• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Is Darwin the greatest scientist ever?

Status
Not open for further replies.
avaya said:
Yeah what is biology useful for?

Jesus christ.

If you were to make a list of top 100 he would be well into the top 100 on many people's lists. He explained part of the reason why we exist as we do.

Darwin was a great scientist no doubt, but the problem is that his theory lacks applications. If I am ranking scientists, I give extra points to scientists who invented theories that directly lead to something useful for mankind: an important chemical, medicine, technology, etc. This is why I don't rank Darwin very high.

I would probably rank him tops for influencing the thinking of mankind.
 
Hari Seldon said:
Darwin was a great scientist no doubt, but the problem is that his theory lacks applications. If I am ranking scientists, I give extra points to scientists who invented theories that directly lead to something useful for mankind: an important chemical, medicine, technology, etc. This is why I don't rank Darwin very high.

I would probably rank him tops for influencing the thinking of mankind.

For medicine I would give the example that the study of AIDS means nothing without a evolutionary viewpoint. Why are some bacteria resistent to antibiotics, how should antibiotics be used. All make sense under evolutionary theory.

Technology: I have had to write genetic algorithms that were based off of evolutionary systems.

I am sure others can give more in depth answers, but your posts sound ignorant.
 
Hilbert said:
For medicine I would give the example that the study of AIDS means nothing without a evolutionary viewpoint. Why are some bacteria resistent to antibiotics, how should antibiotics be used. All make sense under evolutionary theory.

Technology: I have had to write genetic algorithms that were based off of evolutionary systems.

I am sure others can give more in depth answers, but your posts sound ignorant.

I just consider things like electricity, classical mechanics, quantum theory, relativity, chemistry, etc., all more useful science than evolution.
 
Tyson.jpg


fuck pluto
 
JBuccCP said:
Anyway the real answer is Steve Jobs.
>>>Sent from a MacBook Wheel?

My favorite scientist is Carl Sagan. Although I know he isn't the be-all end-all of scientists, he is still my favorite for being aboslutely poetic when he talks about his work and the universe. Such a great man.

2gwddw6.jpg


One of his most famous thoughts, "The Pale Blue Dot." He is proof that science is romantic if you look in the right places.
 
I think popularizers of science (Tyson, Darwin, Sagan, Clark, etc.) are every bit as important to the world of science as any discipline in the field.

science is a human tool and cultural interest in it can fade away, or even literally be subverted by cult mysticism. science needs a voice that can reach anyone

it's nothing if children of new generations aren't philosophically inspired to peruse it and fuel its growth.
 
Hari Seldon said:
Darwin was a great scientist no doubt, but the problem is that his theory lacks applications. If I am ranking scientists, I give extra points to scientists who invented theories that directly lead to something useful for mankind: an important chemical, medicine, technology, etc. This is why I don't rank Darwin very high.

I would probably rank him tops for influencing the thinking of mankind.

I mean no disrespect when I say this, but you're fucking retarded.
 
personally, i would have to say Newton is the "greatest". The guy fucken invented calculus, and changed the face of modern physics. Next would be Einstein.
 
I think the work of the astronomers like Galileo and Copernicus was extremely important, and probably has influenced our modern world on a more fundamental level than we would give them credit for. Without them, how would our worldview look now, I wonder.

Scientists like Newton and Einstein though are rightfully considered as heavyweights, who had perhaps the most fundamental insights into how the Universe behaves, given what they had available at the time.

However I would also say that Watson and Crick are to Einstein what Darwin is to Newton: pioneers whose work has been superceded, but their fundamental insight was what started the revolution.

Along the way you also have important discoveries coming from people like Neils Bohr, Maxwell, Planck, Marie Curie, Schrodinger, t'Hooft, Hawking, Jocelyn Bell, Susskind, and many others that have made major discoveries.

It's not worth ranking them though.
 
Chinner said:
What about God? I mean, he DID create the universe and all that stuff.

What? I am offended. You mention God without mentioning the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. For SHAME!

And even if he did created Universe, it isn't something that would make him a scientist.
 
Chinner said:
What about God? I mean, he DID create the universe and all that stuff.

God's an engineer.

Scientists research. Engineers create. ERTW. :D

Hilbert said:
Darwin proved he didn't :D

Why do you people always try to insist Darwinism is to disprove the existence of God.
 
Hari Seldon said:
I just consider things like electricity, classical mechanics, quantum theory, relativity, chemistry, etc., all more useful science than evolution.

I might be wrong but the theory of relativity has little application until recent time. And the only thing that comes into mind is the global positioning system.

Evolution does not usually have direct application is because this process happen so slow...
so VERY VERY SLOW. But like Hilbert mentioned, it help understand why there are resistant strains. This not only include medicine, but also pest control.

Evolution plays a large part in ecology, conservation biology, taxonomy.

Evolution helps explain the immense diversity of organisms found on Earth and indicate why maintain biodiversity.

Breeding programs (selection of favorable traits of plants and animal) can be thought of a direct application of evolution (artificial selection).
 
Norman Borlaug..


people might not know of his work but in terms of influence in saving lives its pretty impressive for a single individual.


"During the mid-20th century, Borlaug led the introduction of these high-yielding varieties combined with modern agricultural production techniques to Mexico, Pakistan, and India. As a result, Mexico became a net exporter of wheat by 1963. Between 1965 and 1970, wheat yields nearly doubled in Pakistan and India, greatly improving the food security in those nations. These collective increases in yield have been labeled the Green Revolution, and Borlaug is often credited with saving over a billion people from starvation.[3] He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 in recognition of his contributions to world peace through increasing food supply."

See wiki for details..


Other guys should go ahead of him but the man deserves to be mentioned at least once. Ill be that once

EDIT: oh yeah he used evolution principles to derive his crops.. theres 1 billion people evolution helped prevent starve. Non applicable science my ass.
 
Chinner said:
What about God? I mean, he DID create the universe and all that stuff.

always funny to see god portrayed as a he:lol
as an agnostic i always figured if there is such a thing as a "god energy" or wathever it would be something so beyond human comprehension
i seriously doubt gender is something that is even a factor of this "thing"

personally i find religion extremely arrogant
we as lowly lifeforms on our tiny little speck of dust in the universe we call earth are supposed to know what god even is?
gimme a break
 
Achtius said:
Breeding programs (selection of favorable traits of plants and animal) can be thought of a direct application of evolution (artificial selection).

Except breeding programs were in effect well before Darwin came along.

MrHicks said:
always funny to see god portrayed as a he:lol
as an agnostic i always figured if there is such a thing as a "god energy" or wathever it would be something so beyond human comprehension
i seriously doubt gender is something that is even a factor of this "thing"

personally i find religion extremely arrogant
we as lowly lifeforms on our tiny little speck of dust in the universe we call earth are supposed to know what god even is?
gimme a break

Going by the Bible, he is a he because man was made in his image. Not that gender would have any effect whatsoever, but it's certainly more respectful than saying "it". If you don
't believe in Christianity (or w/e religion), then he is a he because men ruled the old world and decided that a female God would not be respected.

As for the arrogant bit, if you believe in a religion, then we know about God because God told us about himself. If you don't believe in it, then you'd say religion was not born from arrogance, but as a means to control the people.
 
Oh yeah, we are the direct product of evolution. It can't get anymore important than that...right?

And no we aren't apes nor monkeys. Our closest relative is the chimpaznee. And no we aren't chimpanzee either. Chimps and humans SHARED a common ancestor. We was never a chimp to begin with.

Edit:

TheExodu5 said:
Except breeding programs were in effect well before Darwin came along.

Yeah, I said that 10 minute ago. :P

But can you say gravity did not exist until Newton discovered it? Selective breeding is a sort of evolution since we are choosing what traits we want.
 
Hari Seldon said:
Darwin was a great scientist no doubt, but the problem is that his theory lacks applications.

Ranging from vaccinations against evolving micro-pathogens and genetic disorders right through to developing computer programs and artificial intelligence. It gets applied absolutely everywhere and the whole of modern genetic studies is a result of the steps Darwin was the first to take. It is all pervasive in our society and it's surprising that you thought there was no application of it!

Achtius said:
Our closest relative is the chimpaznee.

Closest living relative.
 
Achtius said:
Oh yeah, we are the direct product of evolution. It can't get anymore important than that...right?

And no we aren't apes nor monkeys. Our closest relative is the chimpaznee. And no we aren't chimpanzee either. Chimps and humans SHARED a common ancestor. We was never a chimp to begin with.

Aren't we classified as apes? Or is it primates? I guess I don't really know the difference.
 
MrSardonic said:
Closest living relative.

Yeah sorry. LIVING relative. I KNOW THAT... SERIOUSLY.

Hilbert said:
Aren't we classified as apes? Or is it primates? I guess I don't really know the difference.

Yeah I screw up (again). Apes comprise of human, chimp and other primates.
 
MrHicks said:
always funny to see god portrayed as a he:lol
as an agnostic i always figured if there is such a thing as a "god energy" or wathever it would be something so beyond human comprehension
i seriously doubt gender is something that is even a factor of this "thing"

personally i find religion extremely arrogant
we as lowly lifeforms on our tiny little speck of dust in the universe we call earth are supposed to know what god even is?
gimme a break
Heh, somebody is gonna be frying in hell for eternity while me and God watch reruns of SpongeBob Square pants.

Wait...

I'm the one in hell
2lvhbnb.png
 
Boogie said:
Because they're not.

and heres why they aren't


social science much like pyschology can't do actual full fledged experiments because they are unable to control or account every variable. This is because there are ethical problems associated with controlling ever part of a persons life. When psychologists were able to control all variables they were considered unethical do to the harm done to the subjects (see stanley millgram, zimbardo's prison experiment, little baby albert, Bobo doll experiment etc)


so while the social sciences and psychology are useful endeavors and have applications they are not entirely scientific and don't do full fledged experiments typically. They are as close to science you can get without actually dong science. But in all fairness they are considerably better then say English, screw those fuckers...

PS: Plus some social science theories are someones opinion with no actually data backing them.


And on a personal Note, i hate philosophers, both the MGS and actual variety.
 
Loving this thread. Not so much the god vs evolution talk, but still, very interesting thread.

Especially like the input of MrSardonic about the importance of Darwin, and the background of Descartes.
 
i know very little about this topic, but lots of great info in here.

also, here's a picture of charles darwin with a monkey body. i mean, think about it.

450px-Darwin_ape.jpg
 
Crayon Shinchan said:
Newton and Einstein.

Darwin's theory is great and all, but the reality is, its the kind of theory that would've eventually been chanced upon.
You can't say that, though. You have to give people their dues.

Darwin was an amazing scientist and a real hero of mine.

Hari Seldon said:
Darwin was a great scientist no doubt, but the problem is that his theory lacks applications.
My brain is spinning. I suggest you read about Darwinian Medicine - Applying Darwinian knowledge to medicine, which leads to a more thorough understanding of pathology as a whole.
For example, we've discovered why women have morning sickness because of Darwinian medicine.
 
If Darwin was alive today, he'd shit bricks at what we now know about biology and his theory. The best evidence supporting evolution by natural selection has come long AFTER Darwin kicked the bucket.

It's always funny when Creationists call us "Darwinists!!11" as though evolution is a sacred doctrine handed down by the almighty Charlie in our view. Darwin was wrong on some of the details, and every real scientist understands that and knows why. He was right on the most important thing though, which is reason enough for this thread. :D
 
okay guys, imagine you're walking down a beach and then you come upon a watch. its very complicated and it couldn't of possibly formed by itself. you would then conclude that it was made by some other being. well, the universe and all sentient beings are kind of like that.
 
Chinner said:
okay guys, imagine you're walking down a beach and then you come upon a watch. its very complicated and it couldn't of possibly formed by itself. you would then conclude that it was made by some other being. well, the universe and all sentient beings are kind of like that.

Paley...is that you?
 
Chinner said:
okay guys, imagine you're walking down a beach and then you come upon a watch. its very complicated and it couldn't of possibly formed by itself. you would then conclude that it was made by some other being. well, the universe and all sentient beings are kind of like that.
This is sarcasm right?
 
Chinner said:
okay guys, imagine you're walking down a beach and then you come upon a watch. its very complicated and it couldn't of possibly formed by itself. you would then conclude that it was made by some other being. well, the universe and all sentient beings are kind of like that.

i prefer the version where they come accross a word written in the sand...

the arguement is still BS but at least i can envision the creator being jessica alba or scarlett johansenn in a bikini.... Those two wouldnt be caught dead making a watch.
 
Chinner said:
okay guys, imagine you're walking down a beach and then you come upon a watch. its very complicated and it couldn't of possibly formed by itself. you would then conclude that it was made by some other being. well, the universe and all sentient beings are kind of like that.


Holy crap you are right. I never thought of it that way!
 
Chinner said:
okay guys, imagine you're walking down a beach and then you come upon a watch. its very complicated and it couldn't of possibly formed by itself. you would then conclude that it was made by some other being. well, the universe and all sentient beings are kind of like that.
This is a joke?

Either way, why are you trying to ruin this thread? Post your favorite scientist damned! >:|
 
Chinner said:
okay guys, imagine you're walking down a beach and then you come upon a watch. its very complicated and it couldn't of possibly formed by itself. you would then conclude that it was made by some other being. well, the universe and all sentient beings are kind of like that.

So watches are biological reproducing organisms which pass on their genetic information imperfectly to future generations which have to adapt to their environment or fail at reproducing?

You learn something new every day.
 
I suggest Hari Seldon also reads about Artificial Selection. We use the principles of Natural Selection to improve our produce and food.
 
DubloSeven said:
I suggest Hari Seldon also reads about Artificial Selection. We use the principles of Natural Selection to improve our produce and food.

see my previous stated example of norman bolraug
 
DubloSeven said:
I suggest Hari Seldon also reads about Artificial Selection. We use the principles of Natural Selection to improve our produce and food.

And sexual selection so he understand why he never get....
I don't want to get ban saying it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom