Search blog.co.uk

Is man the crown of the creation?

by ranfuchs @ 2008-03-16 - 20:30:01

evolution

It took Darwin many years and many attempts to find a theory that could answer the many questions that perplexed him during his voyage. His theory could explain why fossils of extinct animals carried a close resemblance to existing species, and clarified why each of the Galapagos Islands had its different but very similar species of animals. It also accounted for the existence of creatures that, in Darwin’s view, could never be designed by a benign entity, like the parasitic wasp, which stored caterpillars to be eaten alive by its grubs.

Modern evolution theory has evolved considerably since Darwin’s days. However, regardless of the major changes the theory has undergone, the new body of evidence, accumulated from otherwise unrelated fields of science, only strengthen its plausibility. While unlocking the secrets of DNA revealed the engine behind the random variations, microbiology gave empirical evidence that not only do such variations occur regularly, but that they directly impact on lives, as both the cause of new diseases (e.g. aids, bird-flu) and the means for their cure.

Further evidence has been derived by paleontologists and evolutionary molecular biologists, who have been able to fill many of the gaps in the history of species. Evolutionary molecular biology provides us with the tools to measure the amount of DNA change that differentiates one species from another. This has led to the surprise discovery that the difference in the DNA sequence between human and chimpanzee is no bigger than 2%. Humans were no longer the crown of the creation, but the result of random changes that happened to make them better adapted for survival – Aristotle’s scale of value had lost its meaning.

Trackback address for this post:

authimage

Comments, Trackbacks: Hide subcomments

jackfrostjackfrost pro
2008-03-16 @ 20:39

trouble i do not belive we are from this earth...well genetically i believe that part of our genes lay out amongst the stars..but hey thats just me ...and no i have no religeon..:)

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-03-16 @ 20:42

still has no contradiction. Evolution doesn't specify where the original genes came from, only how they developed once they were here

jackfrostjackfrost pro
2008-03-16 @ 20:50

good point...i just know that the human race is the most awsome and destructive being this planet has every known...opposing thumbs have alot to answer to:)

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-03-16 @ 21:02

along with bird flu viruses

ConfuddledConfuddled pro
2008-03-16 @ 21:15

Couldn't agree more!! :)

eggbodeggbod [Member]
http://wordworld.blog.co.uk
2008-03-16 @ 21:05

Nature purely is the crown of creation and not man.

Mother Earth!

PrettyintelligentprincessPrettyintelligentprincess [Member]
2008-03-17 @ 00:54

I love the way 'modern man' has a tummy!!! Just look again!!! You see, going to the gym is just not 'natural'!!!

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-03-17 @ 08:25

of course gym is not natural. Eating pizza, drinking beer and watching football on TV, this is what mother nature planned for us

deleted user [Visitor]

2008-03-17 @ 02:19

evolution. you are a very clever feller mate and I'm sure you know more about the subject than I do, but with my (limited) knowledge of it I just don't believe a word of it. it is only a theory after all. and I'm with jack, I don't believe we originated on earth either.

I have trouble believing anything really.

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-03-17 @ 09:24

healthy attitude. I like it :)

Marie Cooper [Visitor]
http://justonemorething.co.uk
2008-03-18 @ 01:04

Science uses the word theory because unlike religion it is open to new evidence disproving anything. You cannot catogoricaly prove something which happened in the past without going back in time. However, all the evidence points in the same direction. We know natural selection can cause changes because we see it in bacteria. We know that the fossils we find are consistant with eveolution, and we know that. Also as a thought experiement evolution by natural selection is the best offer we have. In quality science a hypothysis becomes a theory only when there is sufficient evidence to back it up.
If you want to extend your knowledge on the subject - I suggest you read The Ancestors Tale by Richard Dawkins or Almost Like a Whale by Steve Jones. Both chunkt books but well worth it.
What is your proposal for how we can to be like we are?

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-03-18 @ 01:37

If I read hebburndelboy correctly, he did not say he disputed the evolution theory, or argued it was wrong. He merely said he didn't believe it, which raises the interesting question what 'believing in science' really means.

After all, the claim that science is not merely a model of the world, but rather a description of the working of the world is a matter of belief. And like any other belief, the relationship between the two is hard to pinpoint.

CassandraofTroyCassandraofTroy [Member]
2008-03-19 @ 11:10

Oooohhh, now THAT's a really interesting thought..
rather like our discussion about opinions from a couple of weeks back.
Have to think about that - but unfortunately I have minutes to write. :(

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-03-20 @ 22:11

glad that you find it interesting :) These is the kind of junk my mind is full of

CassandraofTroyCassandraofTroy [Member]
2008-03-21 @ 08:59

Mine too :)
but I think we've already established that :))

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-03-21 @ 11:59

oh, this is only one compartment. There is much more where this came from :)

CassandraofTroyCassandraofTroy [Member]
2008-03-21 @ 12:34

Ditto :)

CassandraofTroyCassandraofTroy [Member]
2008-03-19 @ 11:08

Thanks for saying that.
I wanted to but couldn't think how to put it.

deleted user [Visitor]

2008-03-17 @ 02:33

by the way, in my 'internet favourites' file before today I had ranfuchs1 and ranfuchs2 bookmarked there. I know that's not what your blogs are called but that's what I've called them. This one is straight in the faves as ranfuchs3. you're a top blogger mate.

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-03-17 @ 09:31

Thanks mate. This is the best one I got for ages

rms35rms35 [Member]
2008-03-17 @ 12:36

I'm inclined towards Jack's opinion ! It also saddens me to think that I will no longer be here when we finally make contact with other species.But for leisure and pleasure I am reading EVOLUTION--author---Stephen Baxter--- and am amazed at such a fertile mind ! Ruth

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-03-18 @ 01:43

but what makes you believe that there will ever be such a contact, even if there are other species?

rms35rms35 [Member]
2008-03-18 @ 13:21

Because I just cannot believe that this planet is the only one where some form of life has evolved in some way which may be quite alien to our--Homo Sapiens---view of life.

CassandraofTroyCassandraofTroy [Member]
2008-03-17 @ 21:26

the whole idea that evolution is in some way progressive is a myth.
the most successful species are those which are so well adapted to their niche that they remain unchanged over millions of years.
Species that wreck their own environment are in an evolutionary dead end - and sadly, we're wrecking it for most other species as well.

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-03-18 @ 01:46

anyway, we are dead already. So nothing to be sad about

CassandraofTroyCassandraofTroy [Member]
2008-03-18 @ 08:24

I'm not sad (not about that, anyhow).
Just making an observation.

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-03-18 @ 10:17

good.

CassandraofTroyCassandraofTroy [Member]
2008-03-18 @ 11:22

indeed

CassandraofTroyCassandraofTroy [Member]
2008-03-19 @ 11:05

Thinking on the same lines, I would also argue that the idea that human societies inevitably ‘progress’ (whatever that means) is equally fallacious.
The stock of human knowledge – and concomitant technology – may grow exponentially, but the distribution of that knowledge is very uneven. Even among the intellectual/scientific elite, knowledge is now so complex and fragmented that an individual or group may have a very deep understanding in one area, but that is very unlikely to be matched by knowledge of other areas – unlike the polymaths of the Enlightenment, for example. Not to mention the enormous gulf between those who are educated in any of those areas and those who aren’t.
And as I’ve mentioned in another discussion elsewhere, knowledge may be cumulative, but wisdom has to be relearnt by each new generation.

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-03-20 @ 22:09

I think that science progress, technology does, but societies? They just take the new stuff and do with it what they have always done.

CassandraofTroyCassandraofTroy [Member]
2008-03-21 @ 08:57

Yet some people would claim that we are more 'advanced', say, than the Victorians or the middle ages. Some things have got better, like the position of women, for example, though even that is not universal or irreversible. But 'better' is not inevitable, and anyway, it's a value judgment, what is 'better' for some, others would consider to be 'worse'.

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-03-21 @ 11:58

yes. For example, I think that most women should not be allowed to vote.

CassandraofTroyCassandraofTroy [Member]
2008-03-21 @ 12:33

But that's because, in your view, most men shouldn't be allowed to vote either.

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-03-21 @ 12:47

:>

CassandraofTroyCassandraofTroy [Member]
2008-03-24 @ 11:06

I saw a reference to this in Writers' News. Can't find out much about it, but I thought you'd find it interesting.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1845401247/ref=sib_rdr_dp
You weren't at the original workshop, by any chance? Maybe you should find out if they're going to do another one.

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-03-24 @ 19:51

The title has not yet been released. What was the original workshops? What was it about? I don't think I have been to any workshops for years

Melinda_blogMelinda_blog [Member]
2008-03-24 @ 20:27

I googled 'anti-democratic' and found this:
http://www.liberty.li/forum/archive/index.php/t-3008.html
Most of the references were very negative, BTW ;)
As for University of Sussex, they interviewed me for a post-doc and turned me down (bastards).
But they weren't alone in that. :(

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-03-24 @ 20:31

never did my post-doc, so no one has trned me down on this :)

Melinda_blogMelinda_blog [Member]
2008-03-24 @ 20:37

But did you ever do your Doc?
Kind of a pre-requisite.
but you've never owned up to it before...

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-03-24 @ 20:46

is it? :(

and what was that I have never owned up to?

Melinda_blogMelinda_blog [Member]
2008-03-24 @ 20:56

Being a Doc.
Being a Doc???

Leave a comment :

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.
Allowed XHTML tags: <!, p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, a, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small, img>
URLs, email, AIM and ICQs will be converted automatically.
Options:
 
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email & url)
Validation code:
Please enter the above code here:
For protection from spambots (case-sensitive).