Yesterday, I was reading this blog post, by a friend of mine. The post was quibble based- It was intended to test the credibility of Darwin's findings [Theories and hypothesis] and on whether Darwin's thoughts were just a mere faulty research.
I just thought about it, and felt that there was a better bread that Darwin could be fed with, and he infact deserves more to his theories that whats he's been pinned with. So, what I thought was to provide Darwin with a place on my blog and what follwed that are these pro-Darwin thoughts of mine..:)
Well,firstly I wouldn't like to compare Darwin with either Newton or Einstein even though they belonged to a contemporary and uni-planar age; Its simply because they worked on three parametric components of science.
But all said I would still give it to Darwin for his Out of the Box thoughts, more so, because of his field of research. If we look back at the innovations made by Newton and Einstein, we could see a common chunk involved- They both worked on those aspects of science that needed mathematics, and by mathematics I mean events of finite possibilities. I think Physics and Mathematics are more concerned with "Why?" and "Why not?"- Simply because they are applied on those events that the scientist has seen it happen; Remember that, answering question on a event that you've seen happening aint as tough as answering questions that you've never seen..
Metaphorically put, I could relate this trade-off to something like a layman being asked about "why does sun shine?" and "why does a bus move?".The answer to the latter would be pretty much obvious and finite- A bus moves because there is an intention for the driver to move it, there are energy conversions, the engine produces torque, so on and so forth.
Now, lets trying find the plausible answers to the former question- "Why does sun shine?" Well, the immediate answer could only be "It shines may be due to the multi-billio-zillion atomic bombardments over there at the sun's surface".
Were you able to spot the difference?. There is a highly ambiguous "MAY BE" in the formers argument!. And that's what life-science deals with- It deals with a sample space of infinitely possible events, on the other hand, physics and math also deal with a very large sample space, but they only concerned with a subset of the sample space.
Coming to the loopholes in Darwins theory, I think that such things are bound to happen when you are traveling in a multipathway junction or perhaps a more conspicuous example would be that of a discoverer- Imagine the number of times Columbus would have failed to reach his destination, imagine a discoverer trying to set pathways at the thickest of the thick forests at the Amazons.- Dont you think their initial step in itself is a humongous contribution towards the result?!.
Well, I think that Darwins contribution to evolution can as well be credited with one such tag, he might not have been right- But, i think he was more like a "Greedy Algorithm" who might not always lead to the destination, who might not always tread on an optimal path. But, whats important is that it forms the benchmark for other principles to improve on it..
And thats research aint it?!
I just thought about it, and felt that there was a better bread that Darwin could be fed with, and he infact deserves more to his theories that whats he's been pinned with. So, what I thought was to provide Darwin with a place on my blog and what follwed that are these pro-Darwin thoughts of mine..:)
Well,firstly I wouldn't like to compare Darwin with either Newton or Einstein even though they belonged to a contemporary and uni-planar age; Its simply because they worked on three parametric components of science.
But all said I would still give it to Darwin for his Out of the Box thoughts, more so, because of his field of research. If we look back at the innovations made by Newton and Einstein, we could see a common chunk involved- They both worked on those aspects of science that needed mathematics, and by mathematics I mean events of finite possibilities. I think Physics and Mathematics are more concerned with "Why?" and "Why not?"- Simply because they are applied on those events that the scientist has seen it happen; Remember that, answering question on a event that you've seen happening aint as tough as answering questions that you've never seen..
Metaphorically put, I could relate this trade-off to something like a layman being asked about "why does sun shine?" and "why does a bus move?".The answer to the latter would be pretty much obvious and finite- A bus moves because there is an intention for the driver to move it, there are energy conversions, the engine produces torque, so on and so forth.
Now, lets trying find the plausible answers to the former question- "Why does sun shine?" Well, the immediate answer could only be "It shines may be due to the multi-billio-zillion atomic bombardments over there at the sun's surface".
Were you able to spot the difference?. There is a highly ambiguous "MAY BE" in the formers argument!. And that's what life-science deals with- It deals with a sample space of infinitely possible events, on the other hand, physics and math also deal with a very large sample space, but they only concerned with a subset of the sample space.
Coming to the loopholes in Darwins theory, I think that such things are bound to happen when you are traveling in a multipathway junction or perhaps a more conspicuous example would be that of a discoverer- Imagine the number of times Columbus would have failed to reach his destination, imagine a discoverer trying to set pathways at the thickest of the thick forests at the Amazons.- Dont you think their initial step in itself is a humongous contribution towards the result?!.
Well, I think that Darwins contribution to evolution can as well be credited with one such tag, he might not have been right- But, i think he was more like a "Greedy Algorithm" who might not always lead to the destination, who might not always tread on an optimal path. But, whats important is that it forms the benchmark for other principles to improve on it..
And thats research aint it?!
