Is evolution fundamental to biology?

[BurtWorm]

I say yes, it is.

[benddem]

1. great cartoon

thanks

[KittyWampus]

2. Evolution Is One Of 22 Fundamental Principles In The Universe.

Awareness & Objectivity & Subjectivity are also fundamental principles that work along with Evolution.

Funny cartoon. :)

[rustedace]

3. No

You can believe whatever the hell you want to.

I don't give a shit how life came about.

[GiovanniC]

4. Huh

Well I guess that settles it then. Rustedace doesn't give a shit how life came about, scientists! Cease and desist! It's all a mute* point now anyway!

[rustedace]

10. Look

How in the hell does theories about how life came about help the poor children in Iraq?

[The White Tree]

16. Read the Cartoon

It'll give you a hint

;)

[K-W]

43. If any of them get sick, it might help them an aweful lot. EOM

[mondo joe]

47. Yes - let's save the kids in a medieval world without science, medicine

or technology.

[Orrex]

8. Evolution isn't about "how life came about." nt

[BurtWorm]

9. Welcome to DU, sunshine!

;)

By the way, biology deals very little with the origin of life. Evolution deals with the origin of life not at all.

[rustedace]

11. Yes it does

n/t

[BurtWorm]

12. No it doesn't.

:hi:

Why don't you explain your position before...well, before you know what. ;)

[rustedace]

15. What postion

I don't give a shit about evolution versus creationism.

If you do, fine.

I've got more important things to worry about like ending wars, poverty and bigotry.

:hi:

[rustedace]

18. I don't have to

I'm too busy fighting poverty, hatred, bigotry and violence.

[BurtWorm]

19. Bully for you.

Let us know when you've succeeded. :eyes:

[Caution]

23. Considering that evolutionary theory

has had massive impacts on all of the things you just mentioned maybe you should think more about whether or not this argument is important to you.

Without the theory of evolution modern mediine would not be anywhere near as evolveed as it it (huge impact on all four of the above), the biblical argument for slavery was very much undercut by the evolutionary theory which basically proves that the various races come from common ancestors, ditto on bigotry (of all types including homophobia) and most people would argue that understanding, real understanding, is what leads to peace.

But I suppose teaching our children to believe in taking the Bible literally on this subject will of course be massively useful in ending poverty...oh wait...they wont be able to become doctors, create new cures for disease. Yeh screw evolution. Who cares. there are soooo many more important things than proper education.

[Kraklen]

36. So how's fighting poverty, hatred, bigotry and violence...

going for you?

And besides participating in a thread on evolution, what else are you doing to fight it?

[Redleg]

38. LOL

Hey, man- some of us have worn our fingers to the bone will helping the poor and downtrodden on the internet.

[SidDithers]

27. Evolution has nothing to do...

with how life came about. Evolution attempts to explains how life has changed over time.

Sid

[Kraklen]

35. Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution.

If you don't give a shit, that's fine. Just stop having anything to do with science or education.

[Ron Green]

5. I say yes. If you look at taxonomy and morphology, you come up against

the increasingly complex forms of life as they have evolved.

[DemBones DemBones]

6. Yes, it is. When students in my biology classes

started in on the "creationist" arguments, I'd just ask them if they didn't believe God was powerful enough to "do" evolution. I'm sure it didn't change their already-made-up minds, but it did stop the questions.

GREAT cartoon! :rofl:

[prodigal_green]

7. Yes.

That cartoon is such a coincidence!!

I'm a competitive athlete and I will do anything to stall my coach during a workout. This morning I asked him to tell me what animal was at the top of the food chain. He figured it was a trick question, but finally just shrugged and said, "I'm supposed to say humans, right?"

Of course it isn't humans.

The answer: Bacteria.

Bacteria are the predators that can take us, the supposedly most intelligent, most complex of God's creations, to our graves. Even after the invention of penicillin, it is the most deadly animal on the planet.

What does this have to do with evolution vs. creationism? Ask that question of a creationist. Ask them why a creator that favors humans above other creatures would create such an animal that can so easily defeat humans. Then explain that bacteria were here first and they will be the last thing to reproduce on this planet when its time comes (the sun goes supernova or whatever).

[DemBones DemBones]

21. I'm a biologist and appreciate the

substance of your argument but have a bone to pick over a couple of terms you used.

First off, bacteria are not animals. Biological classification is ever-evolving itself but even in the old Linnean two-kingdom system, bacteria were classified as "plants." In the twentieth century, the Kingdom Monera was proposed, to include organisms like bacteria, which really don't fit in Kingdom Animalia or Kingdom Plantae. Second, bacteria are decomposers, not predators; different definitions for the two groups.

Good argument, though! Few people recognize the importance of the decomposers. We'd be hip-deep in dead possums and armadillos in no time without them.

:wow:

[prodigal_green]

22. Oh, I didn't know that

but what about bacterial infections that attack living creatures?

[BurtWorm]

26. They're just looking for a means of surviving, like any other species.

Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel is very enlightening on that question. Bacteria that kill all of their hosts don't get spread. But of course they don't "know" that when they begin their infestations. They're just looking for ways to get from host to host. This is why they manifest themselves so often in excretions and secretions. But if they kill every host they enter, they'll die too, so they naturally select for less virulent strains over time.

[DemBones DemBones]

29. Good point! Such bacteria are

"infectious agents" of course, but I think they would still technically be decomposers as they act to break down cells and tissues; they just don't fit the definition of predators. Can't remember ever discussing this aspect or reading about it but my memory isn't what it used to be. Nice to have something new to think about.

I looked up some dictionary definitions that may help.

predator (obviously the 2nd def. is the one used in biology)
1 : one that preys, destroys, or devours
2 : an animal that lives by predation

predation (again, the 2nd def. applies)
1 : the act of preying or plundering : DEPREDATION
2 : a mode of life in which food is primarily obtained by the killing and consuming of animals

decomposer (one definition)
: any of various organisms (as many bacteria and fungi) that return constituents of organic substances to ecological cycles by feeding on and breaking down dead protoplasm

(Fungi, BTW, used to be considered plants but were then placed in Kingdom Monera. Later, other biologists suggested they deserve their own kingdom, Kingdom Fungi. Biologists don't all use the same classification system. Some still favor a two-kingdom system as long as it's understood how bacteria and fungi differ from true plants, and how protists/protozoans like Amoeba differ from animals. )

Anyway, to recap, a predator kills living animals and eats them while decomposers "feed" on dead organisms by breaking them down into usable components (and scavengers like vultures, hyenas, etc. feed on dead animals which are then broken down in their digestive systems. Scavengers don't hunt and kill animals; they feed on leftovers from predators' kills, from roadkill, etc.)

Edit: Should have added that some bacteria may be considered parasites, though the group known as parasites includes protozoans, a variety of worms, ticks, fleas.

parasite

2.an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

[prodigal_green]

48. Thanks! n/t

[BurtWorm]

24. I'm reading Richard Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale

and it's blowing my mind to shreds, destroying so many misconceptions I've held as a nonbiologist about zoological classification. Most nonbiologists probably have that same misconception, that bacteria are animals. And that fungi are plants. But prodigal green is right on the money about the "success" of bacteria as species.

[DemBones DemBones]

33. Yes, classification is quite complicated but

the basics aren't too bad, as I hope I showed in my reply to prodigal green's reply.. I completely agree that prodigal green gets the big picture of bacteria's importance, just wanted to give him the correct terms to use in his argument, and share some info that, as you say, many nonbiologists don't know. You presumably all learned a lot of this in high school biology but who remembers everything they learned at 15? ;-)

What's Dawkins's central theme in "The Ancestor Tales"? Sounds as if it may be evolution.

An excellent book about evolution is "The Break of the Finch" by Jonathan Weinman, describing the research of Princeton biologists Peter an d Rosemary Grant on Galapagos finches. The Grants and their student research assistants saw evolutionary changes in the finch populations they studied and Weinman tells the story very well, traveling with them to the islands. It was published 10-15 years ago but is probably still available.

[BurtWorm]

40. Evolution is a major theme, no doubt about it.

It's a sort of walk back through time pausing at 39 "rendezvous" where we meet common ancestors (or "concestors" as Dawkins calls them) of our own and other species. It's modeled after The Canterbury Tales, only the pilgrims in question are the species that meet at each rendezvous and proceed back together in time toward the "next" concestor. It's an excellent, mind-expanding book.

[DemBones DemBones]

42. Thanks for the info, I'll add it to my reading list.

:7

[The White Tree]

13. No - Evolution is a fundametal of biology.

Principle that is.

Evolution and biology were around a long time before man came along and defined them. It is highly likely that biology (i.e. biological organisms) would not be able to exist without evolution as it is the principle means that organisms adapt to changing environments allowing them to survive through time.

I like the cartoon as well.

[BurtWorm]

20. My question is really this: Can you teach biology and not teach evolution?

Or can you do that and really get at what biology is about? I don't think it's possible.

[The White Tree]

30. Some things maybe but as a whole - no.

For example when I took 9th grade biology there was a diagram of the hearts of several differant animals - a frog, a human, a bird.

From the diagram you could easily infer as I did the idea of evoluton because each animal in relation to how they had evolved had a more complex heart - in particular one animal had 2 2 chambered heart, the next had 3 and humans had 4.

What would cause that would be a logical question. Evolution ends up being a pretty good answer to me, at least the best one that makes sense.

IDers would probably disagree.

[BurtWorm]

31. I'm not reading you loud and clear.

Are you saying evolution is NOT essential to the subject of biology? You're saying biology can be taught without reference to evolution?

[The White Tree]

49. I'm saying that certain parts of biology could be taught without Evolution

I'm not advocating that, just stating my opinion.

However, it stands to reason that the study of biology existed long before Darwin came along and people where able to learn much about how systems work without necessarily understanding how systems evolved.

Actually, I would say a good portion of the high school biology that I was taught was taught to me without emphesis on the evolutionary aspects of it.

You can be taught how a heart or a cell works without understanding how it evolved. That would be considered teaching biology I think.

However, ultimately when you look at biology as a whole concepts naturally lead you to consider how things got that way which is where evolution comes in.

[BurtWorm]

50. My point is that learning the names of organs and organisms

is not fully biology. It's the shell of the subject. It's the equivalent of "learning" French by memorizing words and conjugations of verbs without studying grammar or syntax.

Yes, you can--and unfortunately many American students do--learn biolgy without studfying evolution. But it seems clear to me that they're not really learning biology then. The're learning the shell of biology.

[The White Tree]

51. I agree

Evolution is central to biology.

That evolution occurs, to paraphrase Darwin, ennobles the biological far more then if say everything was completely static.

This is a concept that is behind a serious of science fiction novels by the author David Brin starting with the Nebula and Hugo award winning StarTide Rising.

The concept essentially was that planetary evolution toward pre-sentients was the most important thing that could occur in a planets natural history, such that planets with potential for this evolution were protected until which time their pre-sentiments could be raised to sentients and thereby be exploited by patron races - a term the writer called Uplift.

[MercutioATC]

14. You have obviously not been touched by His Noodly Appendage.

Read, that you may come to know Him better:

http://www.venganza.org/

[SomewhereOutThere424]

17. Evolution, like anything

Is essential when taught properly. The evolutionary theory of humanity is flawed, but the evolutionary theory of survival of the fittest is a sound theory.

If they taught evolution of humanity in a way that was essentially correct in every case, then teach it. If the bible had more than belief but conclusive fact, then teach it.

It's no real matter of pride or belief. If it works, it works, if not, it doesn't.

"the only difference between insanity and genius is the few margins of success"~Albert Einstein

[HereSince1628]

28. Biologists assume evolutionary explanations to be flawed.

If it wasn't flawed there would be little reason to research it. Instead we could spend our time memorizing things and carefully passing them along to the next generation error free.

[Kraklen]

37. The evolutionary theory of humanity is perfectly fine.

But if you'd like to come up with a flaw I'd sure like to hear it.

[Jose Diablo]

25. I would say yes evolution is fundamental to biology for this reason

Taking into consideration the basic chemical make-up of life, the carbon atom and how many different ways carbon can combine with hydrogen and oxygen to form different compounds it can be seen that randomness is at the core of all biological chemicals. There are over 2,000,000 ways that carbon can combine with other atoms. It is that versatile a atom, with different valences and bond angles. So the chaos and randomness can be thought of as a dynamic, unpredictable chemical reaction of carbon.

Now couple this dynamic with a stabilizing action of a certain form of a carbon molecule, called RNA/DNA then there is seen a balance between randomness (to try all potential forms of carbon configurations) and the stability or reproducibility of a specific form of a carbon molecule (the image of RNA/DNA), then we have life or the foundation of replication specific organic chemicals according to a blueprint.

In its basic form, this is evolution as randomness is tested against the reality of the environment. Those that survive to replicate, then become the next generation of chemicals or if we take this process all the way up to multicellular organisms, the next form of life.

I don't think evolution precludes the existence of some form divine that maybe uses evolution to work its will, that question is beyond the resolution of if evolution is real or just a figment of human perception. The 2 questions are not depended on each other, I believe.

Evolution is real, no doubt in my mind.

[The White Tree]

34. And actually what you say here

which is spot on bye the way

could be theorized to support the belief in the divine, because those rules that allow a carbon atom to do what it does, how did they come to be? They did not evolve but presumably existed from the beginning of the universe, which, if you beleive in the divine occured through the divine.

Which doesn't prove God exists and doesn't prove God doesn't exist but does raise a more paradoxical question.

Thanks for the info.

[GeekMonkey]

41. the existance of bush proves god is fiction

[Kraklen]

32. Is a spherical earth central to geography?

Is algebra fundamental to physics?

How about human anatomy for medicine?

[XemaSab]

39. I can't imagine

studying biology without evolution as a framework.

The sheer abundance of different organisms boggles the mind, and it seems to me that most people who argue for garbage like Noah's Ark and against evolution have NO IDEA how many creatures are out there. Was there really room for 10,000 species of birds on the ark? If so, the place had some pretty severe bird funk going on. And all the beetles.... I don't recall how many beetle species are currently classified, but it's a helluva lot.

Similarly, the people who argue for a young earth are usually some pretty ignorant folks. How do they explain glaciation, or petroleum geology, or folds in sedimentary layers? God did it.

Heinous.

I have no respect for that nonsense.

[beam me up scottie]

44. You are an

Infidel and a Science Worshiper !

:crazy:

[Kraklen]

45. I, for one, am sick of all these....

"smart types."

[BurtWorm]

46. I am a science fundamentalist.

;)