Curious layman Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 Quote Legendary English biologist Charles Darwin believed that life might have formed in a warm shallow pool of water, with proper chemical makeup. Most of the research conducted all across these years was based on this theory, but a new study conducted by experts at University College of London has proposed a different theory. https://www.ibtimes.sg/charles-darwin-wrong-research-suggests-life-might-have-formed-hydrothermal-vents-deep-sea-33979
dimreepr Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 3 minutes ago, Curious layman said: https://www.ibtimes.sg/charles-darwin-wrong-research-suggests-life-might-have-formed-hydrothermal-vents-deep-sea-33979 Not wrong, just a different guess.
swansont Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 It's bad headline writing to couch this as right vs wrong. AFAIK it was a conjecture, not a conclusion. Did Darwin even know about hydrothermal vents? (Plus the idea they had a role in abiogenesis is old. It's bad to present this as a new idea. Here's an article from 1988. It's against the idea, but it shows it was being discussed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11536607)
Phi for All Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 1 minute ago, swansont said: It's bad headline writing to couch this as right vs wrong. I also think it's particularly bad to imply that most of the research done since Darwin's time is now somehow untrustworthy. Is the author a closet creationist?
Klaynos Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 Famous person says X. Famous person says Y. Famous person is famous for Y. Sometime later X is shown to be wrong. Headline: "famous person was wrong". It's just lazy and annoying. Even if Y was"wrong" if it allowed for the thinking that resulted in what we know now it was valuable. Knowledge changes and develops. Most new ideas which most people (even the clever ones) say will be shown to be wrong in 200 years. For most new ideas, the time to being shown to be wrong is minutes.
Strange Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 28 minutes ago, Phi for All said: I also think it's particularly bad to imply that most of the research done since Darwin's time is now somehow untrustworthy. Is the author a closet creationist? Headlines are not usually written by the authors of the articles. The editor may be a creationist, a sensationalist or just ignorant. 1
swansont Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 It's a business publication (the International Business Times), so the factor by which one needs to temper their expectations from a pop-sci publications has to be squared.
StringJunky Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 The only difference between Darwin's hypothesis and hydrothermal vents is that the latter are kinetically active.
dimreepr Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 4 minutes ago, StringJunky said: The only difference between Darwin's hypothesis and hydrothermal vents is that the latter are kinetically active. That's not a difference, if brownian motion is a thing...
StringJunky Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, dimreepr said: That's not a difference, if brownian motion is a thing... I should have said "... more kinetically active". A bit more than Brownian motion. Edited November 6, 2019 by StringJunky
dimreepr Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 (edited) Since they are both guesses, I'm not sure how ' more active' is more correct... Edited November 6, 2019 by dimreepr
swansont Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 11 minutes ago, StringJunky said: I should have said "... more kinetically active". A bit more than Brownian motion. That's a small effect, though. Thermal motion is far more energetic than typical translational energy. (It ties in with why running water, e.g. a river, can freeze. The translational energy is small compared to the thermal energy) 1
StringJunky Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 5 hours ago, swansont said: That's a small effect, though. Thermal motion is far more energetic than typical translational energy. (It ties in with why running water, e.g. a river, can freeze. The translational energy is small compared to the thermal energy) Yes. Right. Cheers.
dimreepr Posted December 23, 2019 Posted December 23, 2019 22 minutes ago, Avy213 said: Maybe he was wrong why?
Avy213 Posted December 23, 2019 Posted December 23, 2019 5 minutes ago, dimreepr said: why? He was took theoretically....😁
dimreepr Posted December 23, 2019 Posted December 23, 2019 9 minutes ago, Avy213 said: He was took theoretically....😁 what does that mean?
Avy213 Posted December 23, 2019 Posted December 23, 2019 1 minute ago, dimreepr said: what does that mean? Am sorry... I mean he was too theoretically
Curious layman Posted December 23, 2019 Author Posted December 23, 2019 Charles Darwin's work was based on observation and research over many years. Quote Darwin published his theory of evolution with compelling evidence in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species... His five-year voyage on HMS Beagle established him as an eminent geologist whose observations and theories supported Charles Lyell's conception of gradual geological change, and publication of his journal of the voyage made him famous as a popular author.[18]
dimreepr Posted December 23, 2019 Posted December 23, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Avy213 said: Am sorry... I mean he was too theoretically then Im guessing your visit here will be short... please show Im wrong. Edited December 23, 2019 by dimreepr
Strange Posted December 23, 2019 Posted December 23, 2019 2 hours ago, Curious layman said: Charles Darwin's work was based on observation and research over many years. And exactly the same conclusions were reached (at the same time) by Alfred Wallace, looking at the evidence on the other side of the world. So the idea it is "too theoretical" is obviously wrong. 3 hours ago, Avy213 said: He was took theoretically....😁 Darwin is renowned as a great botanist and biologist because the enormously detailed observations he made, in many fields (literally, in some cases!)
MigL Posted December 24, 2019 Posted December 24, 2019 More importantly... I can't believe you couldn't get a good sandwich in Princeton, New Jersey, in 1947. 1
Strange Posted December 24, 2019 Posted December 24, 2019 10 hours ago, MigL said: More importantly... I can't believe you couldn't get a good sandwich in Princeton, New Jersey, in 1947. No pumpernickel 1
Avy213 Posted December 25, 2019 Posted December 25, 2019 (edited) On 12/23/2019 at 8:56 PM, Strange said: And exactly the same conclusions were reached (at the same time) by Alfred Wallace, looking at the evidence on the other side of the world. So the idea it is "too theoretical" is obviously wrong. Darwin is renowned as a great botanist and biologist because the enormously detailed observations he made, in many fields (literally, in some cases!) I agree....but he failed in some areas like how variation among organisms occur... On 12/23/2019 at 6:15 PM, dimreepr said: then Im guessing your visit here will be short... please show Im wrong. Maybe u are right Edited December 25, 2019 by Avy213
Sensei Posted December 25, 2019 Posted December 25, 2019 On 12/23/2019 at 4:01 PM, Avy213 said: Am sorry... I mean he was too theoretically Theory in science does not mean the same as theory in civil world.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Recommended Posts