Skip to comments.
Why Darwin's still a scientific hotshot (Nobel laureate James D. Watson on Darwin and his influence)
LA Times Calendar Live.com ^
| September 18, 2005
| James D. Watson
Posted on 09/19/2005 3:24:26 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
Edited on 09/19/2005 3:36:21 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator.
[history]
Why Darwin's still a scientific hotshot
By James D. Watson
September 18, 2005
Editor's Note:
"Nobel laureate James D. Watson, co-discoverer of the molecular structure of DNA, has edited and provided commentary for a new anthology of Charles Darwin's four major books, collected in one volume by Running Press. Watson's essay introducing "Darwin: The Indelible Stamp: The Evolution of an Idea" is excerpted here.
I first became aware of Charles Darwin and evolution while still a schoolboy growing up in Chicago. My father and I had a passion for bird-watching and when the snow or the rain kept me indoors, I read his bird books and learned about evolution. We also used to frequent the great Field Museum of Natural History, and my fragmentary knowledge of evolution helped guide me through the myriad specimens in the museum. It is extraordinary the extent to which Darwin's insights not only changed his contemporaries' view of the world but also continue to be a source of great intellectual stimulation for scientists and nonscientists alike. His "On the Origin of Species" was rightly praised by biologist Thomas Henry Huxley as "
the most potent instrument for the extension of the realm of natural knowledge which has come into men's hands since the publication of Newton's "Principia."
When Darwin returned from his five-year voyage aboard the H.M.S. Beagle, he turned over his various collections to experts on birds, beetles, mollusks and the like. John Gould was Darwin's bird expert. Darwin was surprised to learn from him that the finches he had collected on the Galapagos Islands closely resembled similar birds on the South American continent some 600 miles away, yet the finches of one island were different from those of the other islands
" Excerpt. Story follows: Los Angeles Times
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; darwin; dna; evolution; jamesdwatson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-209 next last
As usual, Watson pulls no punches.
To: RadioAstronomer; longshadow; grey_whiskers; headsonpikes; Iris7; PatrickHenry
To: snarks_when_bored
"Evolution is a law (with several components) that is as well substantiated as any other natural law, whether the law of gravity, the laws of motion or Avogadro's law. Evolution is a fact, disputed only by those who choose to ignore the evidence, put their common sense on hold and believe instead that unchanging knowledge and wisdom can be reached only by revelation."
All created by the mind of man. So naturalistic and materialistic.
To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
EvolutionPing |
A pro-evolution science list with over 300 names. See the list's explanation at my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail to be added or dropped. |
|
|
|
4
posted on
09/19/2005 3:37:29 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
To: Just mythoughts
All created by the mind of man.
I'll grant you that the study of evolution is created by the mind of man (at least on this planet). But the fact of evolution, as Watson describes it, is most definitely not created by the mind of man (unless you wish to defend some form of subjective idealism or even solipsism).
To: snarks_when_bored
that is as well substantiated as any other natural law, whether the law of gravity That's fine but sometimes laws change.
6
posted on
09/19/2005 3:40:07 AM PDT
by
bkepley
To: snarks_when_bored
To: snarks_when_bored
"I'll grant you that the study of evolution is created by the mind of man (at least on this planet). But the fact of evolution, as Watson describes it, is most definitely not created by the mind of man (unless you wish to defend some form of subjective idealism or even solipsism)."
Who do you give credit for the "fact" of evolution??? Who established the boundaries and the parameters of what is called evolution???
To: snarks_when_bored
as well substantiated as any other natural law, whether the law of gravity, the laws of motion or Avogadro's law Any chemist can go in the lab and demonstrate Avogadro's law. Has any evolutionist ever demonstrated macro-evolution under controlled circumstances? Of course not.
To: bkepley
Well-established laws in science rarely change; rather, they are superseded by laws which take account of a wider (or more extreme) range of phenomena. Contrast the range of applicability of Newton's inverse square law of gravity with Einstein's general relativistic theory of gravity. You can send a rocket around the moon and back using Newton's law and not be off by much; but if you want to understand what happens around a neutron star or a black hole, say, Einstein's theory is essential.
To: Sidebar Moderator
Thanks, and very sorry for the faux pas!
To: Just mythoughts
Who do you give credit for the "fact" of evolution??? Who established the boundaries and the parameters of what is called evolution??? Reality.
12
posted on
09/19/2005 3:52:35 AM PDT
by
Skylab
To: Just mythoughts
"I'll grant you that the study of evolution is created by the mind of man (at least on this planet). But the fact of evolution, as Watson describes it, is most definitely not created by the mind of man (unless you wish to defend some form of subjective idealism or even solipsism)." Who do you give credit for the "fact" of evolution??? Who established the boundaries and the parameters of what is called evolution???
You're asking the wrong question, I think. Asking for a 'who' in this context is mistaken. Not everything that happens happens as a result of some conscious, directing agency.
To: snarks_when_bored
"With some variations, this code is the same for viruses, bacteria, worms, human beings, beetles, mice and slugs."
Interesting. And just where in the world did the complicated code come from? Did this complex molecule just pop into existence all by itself?
To: snarks_when_bored
And then there's Aristotle. How many years did people depend on his laws?
15
posted on
09/19/2005 3:54:13 AM PDT
by
bkepley
To: bkepley
"law of gravity"
Didn't Newton come up with the law of gravity? Since we have known about gravity so long, what exactly is the nature of gravity? I understand the relationship between mass and distance and all, but why is there gravity? How does it work? I do not think the best minds have been able to reconcile gravity with the forces in a unified theory have they?
To: bkepley
And then there's Aristotle. How many years did people depend on his laws?
The key here is that Aristotle, as brilliant as he was, had no conception of empirical science as practiced since the late 15th century or so in the West. His results were arrived at by some observation, yes, but his theoretical conceptions were spun out of his reason and were not subject to empirical test.
So I'll point out that in my previous reply to you I wrote: "Well-established laws in science..."
To: snarks_when_bored
"You're asking the wrong question, I think. Asking for a 'who' in this context is mistaken. Not everything that happens happens as a result of some conscious, directing agency."
When did science become about the right or wrong question?
Whose law is it that "not everything that happens happens as a result of some conscious, directing agency".
Doesn't this mean that life is a lottery or a bad accident depending on the status of ones life???
To: Ninian Dryhope
"With some variations, this code is the same for viruses, bacteria, worms, human beings, beetles, mice and slugs." Interesting. And just where in the world did the complicated code come from? Did this complex molecule just pop into existence all by itself?
Uh, yes...but not all at once. 4 billion years is a very, very, very long time.
To: snarks_when_bored
"Not everything that happens happens as a result of some conscious, directing agency."
Your statement seems to admit that some things that happen, happen as a result of some conscious, directing agency. Or did you really mean that nothing happens as a result of some conscious, directing agency?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-209 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson