Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 201-209 next last
To: Thatcherite
The day they start doing some science I'll be the first to applaud them.

How can you be sure that they haven't tried without success?

121 posted on 09/19/2005 10:01:21 AM PDT by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
But a biologist cannot great a new species, and thereby substantiate ToE in a controlled laboratory setting.

Substantiating ToE cannot be done in the same way as the laws of physics of chemistry can be substantiated.

That is true. "Controlled laboratory settings" are not the only way good data can be collected, though. No one has produced a hurricane or earthquake in a "controlled laboratory setting" either, but meteorological and geological theories depend upon their observation.

122 posted on 09/19/2005 10:03:55 AM PDT by Quark2005 (Where's the science?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: bkepley
How can you be sure that they haven't tried without success?

Creation science has been around for hundreds of years without success. There are still flood geologists, people who believe a recent dinosaur fossil contained fresh red meat, dino+human footprints.

123 posted on 09/19/2005 10:05:14 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

The difficulty I have with taking natural selection seriously is that so many of those who argue against it do so out of motives that have nothing to do with the relative merits of the theory...likewise many who favor it.

Any time I try to read something substantive on natural selection I find myself wondering "Is this a real argument, or is the author merely defending his ideological turf?"

It's enough to make one take up basketweaving.


124 posted on 09/19/2005 10:05:28 AM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Why is substantiating ToE science but falsifying it not science? Or if falsifying is science too, maybe that's all the ID folks have to work with at this time that might be capable of producing something irrefutable. The problem is though that scientists tend to just ignore things that don't jibe with their prejudices or are embarrasing to their prejudices.


125 posted on 09/19/2005 10:10:57 AM PDT by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: JudgemAll
"This bodes ill if we do not note the quantum like leaps of man from animals."

I'm so glad you acknowledge the infinitesimally small differences between Homo sapien and other animals.

126 posted on 09/19/2005 10:11:00 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
"Controlled laboratory settings" are not the only way good data can be collected, though. No one has produced a hurricane or earthquake in a "controlled laboratory setting" either, but meteorological and geological theories depend upon their observation.

Absolutely. But there's "observation" and then there's "observation".

Ask the people of New Orleans if a thing called a "hurricane" exists. It's not a theory. It's an observed fact. Laboratory setting not required.

"Evolution" is a little different. I find a fossil here. I find a fossil there. I find lots of fossils. By observing the location of these fossils, I build up a timeline and a series of logical conjectures about what took place over a time span of, perhaps, millions of years. It's observation.

But not quite as irrefutable as a hurricane knocking down your house.

127 posted on 09/19/2005 10:14:10 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
"I don't know about this, seems as though the Nobel Prize is given to the adherents of the law of evolution. I want to know what their punishment is for breaking it, could it be to decree an unfitness, like maybe a weak mind, mental instability."

What happens when someone breaks any of the laws of physics?

128 posted on 09/19/2005 10:15:38 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
But not quite as irrefutable as a hurricane knocking down your house.

The leaders of NOLA dismissed the need for planning and preparation, because hurricanes were just a theory.

129 posted on 09/19/2005 10:18:16 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
The difficulty I have with taking natural selection seriously is that so many of those who argue against it do so out of motives that have nothing to do with the relative merits of the theory...

I started to say, well, it wouldn't make sense to dismiss natural selection simply because you question the motives of those who argue against it, but then you added

likewise many who favor it.

But you're correct to try to distinguish between ideological turf-defending, on the one hand, and the marshalling of evidence and argument in favor of (or against) natural selection, on the other hand. I'll confess that I don't often find it hard to distinguish between these two, since the turf-defender almost immediately tips his hand by resorting to ad hominem's or other shifty debater's tricks.

But, you know, everybody needs at least one good basket...

130 posted on 09/19/2005 10:19:23 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Problem is evolutionists set themselves above reproach and bring out their huge ignorant stick to any and all who disagree.

Problem is, most anti-evolutionists actually are ignorant on the issue.

And those that aren't ignorant have all the hallmarks of charlatans making a living off the ignorant anti-evolutionists.

It is a very good business after all. Lots of ignorant people out there are willing to give money to charlatans that give the veneer of respectability to their uninformed world view.

131 posted on 09/19/2005 10:19:39 AM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
What happens when someone breaks any of the laws of physics?

I wouldn't put it in the same league with a law of physics or else you could make some definite predictions about a population of eels (say) and what they will be in 2 million years. I think it's more along the lines of a law of economics. Do you call laws of economics laws of physics?

132 posted on 09/19/2005 10:21:35 AM PDT by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: SeaLion

Who can break the law of gravity? Any attempt to break it invariably fails.


133 posted on 09/19/2005 10:22:45 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Has any evolutionist ever demonstrated macro-evolution under controlled circumstances? Of course not.

How can you verify a process that in nature takes many thousands of years?

Instead, you have to test a theory like evolution by formulating predictions based on the theory that can then be verified.

For example: Suppose you see two similar species, judged to be similar based on anatomical similarities and so forth. You hypothesize that they are closely related, that they have a recent common ancestor that they've both evolved from. How can you test this hypthesis? You reason, if they're that related, then when we examine certain genes, we'll find they too are similar. For example, mammalian species all contain the gene for hemoglobin. But often there are slight, inconsequential "spelling errors" in this gene and other genes, which differ from species to species. You may find your two closely-related species do indeed share most of the same spelling errors. This would greatly strengthen the assertion that species have common ancestors. And indeed, this type of observation has been made many, many times -- if you look at the genes, you will see that all species have common ancestors.

So the evidence is extremely strong that all species have a common ancestor and that this happened over hundreds of millions of years. The actual mechanism might still be under debate, on the fringes of modern biology. I myself believe in theistic evolution: God created a system of life that creates itself, with at most only an occasional nudge from the Creator to ensure that sentient life would result.

134 posted on 09/19/2005 10:25:14 AM PDT by megatherium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Of all the things I've read on these threads, this is the funniest. Darwin causes human inequality and inequality causes welfare. The Onion couldn't do better.

Another candidate for The List-O-Links, in the "THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON CREATIONISM" section.

135 posted on 09/19/2005 10:27:09 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
"Evolution" is a little different. I find a fossil here. I find a fossil there. I find lots of fossils. By observing the location of these fossils, I build up a timeline and a series of logical conjectures about what took place over a time span of, perhaps, millions of years. It's observation.

I agree that evolution is more difficult to observe than other natural processes. Changes (including some that have caused speciation) have been observed directly in nature. No one has directly observed the change of an animal/plant/bacteria/etc. from one family or order to another, of course, this would never happen on an observable time scale.

Many of the more elaborate theories in science rely on indirect observation to formulate theories. Atomic theory is a good example. No one has "directly" observed an atom, only their effects. Even electron microscope "pictures" of atoms you may have seen have to undergo reconstruction using rules of quantum physics before a picture can be produced. The existence of atoms, though, produces testable physical consequences, as does the theory of evolution. Atoms are are removed from us by orders of magnitude of size, while huge evolutionary changes are removed from us by orders of magnitude in time.

The ToE stands strong because it stands up to the scrutiny of many unrelated lines of inquiry, and keeps fulfilling predictions, that's all it can claim to do (as does any scientific theory). There is no scientific alternative that succeeds in the manner that evolution does at explaining the natural origin of biodiversity. In plain speaking, it simply works and no one has found anything better to replace it.

136 posted on 09/19/2005 10:29:27 AM PDT by Quark2005 (Where's the science?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

So, just what is a scientific law?


137 posted on 09/19/2005 10:32:42 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
"Well you are partially correct here that evolution is man's work. Evolution does far more than describe how organic beings on earth have developed and are developing. Evolution, man's creation, elevates some men as being more equal than the rest of man. Thus the need for things like entitlement programs, cause not all are of the fittest.

What the heck are you talking about?

There is a difference between evolution, which is an observed part of nature, and the theory of evolution which is a human developed explanation for how the observed evolution works. If anything the theory of evolution shows the objective equality of arbitrary subgroups of humans.

138 posted on 09/19/2005 10:42:51 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
Who can break the law of gravity?

Sorry, I didn't put in explicit [sarcasm] tags :-)

But I suppose the penalty for thinking you can break the law of gravity to forfeit one's rationality

139 posted on 09/19/2005 11:13:24 AM PDT by SeaLion ("Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man" -- Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Who established the boundaries and the parameters of what is called evolution???

Evolution does that on it's own - no "who" required.

140 posted on 09/19/2005 11:33:02 AM PDT by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson