DOCSLIB.ORG

Darwin's Theory of Evolution Charles Darwin the Old World View

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

9/11/14 Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Charles Darwin “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” • Synthesized these areas to establish -Theodosius Dobzhansky modern evolutionary biology. • Most important theory in biology. • Provides loose framework for this course. The History of Evolutionary The Old World View Thought • What led Darwin to conclude that • Plato & the Essence organisms evolve and are related by • Philosophical view descent? that all things have an essence, or type. • Old World View • Individuals are a • The enlightenment deviation from this • The lead-up to Darwin type. • Darwin 1 9/11/14 Ptolemy & geocentrism Aristotle & the Scala Naturae Coincided nicely with humans as the center of the universe • Life arranged in a scale from simple to complex with humans on top. • Developed the idea of a ‘final cause’ to explain everything. • Everything served a purpose to strive toward perfecon. The Renaissance & Revolutions The Judeo-Christian tradition • Increased wealth allowed for increased freedom to stray from the dictates of authority (especially in Italy). • Formalized/instuonalized all of this. • The world was geng smaller! – Discovery of the New World. • Final purpose was to glorify – People began to realize that the world was not exactly the way they were God. told that it was. • Humans (and the universe) – Again, a challenge to authority. were created perfectly, • Followed closely by the Reformaon. therefore any suggeson of – Again, a fundamental challenge to The Authority. evolu.on was heresy. – All of these caused certain people to begin thinking outside of dogma. • World was young (origins – Including challenges of dogma in observaons of the physical world. described in the bible). – E.g. Copernicus & Galileo & Heliocentrism, Newton and modern physics. • Unchanged for 5,000 years. • Followed by Revoluons: English, American, French. All challenges to authority. 2 9/11/14 Evolution before Darwin Evolution before Darwin (Charles, that is) (Charles, that is) • Carl Linnaeus • George Cuvier published Systema • Father of paleontology Naturae in 1796. • Noted decreasing • Hierarchical similarity to modern classification of living fauna as found deeper organisms. and deeper strata. • Still essentialist, but • Established extinction insights into unity of life. as fact • Catastrophism Evolution before Darwin Evolution before Darwin (Charles, that is) (Charles, that is) • Erasmus Darwin • Jean Baptiste de publishes Zoonomia Lamarck publishes 1794. Theory of Inheritance of • Suggests unity of life Acquired and recognizes the Characteristics in 1801. struggle for existence • First proposal of as cause of evolution. mechanism of • Charles Darwin’s evolution. grandfather. • Died poor and obscure. 3 9/11/14 The Voyage of the Beagle Darwin: Early influences 1831-1836 • Born 1809. Natural History all the rage during childhood. • Hated medical school. • Became involved with premier naturalists of the day and studied numerous diverse taxa. • Educated during a scientific revolution that placed the sciences (including biology) into the realm of physical, not meta-physical explanations. • Finally, he found theology too boring. • Earth is a steady-state system. Uniformitarianism • Events in the past were the same as those occurring in the present day. • Principle originally • Fossils were laid down as sediments slowly proposed by James accumulated in areas of deposion; Hutton. • Exposed sediments were subjected to • Developed and erosion. Endless cycle of subsidence and argued by Charles sedimentaon, followed by uplifing and Lyell (1830). erosion. • Contrasted against • Organisms became exnct and were castrophism. replaced. 4 9/11/14 Observations The Origin of Species • Geological upheaval at the Cape Verde Islands & Chile • Main theses: • The fossil record • (1) characters of • Biogeography species are not fixed. • (2) natural selection is the agent of change. • (3) all organisms are related by descent. Theory of Natural Selection Characters of species are not fixed • Variation under • Influenced by domestication. Thomas Malthus’s • Variation in nature. Essay on the Principle of • Variation heritable. Population (1798). 5 9/11/14 Necessary and sufficient condions for All organisms related by descent natural selecon • There is variaon in the populaon in that trait. • The variaon must have some genec basis. • New variaon is created all the me. • There are limits to populaon growth. • Variaon in that trait is correlated with ‘reproducve success’. Darwin’s biggest dilemma… Darwin’s biggest dilemma… • First edition, • Blending inheritance admitted profound incompable with ignorance on natural selecon. mechanisms of • Variaon eliminated, inheritance. not preserved. • Later editions, • Evoluon would be introduced blending driven by mutaon, inheritance and use not natural selecon. and disuse of structures. 6 9/11/14 Darwin’s challenges Darwin’s challenges • The absence of • Evolution of organs intermediate forms. of extreme – Competition and perfection. extinction. – Numerous transitional forms – Taphonomy and found in other incompleteness of organisms. fossil record. – Given time and power of NS, could go through these forms. Darwin’s challenges Darwin’s challenges • The evolution of • Production of new instinct (especially species. sterile individuals) • Noted that species • Variation in were not discrete behavior, as well. entities. • Could operate at • Gradation between higher level than varieties and individual. species not distinct. 7 9/11/14 Logical consistencies Logical consistencies • Earth must be very • Fossils should show old. logical transitions. • Given rates of • Recent fossils more deposition, estimated similar to present-day an age of hundreds of fossils than older, millions of years. deeper fossils. • Logical transiitons from fish to amphibian to reptile and mammal. Logical consistencies Logical consistencies • Geographic distribution. • Boundaries determined by • Geographic limits to dispersal. distribution. • Distribution of organisms • Present distribution on islands. determined by – Bats only terrestrial geography, not mammals on oceanic islands. physical conditions. – No amphibians on oceanic • Adaptations islands. – Island species show clear determined by affinities with mainland physical conditions. species. 8 9/11/14 Logical consistencies What came next • Structure and development. • Darwin hesitated to – Homology (features publish. Finished book sharing identity by in 1844. descent). • Didn’t publish. – Embryonic development. • Correspondence from A.R. Wallace. – Rudimentary organs. • Both submied papers to the Linnaean society. • In 1859 published The Origin of Species Understanding Natural Selection Natural Selection, considerations 1. Individuals in a population vary in their • Newly created variation (mutation) characteristics and these variations are heritable. must be random with respect to need. 2. New variation is created generation after • Otherwise mutation drives evolution, generation. 3. Parents produce on average more offspring and this is unstable. than is present to replace them. 4. Resources are limited, therefore only a fraction of offspring survive to reproduce. 5. Survival is correlated with heritable variation. 9 9/11/14 The philosophical content of natural Criticisms and misconceptions selection is scientific 1. Evolution has no • Does not mean that • Is natural selection a • Claim: natural purpose. natural selection is an valid scientific theory? selection is a attack on religion. 2. Evolution has no tautology: • Because it is materialistic, inherent direction. cannot address faith- • Evolution is the 3. Natural Selection is based knowledge. survival of the fittest; materialistic. • Provides explanations • The fittest are those and predictions for the that survive. physical world. Criticisms and misconceptions Criticisms and misconceptions • Argument for natural • Is natural selection a selection takes form: • Is natural selection a • Claim: Natural Selection valid scientific theory? – A statement of facts valid scientific theory? is unscientific because it regarding variation. cannot be disproved. – Can explain everything, – A statement of facts and therefore nothing. regarding population growth and limiting resources. – Logical inferences based on these facts. – If the facts or inferences are incorrect, then theory is false. 10 9/11/14 Criticisms and misconceptions Criticisms and misconceptions • Is natural selection a valid scientific theory? • The argument from design • Testable AND falsifiable questions: • William Paley (1802): “Natural Theology, or – Do individuals vary in their characteristics? Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the – Does variation have a genetic basis, at least in part? – Is new variation created by copying errors in the duplication of Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature” DNA in the germ cell line? • Analogy of the watch. – Is new variation random with respect to need? – Do populations have the potential to increase exponentially? • Raised difficult theoretical questions about the – Blending inheritance, no natural selection. nature of the designer. – Very young earth. • Malaria and sickle-cell anemia. – E.g. Lord Kelvin’s estimate of age of earth (scientific hypothesis) vs. Darwin’s theory of the unity of life. • ‘Design’ of respiratory tract. Criticisms and misconceptions Criticisms and misconceptions • The argument from • Arises from confusion between ‘function’ and • The argument from design ‘purpose’. – Tend to
Recommended publications
  • Chapter 22 Notes: Introduction to Evolution

    Chapter 22 Notes: Introduction to Evolution

    NOTES: Ch 22 – Descent With Modification – A Darwinian View of Life Our planet is home to a huge variety of organisms! (Scientists estimate of organisms alive today!) Even more amazing is evidence of organisms that once lived on earth, but are now . Several hundred million species have come and gone during 4.5 billion years life is believed to have existed on earth So…where have they gone… why have they disappeared? EVOLUTION: the process by which have descended from . Central Idea: organisms alive today have been produced by a long process of . FITNESS: refers to traits and behaviors of organisms that enable them to survive and reproduce COMMON DESCENT: species ADAPTATION: any inherited characteristic that enhances an organism’s ability to ~based on variations that are HOW DO WE KNOW THAT EVOLUTION HAS OCCURRED (and is still happening!!!)??? Lines of evidence: 1) So many species! -at least (250,000 beetles!) 2) ADAPTATIONS ● Structural adaptations - - ● Physiological adaptations -change in - to certain toxins 3) Biogeography: - - and -Examples: 13 species of finches on the 13 Galapagos Islands -57 species of Kangaroos…all in Australia 4) Age of Earth: -Rates of motion of tectonic plates - 5) FOSSILS: -Evidence of (shells, casts, bones, teeth, imprints) -Show a -We see progressive changes based on the order they were buried in sedimentary rock: *Few many fossils / species * 6) Applied Genetics: “Artificial Selection” - (cattle, dogs, cats) -insecticide-resistant insects - 7) Homologies: resulting from common ancestry Anatomical Homologies: ● comparative anatomy reveals HOMOLOGOUS STRUCTURES ( , different functions) -EX: ! Vestigial Organs: -“Leftovers” from the evolutionary past -Structures that Embryological Homologies: ● similarities evident in Molecular/Biochemical Homologies: ● DNA is the “universal” genetic code or code of life ● Proteins ( ) Darwin & the Scientists of his time Introduction to Darwin… ● On November 24, 1859, Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.
  • Introduction to Macroevolution

    Introduction to Macroevolution

    Spring, 2012 Phylogenetics 200A Modes of Macroevolution Macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. Darwin illustrated the combined action of descent with modification, the principle of divergence, and extinction in the only figure in On the Origin of Species (Fig. 1), showing the link between microevolution and macroevolution. The New Synthesis sought to distance itself from the ‘origin of species’ (= macroevolution) and concentrated instead on microevolution - variation within populations and reproductive isolation. “Darwin’s principle of divergence derives from what he thought to be one of the most potent components of the struggle for existence. He argued that the strongest interactions would be among individuals within a population or among closely related populations or species, because these organisms have the most similar requirements. Darwin’s principle of divergence predicts that the individuals, populations or species most likely to succeed in the struggle are those that differ most from their close relatives in the way they achieve their needs for survival and reproduction.” (Reznick & Ricklefs 2009. Nature 457) Macroevolution also fell into disfavor with its invocation for hopeful monsters in development as well as its implication in some Neo-Lamarckian theories. Interest in macroevolution revived by several paleontologists including Steven Stanley, Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, the latter two in the context of punctuated equilibrium. They proposed that what happens in evolution beyond the species level is due to processes that operate beyond the level of populations – including species selection. Niles Eldredge, in particular, has written extensively on the macroevolutionary hierarchy.
  • Biblical Catastrophism and Geology

    Biblical Catastrophism and Geology

    BIBLICAL CATASTROPHISM AND GEOLOGY HENRY M. MORRIS Professor of Civi I Engineering Virginia Polytechnic Institute Theories of catastrophism in geological interpretation are not new. Prior to the time of Sir Charles Lyell, scientists generally believed that most geological formations must be attributed to great physical catastrophes or revolutions. Lyell, however, taught that these phenomena could be explained by the ordinary processes of nature, acting over vast expanses of geological time. This is his "principle of uniformitarianism, II. now almost universally accepted as the foundation princ~ple of modern historical geology. Profoundly influenced by LyelPs theories, Charles Darwin soon published his theory of evolu­ tion by natural selection. The supposed paleontologi cal record of the evolutionary history of life on earth, together with the principle of uniformity, now constitutes the interpretive framework within which all data of historical geology are supposed to be explained. Furthermore, this phil­ osophy of evolutionary uniformitarianism now serves also as the interpretive framework in the social sciences and economi cs, and even in the study of religion itself. Thus a superstructure of gigantic size has been erected on the Lyellian-Darwinian foundation. However, catastrophism is not dead. The inadequacies of a thorough-going uniformitarianism have become increasingly obvious in recent years, and such quasi-catastrophist concepts as wan­ dering continents, shifting poles, slipping crusts, meteoritic and cometary collisions, etc., are appearing more and more frequently in geological literature. It is, in fact, generally recognized that even the ordinary fossiliferous deposits of the sedimentary rocks must often have at least a semi-catastrophist basis, since the process of fossilization usually requires rather rapid burial, under conditions seldom encountered in the modern world.
  • Microevolution and the Genetics of Populations ​ ​ Microevolution Refers to Varieties Within a Given Type

    Microevolution and the Genetics of Populations ​ ​ Microevolution Refers to Varieties Within a Given Type

    Chapter 8: Evolution Lesson 8.3: Microevolution and the Genetics of Populations ​ ​ Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait ​ ​ ​ ​ within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog. Lesson Objectives ● Distinguish what is microevolution and how it affects changes in populations. ● Define gene pool, and explain how to calculate allele frequencies. ● State the Hardy-Weinberg theorem ● Identify the five forces of evolution. Vocabulary ● adaptive radiation ● gene pool ● migration ● allele frequency ● genetic drift ● mutation ● artificial selection ● Hardy-Weinberg theorem ● natural selection ● directional selection ● macroevolution ● population genetics ● disruptive selection ● microevolution ● stabilizing selection ● gene flow Introduction Darwin knew that heritable variations are needed for evolution to occur. However, he knew nothing about Mendel’s laws of genetics. Mendel’s laws were rediscovered in the early 1900s. Only then could scientists fully understand the process of evolution. Microevolution is how individual traits within a population change over time. In order for a population to change, some things must be assumed to be true. In other words, there must be some sort of process happening that causes microevolution. The five ways alleles within a population change over time are natural selection, migration (gene flow), mating, mutations, or genetic drift.
  • Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution

    Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Law Review Volume 83 Issue 1 2005 Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution Matthew J. Brauer Princeton University Barbara Forrest Southeastern Louisiana University Steven G. Gey Florida State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey, Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution, 83 WASH. U. L. Q. 1 (2005). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol83/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Law Quarterly VOLUME 83 NUMBER 1 2005 IS IT SCIENCE YET?: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM AND THE CONSTITUTION MATTHEW J. BRAUER BARBARA FORREST STEVEN G. GEY* TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................
  • Patterns and Power of Phenotypic Selection in Nature

    Patterns and Power of Phenotypic Selection in Nature

    Articles Patterns and Power of Phenotypic Selection in Nature JOEL G. KINGSOLVER AND DAVID W. PFENNIG Phenotypic selection occurs when individuals with certain characteristics produce more surviving offspring than individuals with other characteristics. Although selection is regarded as the chief engine of evolutionary change, scientists have only recently begun to measure its action in the wild. These studies raise numerous questions: How strong is selection, and do different types of traits experience different patterns of selection? Is selection on traits that affect mating success as strong as selection on traits that affect survival? Does selection tend to favor larger body size, and, if so, what are its consequences? We explore these questions and discuss the pitfalls and future prospects of measuring selection in natural populations. Keywords: adaptive landscape, Cope’s rule, natural selection, rapid evolution, sexual selection henotypic selection occurs when individuals with selection on traits that affect survival stronger than on those Pdifferent characteristics (i.e., different phenotypes) that affect only mating success? In this article, we explore these differ in their survival, fecundity, or mating success. The idea and other questions about the patterns and power of phe- of phenotypic selection traces back to Darwin and Wallace notypic selection in nature. (1858), and selection is widely accepted as the primary cause of adaptive evolution within natural populations.Yet Darwin What is selection, and how does it work? never attempted to measure selection in nature, and in the Selection is the nonrandom differential survival or repro- century following the publication of On the Origin of Species duction of phenotypically different individuals.
  • Irreducible Complexity and Darwinian Gradualism: a Reply to Michael J

    Irreducible Complexity and Darwinian Gradualism: a Reply to Michael J

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Asbury Theological Seminary Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 19 Issue 1 Article 1 1-1-2002 Irreducible Complexity and Darwinian Gradualism: A Reply to Michael J. Behe Paul Draper Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Draper, Paul (2002) "Irreducible Complexity and Darwinian Gradualism: A Reply to Michael J. Behe," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 19 : Iss. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol19/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY AND DARWINIAN GRADUALISM: A REPLY TO MICHAEL J. BEHE Paul Draper In Darwin's Black Box, Michael). Behe argues that, because certain biochemical systems are both irreducibly complex and very complex, it is extremely unlikely that they evolved gradually by Darwinian mechanisms, and so extremely likely that they were intelligently designed. I begin this paper by explaining Behe's argument and defending it against the very common but clearly mistaken charge that it is just a rehash of William Paley'S design argu­ ment. Then I critically discuss a number of more serious objections to the argument. I conclude that, while Behe successfully rules out some Darwinian paths to the biochemical systems he discusses, others remain open.
  • 1 1 Catastrophism, Uniformitarianism, and a Scientific

    1 1 Catastrophism, Uniformitarianism, and a Scientific

    1 Catastrophism, Uniformitarianism, and a Scientific Realism Debate That Makes a Difference P. Kyle Stanford ([email protected]) Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science UC Irvine Abstract Some scientific realists suggest that scientific communities have improved in their ability to discover alternative theoretical possibilities and that the problem of unconceived alternatives therefore poses a less significant threat to contemporary scientific communities than it did to their historical predecessors. I first argue that the most profound and fundamental historical transformations of the scientific enterprise have actually increased rather than decreased our vulnerability to the problem. I then argue that whether we are troubled by even the prospect of increasing theoretical conservatism in science should depend on the position we occupy in the ongoing debate concerning scientific realism itself. Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge useful discussions concerning the material in this paper with Kevin Zollman, Penelope Maddy, Jeff Barrett, Pat Forber, Peter Godfrey-Smith, Steve Shapin, Fred Kronz, John Norton, Michael Weisberg, Jane Maienschein, Julia Bursten, Carole Lee, and Arash Pessian, as well as audiences at the Durham University Conference on Unconceived Alternatives and Scientific Realism, the University of Vienna’s (Un)Conceived Alternatives Symposium, the University of Pittsburgh’s Conference on Choosing the Future of Science, Lingnan University’s ‘Science: The Real Thing?’ Conference, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Cambridge University, the University of Vienna, the University of Pennsylvania, UC San Diego, the University of Washington, the University of Western Ontario, the Pittsburgh Center for the Philosophy of Science, Washington University in St. Louis, Bloomsburg University, Indiana University, the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, and the Australian National University.
  • Comment the Communication Strategies of Neocreationism Between the United States and Europe

    Comment the Communication Strategies of Neocreationism Between the United States and Europe

    SISSA – International School for Advanced Studies Journal of Science Communication ISSN 1824 – 2049 http://jcom.sissa.it/ Comment The communication strategies of neocreationism between the United States and Europe Astrid Pizzo In their essay which appeared in 1972 in Models in Paleobiology , Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, introducing the theory of punctuated equilibrium, stressed the fact that no scientific theory develops as a simple and logical extension of facts and of patiently recorded observations, and that the particular vision of the world that the scientist adheres to is able to influence, even unconsciously, the way in which data are collected, selected and then interpreted. Scientists, being aware of the existence of an intrinsic problem of prejudice in their scientific research activity, know that, in order to produce original and innovative ideas, it is fundamental to try to revolutionise their research image, to look at reality in a new light, to read data with alternative viewpoints. According to the American philosopher Robert Pennock 1,2, creationists ignore this aspect completely: they look to the Sacred Scriptures to find answers on the origin of the world and of life, and then try to interpret the empirical evidence so that it fits the scriptures. However, American creationism has changed radically in recent decades. Unlike creationists in the strict sense of the word, who use what is said in the Bible explicitly, at times even literally, to attack the theory of evolution, the advocates of Intelligent Design, who opened their season in the Seventies with the publication of Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris 3, do not adopt a stance of direct opposition to evolutionism, but try to work alongside it and to make use of scientific method to find the evidence of the divine hand in nature.
  • Tempo and Mode in the Macroevolutionary Reconstruction of Darwinism STEPHEN JAY GOULD Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138

    Tempo and Mode in the Macroevolutionary Reconstruction of Darwinism STEPHEN JAY GOULD Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138

    Proc. Nadl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 91, pp. 6764-6771, July 1994 Colloquium Paper This paper was presented at a coloquium ented "Tempo and Mode in Evolution" organized by Walter M. Fitch and Francisco J. Ayala, held January 27-29, 1994, by the National Academy of Sciences, in Irvine, CA. Tempo and mode in the macroevolutionary reconstruction of Darwinism STEPHEN JAY GOULD Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138 ABSTRACT Among the several central nings of Dar- But conceptual complexity is not reducible to a formula or winism, his version ofLyellian uniformitranism-the extrap- epigram (as we taxonomists of life's diversity should know olationist commitment to viewing causes ofsmall-scale, observ- better than most). Too much ink has been wasted in vain able change in modern populations as the complete source, by attempts to define the essence ofDarwin's ideas, or Darwin- smooth extension through geological time, of all magnitudes ism itself. Mayr (1) has correctly emphasized that many and sequences in evolution-has most contributed to the causal different, if related, Darwinisms exist, both in the thought of hegemony of microevolutlon and the assumption that paleon- the eponym himself, and in the subsequent history of evo- tology can document the contingent history of life but cannot lutionary biology-ranging from natural selection, to genea- act as a domain of novel evolutionary theory. G. G. Simpson logical connection of all living beings, to gradualism of tried to combat this view of paleontology as theoretically inert change. in his classic work, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), with It would therefore be fatuous to claim that any one legit- a brilliant argument that the two subjects of his tide fall into a imate "essence" can be more basic or important than an- unue paleontological domain and that modes (processes and other.
  • Catastrophism and Uniformitarianism: Logical Roots and Current Relevance in Geology

    Catastrophism and Uniformitarianism: Logical Roots and Current Relevance in Geology

    Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on September 29, 2021 Catastrophism and uniformitarianism" logical roots and current relevance in geology VICTOR R. BAKER Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0011, USA Abstract, Catastrophism in the Earth sciences is rooted in the view that Earth signifies its causative processes via landforms, structures and rock. Processes of types, rates and magnitudes not presently in evidence may well be signified this way. Uniformitarianism, in contrast, is a regulative stipulation motivated by the presumed necessity that science achieves logical validity in what can be said (hypothesized) about the Earth. Regulative principles, including simplicity, actualism and gradualism, are imposed a priori to insure valid inductive reasoning. This distinction lies at the heart of the catastrophist versus uniformitarian debates in the early nine- teenth century and it continues to influence portions of the current scientific program. Uniform- itarianism, as introduced by Charles Lyell in 1830, is specifically tied to an early nineteenth century view of inductive inference. Catastrophism involves a completely different form of inference in which hypotheses are generated retroductively. This latter form of logical inference remains relevant to modern science, while the outmoded notions of induction that warranted the doctrine of uniformitarianism were long ago shown to be overly restrictive in scientific practice. The latter should be relegated solely to historical interest in the progress of ideas. On 4 July 1997, the Mars Pathfinder spacecraft Antarctic ice, was interpreted as showing various made a highly successful landing in the Ares Vallis indicators of possible relic biogenic activity region of Mars.
  • The Age of the Earth

    The Age of the Earth

    The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism Volume 1 Print Reference: Volume 1:I, Page 43-48 Article 10 1986 The Age of the Earth Donald E. Chittick Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings DigitalCommons@Cedarville provides a publication platform for fully open access journals, which means that all articles are available on the Internet to all users immediately upon publication. However, the opinions and sentiments expressed by the authors of articles published in our journals do not necessarily indicate the endorsement or reflect the views of DigitalCommons@Cedarville, the Centennial Library, or Cedarville University and its employees. The authors are solely responsible for the content of their work. Please address questions to [email protected]. Browse the contents of this volume of The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism. Recommended Citation Chittick, Donald E. (1986) "The Age of the Earth," The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism: Vol. 1 , Article 10. Available at: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings/vol1/iss1/10 THE AGE OF THE EARTH Dr. Donald E. Chittick c 1986 Route 2, Box 194 Newberg, OR 97132 ABSTRACT Modern science had its roots in the Biblical Reformation, and early modern scientists believed in a young earth. Old earth proposals sparked by Leyell and Darwin became politically motivated, and opposition to Kelvin's science was accepted as the church swung toward these proposals. Unscientific schemes such as the Day-Age and Gap theories and Theistic evolution are defined. Scientific compatibility with a young earth is shown. INTRODUCTION From presenting many seminars and lectures dealing with the topic of creation and evolution, I have repeatedly observed that almost Invariably someone will ask a question about dating methods and the age of the earth.