We know that you can only get avian flu from getting in contact with a chicken or a bird species with it. That's bad enough. We don't transfer it from one human to another, which is really bad But from the infective agent's point of view, the virus' point of view, its going to say 'to be more adaptive, maybe I'll switch hosts, and I'll adapt to a system where humans are transferring to each other.' We wouldn't even have a concept of that or a worry of that without Darwin's theory of evolution.
Quotes about darwins (16 Quotes)
The classics of Marxism, while fully appreciating the significance of the Darwinian theory, pointed out the errors of which Darwin was guilty. Darwin's theory, though unquestionably materialist in its main features, is not free from some serious errors.
If Darwins theory of evolution was correct, cats would be able to operate a can opener by now.
But, as we have before been led to remark, most of Mr. Darwin's statements elude, by their vagueness and incompleteness, the test of Natural History facts.
Much of the controversy and anxiety that has enveloped Darwin's idea ... can be understood as a series of campaigns in the struggle to contain Darwin's idea within some acceptably 'safe' and merely partial revolution. Cede some or all of modern biology to.
The evolution of species was the subject of conjecture long before Darwin's day. Here Aristotle attributes to Empedocles an evolutionary doctrine strikingly reminiscent of natural selection 'Empedocles says that the greater part of the members of animals.
Everything we know in biology agrees with Darwin's theory of evolution in a broad sense, and the theory is tested probably 1000 times a day in various laboratories without anyone going out to test it. They (the American-funded movement to foist intelligent design teaching onto science teachers in Australia) really want a science teacher who may well be atheistic anyway, introducing the concept of God into science. It's a ridiculous idea and has no place in science teaching.
Philosopher and mathematician Gottfried Leibniz speculated on the possibility of 'intermediate species' over a century before the publication of Darwin's theory 'All advances by degrees in Nature, and nothing by leaps, and this law as applied to each, is part of my doctrine of Continuity. Although there may exist in some other world species intermediate between Man and the Apes, Nature has thought it best to remove them from us, in order to establish our superiority beyond question. I speak of intermediate species, and by no means limit myself to those leading to Man. I strongly approve of the research for analogies plants, insects, and Comparative Anatomy will increase these analogies, especially when we are able to take advantage of the microscope more than at present.'
The significance of Darwin's ideas has grown, ... For example, at this moment we're looking at Asian bird flu and where it's going. If not for Darwinism, we would be ignorant of the mechanism of that flu and how it changes over time.
These complex systems are always associated with design, ... Darwin's Black Box.
To suddenly appear in the Cambrian must remain inexplicable, ... Clearly, Darwin's theory of life does not fit the fossil evidence for the origin of the major groups of animals.
In fact, Darwin's own grandfather anticipated the central tenet of Lamarckism by some seven years 'All animals undergo perpetual transformations which are in part produced by their own exertions... and many of these acquired forms or propensities are transmitted to their posterity.'
In Darwin's time all of biology was a black box: not only the cell, or the eye, or digestion, or immunity, but every biological structure and function because, ultimately, no one could explain how biological processes occurred.
Even when Darwin's teaching first made its appearance, it became clear at once that its scientific, materialist core, its teaching concerning the evolution of living nature, was antagonistic to the idealism that reigned in biology.
Empirical confirmation of Darwin's theory did not prove forthcoming in the first few decades following its publication. Indeed, by the early twentieth century, many noted naturalists had come to regard Darwin's account of evolution by natural selection as.
But sequence comparisons simply can't account for the development of complex biochemical systems any more than Darwin's comparison of simple and complex eyes told him how vision worked.