that others have reached in reviewing Darwin's science. That's as silly as blaming Newton or Galileo for the fact that their observations are used to target artillery shells.
Lilian , “fittest” or nature’s selection in Darwinian terms is the one who would survive. I don’t think altruism was part of his evolution theory. However, altruism is indeed a very strong emotion no question about that.
ReplyDeleteBalbulican, if you read my response to Mentarch then you will get some idea what I am getting at.
ReplyDeleteBalbulican, let me add that I know that I don’t know the answer to the mysteries of life.
ReplyDelete"Mentarch, you come across as fanatic as fanatic religious people.
ReplyDeleteOh, puh-leeze.
You just don't want to get the difference between science - i.e. acknowledgement of demonstrated facts - and belief. Thank you for proving here an old point I made a while back:
"Since they are either incapable of understanding, or refuse to understand, how the scientific method works (...) they still think of science as they do of philosophy and theology - i.e. it is all about logical reasoning and what one believes it to be sound or not. Hence, those that have accepted the reality of evolution are in fact believers (...) like any other kind of philosophical school of thought or any other religion.
(...) Hence, science is the same as philosophy and theology - again, an ignorance-based view which keeps on prevailing wrongly.
This is, of course, the convenient way to attempt to dismiss evolution and the overwhelming and undeniable scientific support it has.
So in essence, it becomes convenient to claim that scientists run on faith, not on demonstration - like philosophy and theology.
Therein lies the limitations of ignorance that have always been displayed by the deniers of scientifc facts.
Science is not, and can not, by virtue of the scientific method, be a matter of faith.
Science is about acceptance of demonstrated facts which explain our reality. Period."
Labeling me as a "fanatic" reveals the inherent, untenable and shaky foundation of your ignorance-based reasoning, LeDaro.
I am a scientist. Period.
No beliefs, no fanacism.
Just the demonstrated facts.
In this respect, I am of the "reality-based community".
Clearly, that is not the case with you.
You display your blatant ignorance while using it to argue against actual facts and knowledge.
Yes - there is much yet to understand. But that is in no way an argument.
And again, there you go arguing for "irreducible complexity", and "its all complex!!!", like typical creationists and IDists.
Instead of fearing the "complex", delve into the actual knowledge that we have acquired so far.
In other words: try first to understand and know what you are talking about, before gobling up ignorance-based non-arguments which have been debunked time and time again.
I'm a scientist - trust me on this ;-)
I forgot this little gem: "The intelligence in each single cell is extraordinary."
ReplyDeleteThis is typical projection of one's sentience into something else.
Cells have no intelligence whatsoever.
Migh as well proclaim that procaryotic bacteria and single-cell eukaryotic protista make physiological and metabolic decisions based on reason.
Again - ignorance-based assertions.
Which I always find unfortunate in this day and age.
As for the "mind" - we're already begun "getting there" ... case in point.
Mentarch, good for you friend that you’re so sure of yourself. You say you observe facts and draw conclusions as a scientist. Where did you get that ability to observe – that unseen mental ability? Are you saying it just evolved from physical material?
ReplyDeleteWhat is your definition of intelligence, my friend?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(too many missed typos the first time - let's try this one more time)
ReplyDeleteAgain, LeDaro - catch up on science with actual science textbooks, friend.
That is all I can reply here - short of writing volumes that are already been published and available in the science sections of in any (decent) university library ...
Delve especially into neurophysiology and you'll understand why a single cell is not intelligent. You'll also get an inkling as to how intelligence functions and where it comes from. We are even beginning to understand how memory is formed at a molecular, sub-cellular level.
Enjoy ;-)
We all are surrounded by all kinds of bacteria and germs, and cells in our body constantly react to develop anti-bodies and fight them so that body can stay alive. How those reactions take place if there is no intelligence? We don’t constantly make conscious decisions to develop anti-bodies. Do we?
ReplyDelete"How those reactions take place if there is no intelligence? We don’t constantly make conscious decisions to develop anti-bodies. Do we?
ReplyDeleteAgain, LeDaro - catch up on biochemistry, enzymology, transduction signaling, gene expression, immunology (cellular and humoral response), etc., etc., etc.
Then you'll understand.
KEvron: "he's got you there, mentarch"
ReplyDeleteNope - see my response.
These are valid questions - for someone who does not have the knowledge. I applaud such questions - because asking questions opens the way to seeking better understanding
But the thing is - these questions have already been answered through the scientific method and the answers are now known facts.
The problem here is understanding the answers - hence why I keep reiterating: "catch up on biochemistry, cell biology, immunology, etc., etc., etc."
;-)
"cellular and humoral response" even the word "reponse" in there implies intelligence.
ReplyDeleteMy friend you need to study a lot more yourself.
"gene expression" again an entity cannot express itself unless it has intelligence.
ReplyDeleteYou need to improve your scientific language, friend.
LeDaro: don't confuse language used to describe something with what it truly "is".
ReplyDeleteA do look up the definition of the scientific term "response".
Funny how you have failed to address any single one of my point, instead each time moving the goalpost - as you have yet done here again.
Just like your typical creationist/IDist.
Do become science-literate before using silly counter-arguments which only serve to further display your absolute lack of knowledge and understanding on the matter ... friend.
""gene expression" again an entity cannot express itself unless it has intelligence.
ReplyDeleteYou need to improve your scientific language, friend.
Sayeth the science-iliterate to the scientist ...
I guess this is Q.E.D. indeed.
What a shame ...
"it's deeper than that: a willingness to understand."
ReplyDeleteSadly, you have utterly failed to show this herein, friend.
Having said that - I bid you well and much comfort in your ignorance.
Mentarch, not at all. I am dead serious. An “expression” and a “response” do imply intelligence. If you read medical journals they do talk about intelligence of the human cells.
ReplyDeleteThat's pure invention on your part, LeDaro.
ReplyDeleteHow about actually *reading* a scientific journal?
(sheesh!)
Mentarch, I was generally very respectful of you until I saw a comment on your blog about me. That was very cowardly of you to make denigrating remarks about me without my knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI actually visited your blog to thank you for your contributions here but I was shocked by your comments. You may be a self-proclaimed scientist and a professor but after reading your comments I reached the conclusion that you're an utterly ignorant man and why a university will hire you beats me.
I was thinking of a writer NELS QUEVLI who I understand wrote extensively on cell intelligence. And I saw an article somewhere on him in a medical journal while ago. But it does not matter anyway I am utterly disappointed by your arrogance and ignorance.
You know so little about me and yet made some very unfortunate disparaging remarks. I may have read more then you can imagine or probably you will ever do but that is beside the point. I do not go around denigrating people.
LeDaro: I wrote nothing that I did not write here.
ReplyDeleteEnjoy continuing ignoring reality.
Mentarch, you're further proving that you're an idiot. Good luck.
ReplyDeleteI am friends with a gentleman who is a full professor in physics and another one who is a rocket scientist. I know a smart person when I see one but unfortunately you are not one of them.
I rarely delete comments but there is no place for idiots like you here. You stick to your own delusional stuff and have tea-bagging party with your ape-grandfather.
ReplyDeleteAny further nonsense from you will be deleted.
I feel sorry for those you teach.
ReplyDeleteLeDaro, you take offense when your lack of knowledge is exposed, and rather than taking advantage of the suggestions gracefully offered by Mentarch, you insult him, then get further offended that he doesn't curl up in defeat before your Wrath of Khan.
ReplyDeleteYou don't need to study science at a university level to know that a single word can have several meanings depending on the context. The context defines which meaning is the one likeliest to apply with near certainty. For example, if you still insist that "response" implies intelligence or sentience, go to Google and type "flame response." Surely you aren't arguing that because a flame responds, it embodies some for of intelligence?
When someone refuses to look up available research and alternate arguments it's usually because they are slothful or deliberately embrace ignorance because they simply don't want to believe anything else. So in the end, when facing a real scientist in an argument, they have nothing left to say except "You stick to your own delusional stuff and have tea-bagging party with your ape-grandfather."
But only after stating earlier: "I do not go around denigrating people."
Mentarch is one of the most courteous of bloggers I've read. His patience with people is remarkable and I'm sure this makes him an excellent teacher.
Me, I am less polite. I would have reacted to your second (if not first) response by declaring you some sort of sub-species. Call it...I don't know..."Lobotomus semi erectus."
900ft Jesus, I would have taken your argument more seriously until you exposed your own species of
ReplyDelete"Lobotomus semi erectus." as you know who you are and know the name for it.
Sad part is that my views on conservatism and environment are not much different than that of Mentalwhatever his name is. I was very polite to him when his arrogance started coming through. What really annoyed me was when he became very arrogant in imposing his point of view and implying that I was some kind of religious fanatic.
There are many things in life which cannot be explained by so-called science. Humans can only understand what their senses allow. There are writings of well-known scientists of international recognition who pointed that out and one example I gave were that of Dr. Wilder Penfield who was a brain surgeon and wrote that there was something beyond physical brain that he did not understand. He reached those conclusions after doing many brain surgeries.
What really got me upset was when I visited your Mentalwhatever friend’s blog to thank him for his comments and saw some very disparaging remarks about me along with a very ignorant man who was commenting for some his own idiotic reasons that I am not fully aware of? This same guy made some very racist remarks about Deepak Chopra referring to his East-Indian background. I double-checked on google and indeed they were racist remarks. That is when I deleted all his comments, as I have zero tolerance for racism on my blog. Yes I was sanitizing in that sense. Why can we not differ and yet be civil. I did not delete your Mentalwhatever friend’s comment until the last one where he was very rude.
There are always two-sides to the story.
I"ve been reading Mentarch for a few years now, and if you are going to accuse him of using racist remarks, you should quote them, in context. It's beyond absurd for anyone who reads his posts to believe he is prejudiced.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, he wasn"t imposing his point of view in his comments to this post, but stating scientific fact - cells can"t think. They have no intelligence. There is no intelligence that tells the body to make white blood cells. Basic high school biology, but too long to explain here, so M. was right in saying read up on it.
Fact, not opinion.
People loosely use terms such as "the intelligence of cells" perhaps, but it isn't meant to be literal, any more than we are supposed to believe that a "clever gadget" is witty.
Anyway, enough from me. The racist scientist can easily speak for himself.
900ft Jesus, I did not say your friend used racist remarks. It was his friend who he was extolling on his blog. I deleted all his comments.
ReplyDeleteIf someone sits in a lab and plays with mice does not mean that we should all bow to him/her or if someone calls himself/herself academic/intellectual that we should go on our knees. If you are expecting that then you're at a very wrong place. We all have different points of views and if we can be civil discussing such differences then it works instead of indicating “I am authority on such and such and you better agree with me.”
"We all are surrounded by all kinds of bacteria and germs, and cells in our body constantly react to develop anti-bodies and fight them so that body can stay alive. How those reactions take place if there is no intelligence?" - LD
ReplyDeleteSorry friend but that's called 'natural selection' not intelligence. It's how we wind up with drug-resistant tuberculosis and pesticide-resistant weeds. You kill off everything but the mutated exception which then replicates but not because it's intelligent, because it has been the fluke that survived.
The theory of evolution is about as settled as the theory of gravity. We can't manufacture evolution (although perhaps we will with gene therapy) but we can certainly observe it all around us, constantly.
Don't despair. In relative terms, modern science is still in its infancy. We're only beginning to unlock knowledge that explains theories.