Re: Happy 191st, Mr.Darwin

From: Susan Brassfield (Susan-Brassfield@ou.edu)
Date: Tue Feb 15 2000 - 13:08:03 EST

  • Next message: Stephen E. Jones: "Re: Happy 191st, Mr.Darwin"

    >Liz Craig:
    >
    >>Some people have been
    >>troubled by what they see as religious and
    >>sociological implications in it. But Darwin avoided
    >>such speculations. He was not a theologian or a
    >>sociologist, but merely a scientist seeking to know
    >>how the world's incredible variety of plant and animal
    >>life came about.

    MikeBGene quotes:

    >"At some future time, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
    >civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace
    >throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the
    >anthropomorphous apes... will not doubt be exterminated. The break will
    >then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more
    >civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as
    >the baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the
    >gorilla. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, p. 201 (Princeton University
    >Press 1981).

    This isn't much of a surprise (and quite well known). He was a man of his
    times. He was also quite anti-slavery and fell out with (Captain) over it.

    >Just studying plants and animals, eh?
    >
    >>Because of his [Darwin] work, we have
    >>learned of the interconnectedness of life on earth,
    >>advanced to new frontiers of knowledge in medicine and
    >>technology, discovered DNA and mapped the human
    >>genome. The adventure he began in the 19th century
    >>continues in the 21st, as we explore new ways to
    >>improve health and quality of life.
    >
    >Darwin's work did indeed help us to learn the interconnectedness
    >of life on earth. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with discovering
    >DNA or mapping the human genome. And it has contributed very little
    >to advances in medicine and technology. Like most romantic
    >revisionists, Craig is seriously confused.

    Darwin's theory led to the rediscovery of genes because it was one of the
    weaknesses of his theory. There was *no* mechanism. So a lot of research
    went into hunting for the mechanism. Science is an inter-linking chain.
    Darwin > genetics > DNA > human genome project, etc. Also the Center for
    Disease Control would be in deep doo-doo without a knowledge of mutation
    and natural selection. Why do you think you have to take a flu shot *every*
    year? Because the viruses mutate and evolve. Why does the doctor tell you
    to take *all* the antiobitics? Because you don't want to evolve your own
    personal super-bug. Why do they constantly try to come up with new
    pesticides? Darwin's little theory again.

    Susan

    Susan

    ----------

    For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
    of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
    this one.
    --Albert Camus

    http://www.telepath.com/susanb/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 15 2000 - 13:09:47 EST