Darwin and Species - Why is Darwin not consigned to the rubbish bin ?

Question

Charles Darwin told us in his 'Origin of Species' that species are highly subjective things. This runs contrary to the discoveries of Mendel and genetics. Does the evidence from science not show, instead, that a given species can exist in many morphological forms ? In such a case why is such a highly subjective argument as that used by Darwin used as 'evidence' of so-called speciation ? We could just as well interpret this evidence as the effects of reversing mutations, could we not ?

Answer 1

Sigh, more Bible thumping.

>>>>Charles Darwin told us in his 'Origin of Species' that
>>>> species are highly subjective things. This runs contrary to
>>>>the discoveries of Mendel and genetics.

No it doesn't. Species were and remain highly subjective things. All you have to do is look at the controversy concerning the red wolf to prove that. Even with the most modern genetic research we are still debating whether it is a separate species or a wolf-coyote hybrid.


>>>>>Does the evidence from science not show, instead, that a
>>>>> given species can exist in many morphological forms ?

It shows that AS WELL. The two are not mutually exclusive. A species can be both morphologically diverse and subjectively defined. Once again consider wolves as an example. Grey wolves are extremely morphologically diverse. Nonetheless we have trouble assigning red wolves as a hybrid of this species or a distinct species.

>>>>>In such a case why is such a highly subjective argument >>>>>as that used by Darwin used as 'evidence' of so-called
>>>>> speciation ?

Because it IS evidence of speciation.

>>>>We could just as well interpret this evidence as the effects
>>>> of reversing mutations, could we not ?

Can you explain how you propose to do this? How could an elephant come about by reversing some putative mutation of an insectivore ancestor?

Answer 2

When a change within a species reaches a point where the members of a subspecies cannot breed across that boundary, then the division becomes irreversible and can only enlarge. Then the two groups become separate species. I don't think that Darwin said that species are as subjective as you suggest. There are some areas of confusion, but in general there is no problem in determining when the differentiation has reached the stage where we describe the two groups as different species.

There may be mutational elements in this, the various mechanisms that cause greater variation are not all understood.

However, Mendel was looking at the inheritance of various characteristics within a species. Naturally, as you cannot normally breed across species his work would not apply. Variability is not the issue. What is important to emphasise, that it is not the visible, apparent differences that matter, it is the ability to breed successfully that creates the final division.

Darwin's views are not sacrosanct. He was working at his time, with the tools of his time. We now know a great deal that he did not know. The reason that he has not been consigned to the rubbish bin, is that the basic concept that he promulgated remains the best theory that we have got, and until someone comes up with a better one, it will remain. Even then it is almost certain that he will retain his place in the history and development of Science.

Answer 3

Well, the first thing you think of when you hear Darwin is Humans came from monkeys and the Theory of evolution, I don't believe that humans came from monkeys but I do support other stuff he said, like:
Species evolve and adapt to the environment through natural selection (atleast to sum extent).
This means that over the generations of one species, there are many different varieties,
for example:
Goats. All the goats in the world are similar in the fact that they are goats. Darwin would say that all these goats were originally part of the same family, except some had thicker fur, some had thinner fur. If you have both kind of goats in the mountains, ones with thick fur are more likely to survive, cuz unlike the thin fur ones, they won't freeze to death. So over time, the thin furred goats will die off and become more and more rare to find and less likely to survive because there won't be enough to breed to make new thin furred goats. But the thick furred goats are just the opposite, they will survive and their genes will go on while eventually the thin ones are wiped out. So if you look in a few years, only the thick furred ones are around in the snowy place, the thin furred ones are extinct.That is how the goats' species (meaning all of their kind) survived and adapted to the environment. The rwason there are diff goats is because there was probably a genetic mutation in the DNA which got copied and survived. I don't know if this making any sense but this is how learned it.





Another different reason is that, scientists and Philosophers can't prove Darwin was completely wrong about other stuff. They are still theories, but until, someone can say "look! here it is, here's the answer, and Darwin was totally wrong!", science is not going to throw Darwin down the drain, just like you can't prove whether or not Dinosaurs wiped out because aliens took all the healthy ones to their planet and left the sick ones here (another theory, although quite weird).
Unless you can prove it is wrong, it can't be dumped. Or unless you can give solid proof that it is right, it can't be accepted.
Laws and theories. Know the dif

Answer 4

Speciation happens. It's a feature of already-present diversity within a population that has been separated and the groups become subject to different pressures.
"Evolution", defined as a change in a species over time, happens. However, mutation and selection do not explain hyperachievement like the human brain (with enough memory space for three million years of life) nor systems with a high amount of complexity, like the bombadier beetle, where failure of any part of the system means death for the organism.
Simple adaptation has been observed and hailed as evolution; however, there has *never* been an observed occurence where mutations result in an increase in complexity.
If you have a bunch of white blocks with varying amounts of blue paint on them, you can select for a certain shade of blue. If the blocks copy themselves at regular intervals with some random element introduced into the copying process, you're not going to get written messages, geometric figures, plaid, or any color besides blue and white, no matter how you select the blocks; especially when the selection is only statistical rather than threshhold-based.

Answer 5

I'm guessing a religious agenda from democracynow. Words like " 'evidence' of so-called speciation " always set my alarm bells ringing.

Of course species are highly subjective. Where does one end, and another begin. A dinosaur did not suddenly give birth to a bird.

In addition, we class all dogs Canis lupus familiaris, yet when you look at a Great Dane and a Yorkie, they are, to all intents and purposes, separated. These are referred to as ring species.

I would like to see what you mean by "exist in many morphological forms" in the natural world. As far as I can see, intraspecies morphology is fairly restricted, beyond fairly superficial characteristics such as hair colour.

I'm afraid I don't understand your last sentence at all. Can you expand?

Answer 6

Although many of his theories may have been diproved on a scientific level, the fact that he came to a logical conclusion for the time he lived in is still considered a great leap forward for mankind. Before his ideas came to pass many people questioned constanly about where we were from and how we evloved into being what we are now, due to different findings at digs around the world where human type creatures had been found. He did not have any of the wonderful technology we are used to working with everyday and had to use the oldest best type of computer availble, his brain. For that, he will remain in the archives as one of the fathers of modern science, a title well earned for his hard work.

Answer 7

'Species ' has not been fully defined as a term. The definition of one group of organisms that can produce viable offspring does not always work (dogs/wolves/hyenas can mate and produce viable offspring) Surely the point is that once a morphological form of a 'species' cannot mate with another morphological form of the same species then they are actually two seperate species.

Answer 8

Likely the reason Darwinism is not trashed is because this is a Theory, or in other words: "looks good on paper." Because the theory has not been totally and completely disproved it has to be considered along with the other theories out there. Once a theory has been completely and thoroughly examined and disproved is it then disposed of.

Answer 9

Many of darwin's conclusions have been refined but he was a pioneer in the field. You don't discount Gallelio or Newton because they were wrong about some things, why Darwin?

Answer: You have a religious agenda.

Answer 10

Saying Darwin was rubbish is like saying the same of Gallileo or da Vinci. Just because they're oudated doesn't deny that they have founded the ideas.