Darwin re-visited

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by Galapagos

In Darwin news, BBC is going to have a "Darwin Season 2009":
BBC - Darwin
And here is a cool interactive evolution timeline on the pbs website:
pbs.org-- Evolution Revolution timeline

good links
Tar

some trivia from an Oz science site
Darwin's room at Christ's College Cambridge - Science Show - 13 December 2008

Darwin's room at Christ's College Cambridge

listen now | download audio

John van Wyhe takes us on a tour of Darwin's student quarters at Christ's College. He describes college life when Charles Darwin was a student and debunks some of the myths that have arisen around Darwin's life. And Rob Morrison reads a verse from his own poem, celebrating the life and achievements of Charles Darwin.

Show Transcript | Hide Transcript

Robyn Williams: And the bicentenary celebrations are already underway, as you'll have heard last Saturday, at the Natural History Museum in Adelaide when Rob Morrison stood to present this poem about Charles Darwin and how lucky we are that he wasn't an Australian and off on a sickie.


Rob Morrison reads from his poem, Some Australian observations on the nature of Charles Darwin's prolonged illness

Financially, a student's life is tough.
The cost of books and union fees and stuff
Means students, as they study to get through,
Must often take a part-time job or two.

The same proved true for Darwin, so that he
Forsaking study, took a job at sea
As Beagle's naturalist, in the employ
Of Captain (and creationist!) Fitzroy.


Seasickness struck him almost straight away,
And as they sailed it cursed him night and day
Until he wondered whether he could bear
The endless agony of mal de mer.

Then for a while Australia played the host
To Beagle, as it sailed along our coast,
And Darwin's journal makes us understand
How pleased he was to get his feet on land.

As any proper Englishman would do,
He took some walks and hunted kangaroo,
But though we named a city after him
He found Australian customs pretty grim.

In January, eighteen thirty six,
Our budding populace and politics
Were bound to seem a little bit uncouth
To Darwin, born and bred a British youth.

But colonies like ours were far away
From Britain, and historians today
Remark upon the freedom distance brings,
Which lets us cut our mother's apron strings.

Thus British customs, though they might have been
Revered by those who served their British queen,
Were fading here, where men of common sense
Soon recognised the charm of indolence.

Thus was the great Australian sickie born
To Aussies, who still contemplate with scorn,
Bewilderment, suspicion and dismay
A man who chooses work instead of play.

These days a sickie doesn't mean you're ill,
Condemned to bed, the doctor or a pill.
You "chuck a sickie" for the Melbourne Cup,
To watch the test, or when the surf is up.


I don't imply all that was going down
In eighteen thirty six in Sydney Town
But, knowing how they lived, one can infer
That goofing off had started to occur.

Historians hypothesise that we
Can trace that to our convict ancestry,
When felons in the chain gangs thought it good
To chuck a sickie any way they could.

It's hard to know just what Australians thought
Of Darwin, who was quite averse to sport.
Disdaining games and gambling, he averred
Collecting beetles was what he preferred.

And so he thought it sad that there should be
Such appetite for inactivity
Among Australians, who he thought were crude
As well as venal, indolent and rude.

So back on Beagle, green around the gills
And seasick, Darwin kept applying his skills.
His thoughts were on his specimens and not
Saying "Bugger this!"** and falling in his cot.

We who inhabit the antipodes
Are apt to scoff at Englishmen like these.
A seasick Aussie naturally would know
To chuck a sickie and retire below.

But Fitzroy saw a stronger man emerge,
For though afflicted by the dreadful scourge
Of sickness, Darwin never tried to shirk
His obligation to perform his work.

Such is the British way; to "get a grip!"
To show the world a "stiffened upper lip!"
Two hundred years ago you'd never find
A sickie chucked by Darwin and his kind!


By now he had accrued a massive store
Of specimens and artefacts galore,
Which would have been enough for some; instead
Ideas began to form in Darwin's head.

Five years went past till Beagle had returned
And Darwin started work on what he'd learned,
But even then, although he was ashore,
His illness seemed no better than before.

Historians have thought of many ways
By which to diagnose his long malaise,
And experts, citing symptoms, have defined
Rare maladies of body or of mind.

Some think that in his travels Darwin might
Have been infected by a parasite,
While others take a very different tack
And swear he was a hypochondriac.

Beset by such afflictions, Aussie men
Would have secured a doctor's note by then,
Have chucked a sickie, dropped their work and each
Have packed his fishing gear and hit the beach.

But Darwin, steeled with British discipline,
Would never have considered giving in.
Ignoring illness time and time again
He studied corals, earthworms, plants and men.

And Darwin's illness lasted twenty years;
Not spent in bed, but thinking up ideas
And arguments until at last he'd solved
The way that plants and animals evolved.

Those two decades saw Darwin working out
How natural selection came about,
Until a letter came to him one day,
Perturbing him with what it had to say.


For Alfred Russell Wallace, so it's said,
While feverish and tossing in his bed,
Despite being ill (and feeling really bad)
Had reached the same conclusions Darwin had.

And Wallace, in the letter that he signed,
Revealed, like Darwin, he was disinclined
To chuck a sickie* since he clearly knew,
Though ill, he had important work to do.

For Wallace made it absolutely clear
That he and Darwin shared the same idea;
How Nature favoured organisms that
Were best adapted to their habitat.

Pity Darwin; what was he to do?
The world, which lacked one theory, now had two,
But who had published first? In his distress
He asked his colleagues to resolve the mess.

I'm sure that some of Darwin's friends enjoyed
A brief malicious twinge of Schadenfreude,
But still they rallied round to find a way
To let both theories see the light of day.

They all agreed both papers were to be
Read and debated simultaneously,
And so they were, and Wallace did endorse
The "Origin of Species" in due course.

But there's a moral that their actions raise
For, while the two are worthy of our praise,
They both would be forgotten now instead
If either had been Aussie born and bred.

Such origins would certainly preclude
Egregious shows of British fortitude;
Beset by fever, illness, pain or rash
They would have chucked a sickie in a flash,


And had they dropped their work while feeling crook
We'd not be celebrating Darwin's book
Or birthday, and it's pretty safe to say
That both the men would be unknown today.

The moral's pretty clear; it's simply this,
Next time you've been out late, or on the piss,****
A brief reflection on these blokes should show
A sickie may not be the way to go.

So take an aspirin and don't complain,
Just pull your finger out; forget the pain,
Reflect on Darwin, think of Wallace, too;
Imagine what the two of them would do.

Should bouts of Mondayitis** come your way,
Or thoughts of working fill you with dismay,
Don't chuck a sickie and remain in bed;
Consider what you might achieve instead.

For, just like Darwin, you may find you could
Reject a sickie for the greater good,
And you may then discover, as did he,
Your name revered for all eternity.

Robyn Williams: Rob Morrison from Adelaide with a poem we shall hear in full, longer than Paradise Lost or Regained, next year as we celebrate Charles Darwin, 200 years of age, in February 2009.

Guests

John van Wyhe
Bye-Fellow Christ's College Cambridge Historian of Science University of Cambridge UK
Dr John van Wyhe

INTERPRETATION & TRANSLATION NOTES by medieval Oz translator
*"sickie"= Oz-speake for 'mental-health-day' or 'fishing day' or 'surfs up day'.
Now rare due to feral work contracts and bosses and task centred generation Y or x or one of those.
* "Mondayitis" literally allergy to Mondays. from Mod (Moon day) and itis ('sicknesn' from the Greek suffix such as senioritis[ (rare)) similar to 'sickie' but caused by pathological fear of going to work on Mondays or severe weekend hangover or injuries due to "touch (sic) football"
**"feeling crook" feeling sick, usually self inflicted.
*** "Bugger this!" not used literally as in English parlance especially Navy. More in the sense of "I've had enough" or "given up hope"
**** "Piss" Again not literal; more in the sense of 'strong' or 'copious' amounts of alcoholic beverage(s).
"sickie for the Melbourne Cup". the Melbourne Cup is a semi-quasi-religous celebration involving racing horses. So many Australians "chucked a sickie" to attend this important religious and cultural festival that it is now a holiday in many states. It might as well be in many others due to the long queues placing bets, the prolonged-ritual of the "Office Sweep" (see ibid p 102-104), office arguments about the 'best' horses or how the "sweep" was "rigged" (see note page 1), watching the race and the replay several times etc etc., This often involves contraband office alcohol.(A practice being discouraged by the Work Safety Authorities and those concerned with growing world population)
Please write to publishers for any other translation or academic footnotes required.

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

Darwin's room at Christ's College Cambridge - Science Show - 13 December 2008


INTERPRETATION & TRANSLATION NOTES

Listening to this right now.... lol they are literally describing how the windows were placed in his room, and what color his curtains and cushions were.


More Darwin news, links, etc:


Via Pharyngula, Darwin is puttin the moves on the embodiment of Nature:

Darwin is quite a formidable suitor... I wonder if Nature will Select him? buahahha


Over at NewScientist Magazine:
Darwin's dangerous idea: Top 10 evolution articles - life - 28 December 2008 - New Scientist
Articles include:

• How trees changed the world
• Reclaiming the peppered moth for science
• Uncovering the evolution of the bacterial flagellum
• Evolution: What missing link?
• Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions
• Rewriting Darwin: The new non-genetic inheritance
• The Ordivician: Life's second big bang
• Vestigial organs: Remnants of evolution
• Viruses: The unsung heroes of evolution
• Freedom from selection lets genes get creative

Also, I stumbled upon an essay by Dan Dennett, originally written for the college bio textbook "Life" by Purves et al, about how Darwin changed the way we view the world.

DRAFT: for LIFE

Originally Posted by Dennett

How has Darwin’s theory of natural selection transformed our view of humanity’s place in the universe?

For as long as our ancestors have been making tools, it has no doubt seemed obvious that an excellent artifact can be created only by something even more excellent: a clever artificer. You never see a shoe creating a cobbler; you never see a house making a carpenter. Darwin overthrew that received wisdom.
[...]
We can still be in awe of the "Wisdom in all the achievements of creative skill" while attributing this wisdom not to a single Creator, but distributing it over billions of years in trillions of lineages of replicators, trying their luck in the great tournament of life, mindlessly discovering and rediscovering the brilliant design principles that constitute the diversity of life. Tradition honors the trickle-down theory of value: what we do and think can be valuable only if it derives its value from something even more valuable–only if we are the servants, in effect, of a greater master. Darwin's strange inversion obliges us to rethink what could make something valuable, and then we notice that a bubble-up theory has much to recommend it. There was a time when there was no morality on this planet, and now it has evolved. Just as the air we breathe had to be created as a byproduct of the activities of billions of years of simpler life forms, the very meaning of life on this planet has emerged from the further efforts of the life forms that the atmosphere enabled.

[HydrogenBond]

One of the problems with evolution, as written, it is not open to discussion unless you stroke it. I am not saying Creationism is correct. But evolution is like a clever dogma that can nip all opposition in the bud. It can progress or regress relative to logical progress. It doesn't even to answer any direct questions in opposition, but can squish them with name calling.

I like the concept of evolution. It is called a "theory", meaning there should be some problems since it is just a very good approximation. I would like to hear some pro-evolutionists point out some problems. Or is this taboo? One can beat up on the big bang theory, without be called a creationists. But evolution may be too precarious to allow anyone to admit any flaw. It was never upgraded from theory status that I know of so it is the best but not perfect. If science can't be objective enough to be critical, then it needs someone like me to help then them out. I am not part of this religion but I like to visit because there are many good points. But it can't be perfect and still be called a theory by science.

How about a scientist risk excommunication and point of things that don't allow evolutionary theory to rise above theory status. Will the science inquisition get you and put you in prison?

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

One of the problems with evolution, as written, it is not open to discussion unless you stroke it.... It doesn't even to answer any direct questions in opposition, but can squish them with name calling.
I like the concept of evolution. It is called a "theory", meaning there should be some problems since it is just a very good approximation. ...It was never upgraded from theory status that I know of so it is the best but not perfect....But it can't be perfect and still be called a theory by science. ...Will the science inquisition get you and put you in prison?

HB, I'm sorry my friend, but you have been seriously misled.

First of all, "theory" does not mean what you think it does. In science, "theory" means precisely and exactly this: an explanation that successfully explains the vast preponderance of evidence and successfully predicts future (or past) events. Theory is the highest level of scientific explanation. There is NO higher status for an explanation in Science. "Theory" and "Law" are essentially synonymous.

Second of all, Evolution is so rarely criticised by scientists because it is one of the most successful scientific theories ever formulated. It's up there with the "theory" of gravity and the "theory" of thermodynamics. The explanatory power of Evolution is humongous and profound--so far, there are no (repeat, no) instances of living creatures, ecosystems, fossils, or changes to same over time, that clearly cannot be explained by Evolution.

Despite this, there are documented cases where scientists question the particulars of just how Evolution could have done this, or produced that result. And sometimes, there are disagreements in the answers, or even cases where they throw up their hands and say they don't know yet. But these controversies have not attacked the core principles of Evolution. These scientists who raise these probing questions are not punished or banned -- quite the opposite, they are rewarded for their keen insight and probing intelligence. Their papers are published and frequently cited by others, a badge of honor in scientific circles.

I hope this information allays some of your concerns.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

I like the concept of evolution. It is called a "theory", meaning there should be some problems since it is just a very good approximation. ...It was never upgraded from theory status that I know of so it is the best but not perfect....But it can't be perfect and still be called a theory by science. ...Will the science inquisition get you and put you in prison?

Pyrotex’s response to what I see as HBond’s misunderstanding of the scientific term “theory” is, IMHO, right on, so I’ll just add to it my own observation about sources of confusion associated with the term “evolution”.

It’s not unusual to hear biologists state “evolution is a fact, not a theory” then in the next sentence contradict themselves by beginning “the theory of evolution states ...”. The problem, as is so often the case in language, is the use of the same word to refer to two related but not identical referents.

A scientific fact is data that everyone agrees upon, either because they can reproduce it, or accept on trust that because others can, they could. One meaning of the term “evolution” is “change between generation in traits of a population”. With the exception of extremists who altogether deny hereditary connections between generations, everyone agrees that this occurs. So, in this sense, evolution is a fact.

“Evolution” is also used to refer to a theory explaining how changes in traits of a population occur. As such theories seek to explain observed facts with greater accuracy and detail, these theories undergoing constant testing and revision.

Within the collection of theories of evolution, there is a hierarchy connecting theories sharing features, and theories that focus on large population in less detail or with more detail on small population, individuals, or tissues, cells, or chemicals within individual organisms. Despite their differing characters and knowledge prerequisites, all are called theories of evolution.

At the top of this hierarchy is “Darwinian evolution”, a very high-level explanation that features the idea of natural selection, that less “fit” individuals die without reproducing. It wasn’t always at the top of the hierarchy, but shortly after its appearance in 1859, dethroned competing high-level theories, such as Lamarckian evolution, which featured the idea that less fit individuals change to become more fit, or to produce more fit offspring.

There are various conventions for distinguishing the various meaning of the term “evolution”, such as using the term alone to refer to the fact of change in traits of a population, and in phrases such as “Darwinian evolution” when referring to specific theories. However, there’s little consistency in the use of these conventions, so readers need to be careful to determine the sense in which a term is being used before considering what the writing containing it is saying.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

One of the problems with evolution, as written, it is not open to discussion unless you stroke it. I am not saying Creationism is correct. But evolution is like a clever dogma that can nip all opposition in the bud. It can progress or regress relative to logical progress. It doesn't even to answer any direct questions in opposition, but can squish them with name calling.

I like the concept of evolution. It is called a "theory", meaning there should be some problems since it is just a very good approximation. I would like to hear some pro-evolutionists point out some problems. Or is this taboo? One can beat up on the big bang theory, without be called a creationists. But evolution may be too precarious to allow anyone to admit any flaw. It was never upgraded from theory status that I know of so it is the best but not perfect. If science can't be objective enough to be critical, then it needs someone like me to help then them out. I am not part of this religion but I like to visit because there are many good points. But it can't be perfect and still be called a theory by science.

How about a scientist risk excommunication and point of things that don't allow evolutionary theory to rise above theory status. Will the science inquisition get you and put you in prison?

Since Pyro and Craig have responded to your post regarding the use of the terms "theory" and "evolution" in such a concise fashion, I will simply point out that your comments seem to be more about resistance to conformity than resistance to evolution - a theme that seems to be present in many that tend to reject aspects of accepted science.

Trust me, I'm no advocate of living one's life in mere conformity, but taking a non-conformist position in the face of such overwhelming evidence can make one appear foolish. What is necessary for the non-conformist in the world of science is a competing theory that can be demonstrated to be better at explaining a condition, or that can be used to strengthen an existing theory. Without that, you are left with resistance for resistance's sake, which is not useful in science.

[Michaelangelica]

I think it is about time we had a knock-down, 'no holds barded', 'knuckle skinning',argument on "What is a scientific theory"
Moderators PLEASE?

[Galapagos]

For those with access, the medical journal The Lancet will be having a special issue on Darwin:

Darwin's Gifts - Special Issue, The Lancet
The philosopher Daniel Dennett once wrote: "If I were to give an award for the single best idea anyone has ever had, I'd give it to Darwin, ahead of Newton and Einstein and everyone else." He is not alone in his praise for Charles Darwin. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and neuroscientist Steven Rose, to name but two, can also be counted among contemporary fans. This single best idea - evolution by natural selection - is the foremost contribution to science that has changed the way we think about ourselves, our origins, and the rich diversity of life forms with which we share this planet.

To mark in 2009 the bicentennial of the birth of Darwin - on Feb 12 - and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species - on Nov 24 - The Lancet has commissioned a commemorative book of essays about Darwin's life and work and the enduring legacy of his remarkable theory of evolution. These were Darwin's gifts to all of us; on the occasion of these anniversaries, this book is our gift to you.

Also of interest to fellow Darwin fans, I was browsing The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online, specifically the part of his autobiography about religion, and the man seems ahead of his time. Of particular interest to myself was that in the footnotes, there are requests from his wife(bottom of page 87 & 93)), recorded after his death requesting that certain sentences about his disbelief be removed before publication as to not offend.
Darwin surprisingly lists many reasons to doubt and disbelieve that are still compelling to many(including myself) today. It is interesting to have such an intimate look at the mind of one of humanities greatest scientists and thinkers on such a deep subject:

Originally Posted by Charles Darwin

[...] I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.

And this is a damnable doctrine.

Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.
[...]
But passing over the endless beautiful adaptations which we everywhere meet with, it may be asked how can the generally beneficent arrangement of the world be accounted for? Some writers indeed are so much impressed with the amount of suffering in the world, that they doubt if we look to all sentient beings, whether there is more of misery or of happiness;—whether the world as a whole is a good or a bad one. According to my judgment happiness decidedly prevails, though this would be very difficult to prove. If the truth of this conclusion be granted, it harmonises well with the effects which we might expect from natural selection. If all the individuals of any species were habitually to suffer to an extreme degree they would neglect to propagate their kind; but we have no reason to believe that this has ever or at least often occurred.
[...]
Such suffering, is quite compatible with the belief in Natural Selection, which is not perfect in its action, but tends only to render each species as successful as possible in the battle for life with other species, in wonderfully complex and changing circumstances.
[...]
That there is much suffering in the world no one disputes. Some have attempted to explain this in reference to man by imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that of all other sentient beings, and these often suffer greatly without any moral improvement. A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time? This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.

[Pyrotex]

Uhhh... Please what??
You want someone to moderate your new thread? Sure, I'll volunteer.
Do you need any help starting a new thread?
P

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Uhhh... Please what??
You want someone to moderate your new thread? Sure, I'll volunteer.
Do you need any help starting a new thread?
P

My thought process are a continuing puzzlement to many.

No it's just some of the posts from here should go in it
and
where should
"What is a scientific theory?"go?
or
has it been done elsewhere?
Maybe it is more of a Wiki article rather than a discussion topic
Yes,. . . mm. . . (muses). . . forget I mentioned it

Happy New Year- Hope you get your holiday
Cheap holidays in Oz at the moment. It is only 24 hours on the plane!
m