facebook Twitter RSS Feed YouTube StumbleUpon

Home | Forum | Chat | Tours | Articles | Pictures | News | Tools | History | Tourism | Search

 
 


Go Back   BanglaCricket Forum > Miscellaneous > Forget Cricket

Forget Cricket Talk about anything [within Board Rules, of course :) ]

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #126  
Old March 29, 2005, 07:29 PM
Orpheus's Avatar
Orpheus Orpheus is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: July 25, 2002
Favorite Player: Tamim, Riyad, Ashraful
Posts: 5,835

Quote:
Originally posted by fab
Orphy - IMO humans should be given the opportunity to have a dignified death. If someone is suffering from immense pain then they should be allowed to die peacefully. We kill animals who are in severe uncurable pain, but we do not give the same level of respect to humans because of our own selfish needs. That is just my simple take on the matter.

PS:
Quote:
Originally posted by Orpheus
When you mate with a girl - your egg cell and her sperm cell fuses.
Haha! You're hilarious. That is the funniest insult I've read in a long time.
I am not quiet clear on what you mean by "our own selfish needs" - wouldn't mind an explanation. As for having an oppurtunity at a "dignified" death, I wouldn't listen to anyone who is obviously not in the right mind. (funny how you phrased it, I think the death is more dignifying if you take the pain ).

I don't support Euthanasia of any sort and that's my simple take on the matter.

Anyways, it is indeed a very debatable topic. Kevorkian got into trouble for doing what he thought was right .

And now with the Schiavo case, the whole country is divided. I myself is very confused on my position regarding the matter. I simply think, as long as the heart is relatively beating and I feel the pulse - it's alive and we have to treat it like any other living human. Anything short would be a murder.

On the P.S. - thank GOD somebody spotted it. I actually was anticipating a quote of that and an attack saying I lack simple biological knowleadge Unfortunately, no one read it carefully enough! AFter all these things are boring

On Nayeem's post:

You should also check out his biography - just take a look at his "extraprofessional" activities.

Anyways, you are right! I give up. Since he is more intelligent than I am whatever he says must be right. Hope almighty give all of us enough intelligence to comprehend the mystery of this universe. Allah Hafez!
Reply With Quote

  #127  
Old March 29, 2005, 07:45 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Quote:
PS Dr David Menton is one of the many scientists against this theory, if you want I can give you names of other prominent scientists ....
Please do. I am looking for names of prominent biologists that have been working in a biology field within the last 50 years.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old March 29, 2005, 08:12 PM
nihi nihi is offline
ODI Cricketer
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 515

Quote:
Originally posted by Orpheus
[On the P.S. - thank GOD somebody spotted it. I actually was anticipating a quote of that and an attack saying I lack simple biological knowleadge Unfortunately, no one read it carefully enough! AFter all these things are boring
Cheer up! not everybody noticed it had missed the humor
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old March 29, 2005, 10:22 PM
imtiaz82 imtiaz82 is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2,120

Here you go,(I have given the names and a brief quote from a few of them..)

1)Stephen Jay Gould, the Harvard biologist calls this lack of gradual change in the fossil record the "trade secret" of modem paleontology.

2)Richard Goldschmidt, a leading geneticist who taught at Berkeley, spent years observing the mutations of fruitflies and concluded that biologists had to give up Darwin's idea that an accumulation of "micro" changes creates new species. If you have a thousand-point mutation in the genes of a fruit fly, a statistical impossibility, it is still a fruit fly.

oldschmidt pointed out that if natural selection were the mechanism for major changes in species, then every intermediate form must be useful to the organism. This problem of explaining the usefulness of incipient organs--five percent of an eye, for example--has been a persistent problem for Darwinists.

3)Otto Schindewolf, the great German paleontologist and anti-Darwinist, rejected out of hand the idea that transitional forms could be found or even imagined

4) Hans Driesch in Germany, Lucien Cuenot in France, and Vernon Kellog and T.H. Morgan in America-biologists and geneticists with international reputations-all rejected Darwin's theory.

5)Skepticism about Darwin's theory is more widespread among scientists than is generally supposed. For example, the theory is rejected by most French biologists, including the most eminent, the late Pieffe R Grasse, president of the French Academy of Sciences and editor of the 28 volumes of the Traite de Zoologie, who calls Darwinism a "pseudo-science" that is "either in conflict with reality or cannot solve the basic problems.


Quote:
Originally posted by Arnab

Please do. I am looking for names of prominent biologists that have been working in a biology field within the last 50 years.

Edited on, March 30, 2005, 3:23 AM GMT, by nayeem007.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old March 29, 2005, 10:46 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Stephen Jay Gould??? Are you serious? I am sorry but I don't believe that.

Can you show me where he rejected Evolution as a whole? As far as I know he doesn't concur with the mechanism of certain aspects of evolution as accepted by most biologists. But I always knew him as a strong proponent of Evolution.

Today's biologistss may disagree with particular versions of Darwin's theory of evolution for a VERY simple reason: Darwin's theory was the FIRST theory of its kind. And we now know a LOT more than Darwin did. Just because some biologists don't agree with SOME aspects of DARWIN's 19th century version of evolutionary theory doesn't mean they agree that evolution didn't happen.



Edited on, March 30, 2005, 5:45 AM GMT, by Arnab.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old March 29, 2005, 10:52 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Also, Richard Goldschmidt BARELY passes the 50 year criterion. He died WAY back in 1958! More than 46 years ago!

Edited on, March 30, 2005, 5:37 AM GMT, by Arnab.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old March 29, 2005, 11:04 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Otto Heinrich Schindewolf was a proponent of "orthogenetic evolution". Most early concepts of biological evolution were based on essentialism and mostly assumed a plan, a purpose of evolution "`implemented'' by the Creator. Such goal directed evolution concepts are sometimes designated orthogenetic evolution.

In theories proposing "orthogenetic evolution" (literally, straight line evolution), macroevolution is thought to be of a different calibre and process than microevolution. Nobody has been able to make a good case for orthogenesis since the 1950s, especially since the uncovering of molecular genetics between 1952 and the late 1960s.

According to Gould and others (Mayr, 1982), however, no directionality can be found in evolution, if studied in detail:

"Our impression that life evolves toward greater complexity is probably only a bias inspired by parochial focus on ourselves, and consequent overattention to complexifying creatures, while we ignore just as many lineages adapting equally well by becoming simpler in form. The morphologically degenerate parasite, safe within its host, has just as much prospect for evolutionary success as its gorgeously elaborate relative coping with the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune in a tough external world. "

[SJ Gould (1994) The evolution of life on the earth. Scientific American 271:4, 85-91}

Today orthogenetic theories are no longer accepted by most biologists because a clear overall tendency or direction cannot be detected in the development of or universe or the evolution of the various species.

[I got these info from Talk origins]

Edited on, March 30, 2005, 4:06 AM GMT, by Arnab.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old March 29, 2005, 11:08 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

The only reference of "Pieffe R Grasse" (in fact the exacy reference you are citing) on the internet is on a site named
www.catholiceducation.org/ !!!

I think the name is probably Pierre rather than Pieffe. Let me dig up some more.

ADD:

OK his actual name is Pierre P. Grasse.

Edited on, March 30, 2005, 4:10 AM GMT, by Arnab.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old March 29, 2005, 11:13 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Talk origins is awesome. It has everything you need to refute the creationists:

Quote:
Old, Out of Context Quotations from French Scientists: Part 1

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

- Prof. Louis Bounoure (Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research), as quoted in The Advocate, Thursday 8 March 1984, p. 17. (P. 5 of The Revised Quote Book)

So far as the research below demonstrates, this quotation appears to be a mistakenly jumbled combination of statements made by two different people at least 36 years ago! - Neither did the editors of The Revised Quote Book find enough room or honesty in their publication to discuss the social/historical context out of which the quotation(s) arose. The famous French scientist, Lamarck, was the first major scientific figure in Europe to seriously and strenuously propose "the theory of transformism" [today known as "the theory of evolution"]. So naturally, when the British "amateur scientist," Darwin, usurped Lamarck's throne to become known as the "father of transformism/evolution" the French were miffed. To them, Lamarck was the "father" of that theory. This basic disagreement must be taken into consideration whenever quotations from French scientists regarding "transformism" or "evolution" are cited, especially since those very words soon became identified with Darwin's (rather than Lamarck's) theory of "how" it occurred. This helps explain some quotations from French scientists wherein they showed disdain for "transformism/evolution." (However, note the very end of this article for the latest word on what French scientists think of evolution and even Darwin's theory!)

Grasse and the "Myth of Evolution"

Even until the 1970s there was at least one famous French scientist of the "old school," Pierre P. Grasse, who continued to voice strong reservations concerning Darwin's particular explanation (and the Neo-Darwinian explanation) of "how" evolution occurred. Not surprisingly, Grasse is quoted FIVE TIMES in The Revised Quote Book, because he wrote of the "myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon."

However, the editors of The Revised Quote Book neglect to tell their readers that in the same book by Grasse from which they have quoted, Grasse also stated in the most unequivocal terms: "Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the history of the living world ... [Also,] Embryogenesis provides valuable data [concerning evolutionary relationships] ... Chemistry, through its analytical data, directs biologists and provides guidance in their search for affinities between groups of animals or plants, and ... plays an important part in the approach to genuine evolution." (Pierre P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp. 3,4,5,7)

Of course, Grasse also tipped his hat to the French "father of evolution," Lamarck, stating: "Lamarckism, which is no less logical than Darwinism ... is a tempting theory ... and we would not be surprised to learn from molecular biology that some of its [Lamarckism's] intuitions are partly true...it should be considered today a way of thinking, of understanding nature, rather than a strict doctrine entirely oriented toward the explaining of evolution." (Pierre P. Grasse, p. 8)

The authors of The Revised Quote Book lifted Grasse's phrase, "the myth of evolution," out of context, trying to deceive others into believing that Grasse was doubtful of evolution even though he stated he "agreed" with the "nearly unanimous" scientific consensus that "evolution" was an historical scientific "fact." Grasse simply disagreed with explanations of exactly "how" evolution occurred. He felt the "how" part was not a "simple, understood, and explained phenomenon."

E.T. BABINSKI
Edited on, March 30, 2005, 4:14 AM GMT, by Arnab.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old March 29, 2005, 11:27 PM
jabbar's Avatar
jabbar jabbar is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: January 31, 2005
Location: Melbourne, Oz
Favorite Player: Don't want to jinx anyone
Posts: 1,191

i think this is a b***sh** thread.

Any rational, intelligent being cannot deny the existence of God. How you chosse to worship this Superior Being is up to the individual. Atheists, in my opinion, are escapists and have an empty, meaningless life. Arnab, what do you think the purpose of your life is? Do you have an answer for that one, smart-a**? And "living happily" will not suffice as an answer.

Edited on, March 30, 2005, 4:29 AM GMT, by jabbar.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old March 29, 2005, 11:36 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

I concede Jabbar. You have blown me away. I do lead a very empty, meaningless life. Poor me. Please pray for me so that I can see the light.

BTW, do read the disclaimer in the first post of this made-up "thread".
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old March 30, 2005, 12:58 AM
jabbar's Avatar
jabbar jabbar is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: January 31, 2005
Location: Melbourne, Oz
Favorite Player: Don't want to jinx anyone
Posts: 1,191

Don't care about the disclaimer. Within this thread, you have started a different line of discussion that I felt needed to be addressed.

In response to your comments:
1) Sarcasm is not an effective way to counter an argument. Children use sarcasm in such a way.

2) I won't pray for you. I'd rather pray for poor suffering people in the world who have to work hard to survive and don't waste time posting hate-messages on forums.

I'm out of here. Have a nice life

Edited on, March 30, 2005, 5:59 AM GMT, by jabbar.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old March 30, 2005, 01:03 AM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

I am sorry, I didn't notice your argument. What was it again?

So you just barged into this thread to call me irrational, unitelligent, empty, meaningless, and then chose retreat. Makes the references to "children" and "hate-message" a little ironic, don't you think?
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old March 30, 2005, 01:07 AM
Zunaid Zunaid is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: January 22, 2004
Posts: 22,100

Quote:
Originally posted by jabbar
i think this is a b***sh** thread.

Any rational, intelligent being cannot deny the existence of God. How you chosse to worship this Superior Being is up to the individual. Atheists, in my opinion, are escapists and have an empty, meaningless life. Arnab, what do you think the purpose of your life is? Do you have an answer for that one, smart-a**? And "living happily" will not suffice as an answer.

Edited on, March 30, 2005, 4:29 AM GMT, by jabbar.
As Mod: Jabbar, consider this a first warning for stooping to personal ad hominen attack. You have been warned.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old March 30, 2005, 01:09 AM
mwrkhan's Avatar
mwrkhan mwrkhan is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: January 27, 2005
Posts: 1,077

I said in a previous post that it would be my last one in this thread, but I am not talking about the non-existence of god now but rather evolution. A bit off topic.

Darwin's theory should properly be called the Darwin - Wallace theory of evolution. Alfred Russell Wallace was a contemporary of Darwin and, working as an entomologist in South East Asia, independently arrived at similar conclusions to Darwin.

As Arnab correctly points out, the French were miffed because Darwin was English and this ought to be taken into account whenever French pronouncements on evolution are concerned. Recall our own, subcontinental, or should I say Bengali, nationalism regarding the work of Jagadish Basu.

In the 19th century, science was not immune from the effects of jingoism. In this context one of the most celebrated paleontological hoaxes was perpetrated by no less an august body than the natural history museum of London with the notorious "Piltdown Man" affair. The German's had Neanderthal man, the French had Cro-Magnons , how could the British not have an early "man" of their own? One unscrupulous employee of the natural history museum planted fake humanoid fossil evidence in Piltdown , southern England to show that early man originated in England. Of course the hoax was susequently exposed and the museum, to its credit, retracted its stance.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old March 30, 2005, 01:30 AM
fab fab is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: June 30, 2003
Posts: 1,476

Quote:
Originally posted by Orpheus
I am not quiet clear on what you mean by "our own selfish needs" - wouldn't mind an explanation.
I just see it as our own 'selfish' need to cling on to our loved ones regardless of what they are suffering. Despite them being barely alive and/or in severe pain, we are content with this because WE can still interact with them. That is the selfish aspect of not letting 'go'.

Quote:
As for having an oppurtunity at a "dignified" death, I wouldn't listen to anyone who is obviously not in the right mind. (funny how you phrased it, I think the death is more dignifying if you take the pain ).
If the person is going to die soon anyway, why prolong their pain? Do you sit and watch insects dying slowly or do you kill them quickly?

Quote:
Originally posted by jabbar
What do you think the purpose of your life is?
Sorry to interrupt your discussion, but this quote sort of applies to your question

"Religion is really the universal quick-and-dirty answer: 'Your purpose is to obey/adore/praise/worship god X.' The interesting question comes when someone asks: 'OK, but what is the purpose of that?' I imagine someone having lived a good life and gone to heaven and thinking: 'So, what's the meaning of this then?' " - Dr Adrian Heathcote, Philosophy lecturer at the University of Sydney

So why did Allah create us? If you ask this to ANY religious scholar they will answer the same old "God's knowledge has no bounds, and only He knows the reason for our creation" or something equally vague. Which ever way you look at it, our existence is more or less without purpose.

FYI: I am not atheist or agnostic, so you may spare me the usual sermon.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old March 30, 2005, 01:50 AM
imtiaz82 imtiaz82 is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2,120

wow 4 replies by Arnab just to my one post

Stephen Jay Gold wrote numerous books against the "Natural Selection process" which was one of the basis of "Theory of evolution".He did not reject the theory outright, but made a drastic change to it.(which is very common about "theories" since they change with time unlike scientific "laws"0.

Among the other scientists I mentioned, some rejected the Evolution Theory outright (Hans Driesch in Germany, Lucien Cuenot in France, and Vernon Kellog and T.H. Morgan) while some went against particular aspects of the Theory.(Stephen Gold,Otto Schindewolf).

Basically my point is, when there is so much doubt and confusion in the scientific community regarding this, is this justifiable for someone here to use this theory as a means to say that facts in Quran are scientifically wrong.

As I was saying earlier, if someone wants to show scientific mistake in Quran he should use laws that have been proved or facts which has 100% authenticity.

Other than Quran, religious books like Bible mention many facts(ex. earth is flat, earth is center of the universe) which have been proven to be scientificall wrong..

Edited on, March 30, 2005, 6:52 AM GMT, by nayeem007.
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old March 30, 2005, 02:01 AM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

nayeem, I am not done with the other scientists (Hans Driesch in Germany, Lucien Cuenot in France, and Vernon Kellog and T.H. Morgan).

But first, do you concede that:

Gould maintains evolution is a fact and that he attempted to correct the "theory" of evolution?

Let me give you an analogous situation. Newton knew that gravity follows certain rules. Einstein also knew that gravity follows certain rules. But while Newton's explanation of gravity was from a classical mechanics point of view, Einstein's explanation is significantly (almost drastically) different from Newton's. But either way, both maintain that gravity is a fact.

So do you have any contrary evidence that Gould does not hold evolution as fact?

Second, I assume you concede that the French biologists you quoted were not proponents of evolution as a fact.

Third, I also assume that you concede that Otto Heinrich Schindewolf's theories have been rejected since 1950s.

Edited on, March 30, 2005, 7:05 AM GMT, by Arnab.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old March 30, 2005, 02:10 AM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

About Hans Driesch

This is his lifespan: 1867-1941

He died in 1941! His major works were published during 1910s and 1920s. And they were not works of biology, but a curious mixture of philosophy, parapsychology and biology.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old March 30, 2005, 02:12 AM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

About Lucien Cuenot

Lifespan: 1866-1951

Agains fails the criterion I set. If they are not even ALIVE for more than 50 years, how can they be representative of "so much doubt and confusion in the scientific community "??
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old March 30, 2005, 02:13 AM
imtiaz82 imtiaz82 is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2,120

You are comparing things which are not analogous. Newton and Einstein talked about "Law of Gravitation" which has been proved mathmetically and also by scientific experiments.(you won't find a single scientist saying that law of gravitation is wrong)

While Gould corrected a big aspect of a theory(which is nothing but a strong Hypothesis.) Most scientists don't say that evolution is a fact, they just think that evolution is the most probable cause behind the formation of current life forms (Fact is something that has been proved to be 100% true, not 80-90%)

That's what the whole debate is about. Some people in the forum is trying to pass the "Theory of Evoution" as fact while it is merely a strong hypothesis which may or may not be true.

As long as the whole scientific world(100%) don't comes to a definite conclusion regarding it or find an absolute proof to it without any opposition, using this theory to disprove anything is not valid.

Quote:
Originally posted by Arnab
nayeem, I am not done with the other scientists (Hans Driesch in Germany, Lucien Cuenot in France, and Vernon Kellog and T.H. Morgan).

But first, do you concede that:

Gould maintains evolution is a fact and that he attempted to correct the "theory" of evolution?

Let me give you an analogous situation. Newton knew that gravity follows certain rules. Einstein also knew that gravity follows certain rules. But while Newton's explanation of gravity was from a classical mechanics point of view, Einstein's explanation is significantly (almost drastically) different from Newton's. But either way, both maintain that gravity is a fact.

So do you have any contrary evidence that Gould does not hold evolution as fact?
Edited on, March 30, 2005, 7:19 AM GMT, by nayeem007.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old March 30, 2005, 02:16 AM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

About Vernon Lyman Kellogg

LIfespan: 1867 - 1937

This particular scientist died almost seventy years ago! He wrote Darwinism ToDay (1907), a general defense of Darwinism against both its vocal critics (AT THAT TIME) and overly enthusiastic supporters (ALSO AT THAT TIME).

Again, how is he representative of the "doubt and confusion" in current scientific community, 100 years later after his book?
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old March 30, 2005, 02:18 AM
imtiaz82 imtiaz82 is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2,120

He is one of the many scientists I have quoted.If I just quoted one scientist your reply would make sense

Quote:
Originally posted by Arnab
About Vernon Lyman Kellogg

LIfespan: 1867 - 1937

This particular scientist died almost seventy years ago! He wrote Darwinism ToDay (1907), a general defense of Darwinism against both its vocal critics (AT THAT TIME) and overly enthusiastic supporters (ALSO AT THAT TIME).

Again, how is he representative of the "doubt and confusion" in current scientific community, 100 years later after his book?
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old March 30, 2005, 02:27 AM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

About T.H. Morgan:

Lifespan: 1866-1945

Died 60 years ago. Here's a brief description of his life that DOES NOT show anywhere that he didn't think evolution wasn't a fact:

Quote:
"Morgan disagreed with Driesch on vitalism, but maintained a strong alliance with him on the importance of experimental methods. Morgan was interested in evolution, but skeptical of Darwinism, which he perceived to be too speculative and not grounded in observable phenomena. After 1900 he was also critical of Mendelism and the chromosomal theory of heredity.

In about 1908, Morgan began working with Drosophila. According to Garland Allen, he was trying to find macromutations a la Hugo de Vries, whom Morgan greatly admired. His approach was experimental evolution, an effort to distinguish among the evolutionary theories of the Darwinists, neo-Lamarckists, and de Vries by experimental breeding and Mendelian analysis. Before the turn of the century he was an opponent of Mendelism. As a professor at Columbia he became interested in experimental evolution. He worked closely with members of the Entwicklungsmechanik school, including Jacques Loeb, and pursued research in experimental embryology. It was probably Frank Lutz, a geneticist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington's Station for Experimental Evolution at Cold Spring Harbor, who introduced Morgan to the fruitfly Drosophila. This occurred in about 1907. He began using what was still basically a wild-type fly in experimental evolutionary studies, a precursor of later population genetics. Morgan selected for specific phontypic mutants in an effort to determine their selective value. The goal was to determine how heredity influenced evolution--another way to put it is to say he was trying to see whether either DeVriesian mutation or Mendelian heredity could be shown to drive Darwinian evolution. Studies of evolution, Morgan believed, should be done with non-domesticated organisms. Morgan began tinkering with the flies' environment to see if he could induce new mutations.

The white eye mutant, discovered in about 1908, marked the beginning of the most productive phase in Morgan's career. In 1910 Morgan began to find new mutations in Drosophila. Something in his protocol had worked, and his Drosophila colonies began to throw off mutations at an amazing rate. Robert Kohler calls this the "breeder reactor." With his small group, including Alfred Sturtevant, Calvin Bridges, and Hermann Muller, Morgan began to focus on Drosophila genetics and gene mapping. The "Fly Room" at Columbia became a bustling lab finely tuned for their mapping effort. Muller soon left the lab, but Bridges and Sturtevant stayed with Morgan for the rest of their careers (Bridges died in 1938; Sturtevant outlived Morgan).

In 1915, Morgan, Bridges, and Sturtevant published The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity, a defining tome that established Drosophila as a key model system in genetics and set the standard for Mendelian gene mapping efforts. In 1928 Morgan moved his group to Caltech, where they remained until Morgan's death. Morgan won the 1933 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine."
All in all, it looks like MOrgan was skeptical of evolution BEFORE 1900 and later in his life actually did seminal work on flies that SUPPORTS evolution via experiment and was given the nobel prize for doing it!
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old March 30, 2005, 02:28 AM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Quote:
Originally posted by nayeem007
He is one of the many scientists I have quoted.If I just quoted one scientist your reply would make sense
I think I have covered ALL the scientists you quoted. Tell me if there's any missing.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:31 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
BanglaCricket.com
 

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Partner Sites | Useful Links | Banners |

© BanglaCricket