Is Natural Selection the greatest scientific discovery ever?

hmm not really. Regardless of whether I completely agree or disagree with it, its not that groundbreaking. GazaAli

Not that groundbreaking? :-/

Depends what you assume the purpose of science is. If it's to make life better for people, then no, natural selection isn't useful, at all.

Love that show, I try to catch it whenever the reruns play. Natural selection is easily one of the best, but when it comes down to it there is no absolute best discovery.

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]hmm not really. Regardless of whether I completely agree or disagree with it, its not that groundbreaking. Human-after-all

Not that groundbreaking? :-/

[QUOTE="Human-after-all"]

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]hmm not really. Regardless of whether I completely agree or disagree with it, its not that groundbreaking. rawsavon

Not that groundbreaking? :-/

[QUOTE="Human-after-all"]

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]hmm not really. Regardless of whether I completely agree or disagree with it, its not that groundbreaking. rawsavon

Not that groundbreaking? :-/

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

How the **** is the periodic table of the elements a discovery - it's an invention!?

magicalclick

It's a tool.

Depends what you assume the purpose of science is. If it's to make life better for people, then no, natural selection isn't useful, at all.

Palantas

Natural selection is used to fight virus inflictions.

alexside1

Can you describe this?

I was under the impression that nothing tops sliced bread.

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

Natural selection is used to fight virus inflictions.

Palantas

Can you describe this?

Sickle Cell Anemia vs Malaria

[QUOTE="I"]

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

Natural selection is used to fight virus inflictions.

byof_america

Can you describe this?

Sickle Cell Anemia vs Malaria

Hmmm...

• "What is malaria?"
• "How does a mosquito transmit malaria?"

I'm not sorting through this FAQ about malaria. I'm mildly interested in the subject. Mostly I wanted to see if the guy I quoted could explain it here.

Hmmm...

• "What is malaria?"
• "How does a mosquito transmit malaria?"

I'm not sorting through this FAQ about malaria. I'm mildly interested in the subject. Mostly I wanted to see if the guy I quoted could explain it here.

Palantas

Sorry about that, I didn't realize the article didn't have it's own page.

"Does sickle cell anaemia confer malaria immunity?

A gene coded for the manufacture of abnormal hemoglobin, the "working" constituent of red blood cells, causes sickle cell anemia. It is thought that aboriginal Vendoids, who left their native India and came to Africa, introduced sickle cell to Africa around 4000 years ago21. When a child inherits sickle cell genes from both parents, the resulting anemia can cause eventual death. However if only one parent passes on the abnormal gene and the other contributes a normal hemoglobin gene, the resultant "diluted" sickle cell anemia protects against the effects ofP. falciparummalaria.

Although sickle cell children are just as likely to contract malaria as non-sickle cell children, the effects of the disease are less severe, and the duration of the malaria attack is likely to be shorter. As sickle cell children grow up, they will have greater acquired immunity to the disease and are more likely to survive the disease than non-sickle cell people.

A recent study in the Lancet22found that the sickle cell gene, "...provides significant protection against all-cause mortality, severe malarial anemia and high density parasitemia. This significant reduction in mortality was detected between the ages of 2 and 16 months, the highest risk period for severe malarial anemia in this area. These data are important in understanding the role of malaria in the selection and maintenance of the sickle cell gene."

21See Robert Desowitz,The Malaria Capers,New York: Norton, 1991, p 147."

In essence, they have people who have some form of sickle cell anemia mate with those who don't in order to form a resistance to malaria which is a huge problem in parts of Africa.

I'd personally give it to Newton's Second Law of Motion, just for the ridiculous influence that that had on our understanding of motion and the practice of mechanical engineering. Natural selection is pretty damn awesome for Biology though, so it's not a bad pick.

2. The periodic table of the elements wasn't even a discovery; it was an invention, unless they're referring to the discovery that atoms with the same number of valence electrons exhibit similar behaviors.

GabuEx

Yeah, that's really odd. And really easy to fix, too, they could've given it to Periodic Law instead of Periodic Table and they'd get the exact same point across without so much backlash from wannabe scientists on the internet :P

I'd personally give it to Newton's Second Law of Motion, just for the ridiculous influence that that had on our understanding of motion and the practice of mechanical engineering. Natural selection is pretty damn awesome for Biology though, so it's not a bad pick.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

2. The periodic table of the elements wasn't even a discovery; it was an invention, unless they're referring to the discovery that atoms with the same number of valence electrons exhibit similar behaviors.

MetroidPrimePwn

Yeah, that's really odd. And really easy to fix, too, they could've given it to Periodic Law instead of Periodic Table and they'd get the exact same point across without so much backlash from wannabe scientists on the internet :P

Well to be fair, I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who complained about that one, so I'm the only wannabe science from whom they received backlash on that one. :P

Depends what you assume the purpose of science is. If it's to make life better for people, then no, natural selection isn't useful, at all.

Palantas

The understanding of how evolution functions is absolutely fundamental in medicine to the proper handling of diseases caused by microorganisms capable of extremely rapid multiplication. It allows us, for example, a far greater understanding of the behavior of infectious strains such as influenza, and what to watch out for, that was simply unavailable in 1918.

I had just finished watching the 100 greatest discoveries in science series on the Discovery Science channel.

The first place goes to Charles Darwin with Natural Selection

The second and third place consecutively go to Einstein with General Relativity in second and E=MC^2 in the third position.

The fourth is The Periodic Table of Elements by Medelev.

What gives me a headache is why no Electromagnetism in top 10?

On topic, do you agree with the first choice?

Speak your mind.

Ravenchrome

natural selection shouldn`t even be in the top 50 discoveries. it is a very basic principle really, those who survive pass down their genetic information.

natural selection shouldn`t even be in the top 50 discoveries. it is a very basic principle really, those who survive pass down their genetic information.

gogly

A lot of very important discoveries are very basic. The actual mathematical expression of Newton's second law of motion is 6th grade algebra (and not even like final test 6th grade algebra, more like first day of algebra algebra), but it's an absolute necessity for rocket science (which I'm told by axiom is rather difficult :P).

[QUOTE="gogly"]

natural selection shouldn`t even be in the top 50 discoveries. it is a very basic principle really, those who survive pass down their genetic information.

MetroidPrimePwn

A lot of very important discoveries are very basic. The actual mathematical expression of Newton's second law of motion is 6th grade algebra (and not even like final test 6th grade algebra, more like first day of algebra algebra), but it's an absolute necessity for rocket science (which I'm told by axiom is rather difficult :P).

Although, technically speaking, rocket science requires the proper formulation of it, not the simplified "F = ma" form that one first learns in science class.

[QUOTE="I"]

Depends what you assume the purpose of science is. If it's to make life better for people, then no, natural selection isn't useful, at all.

GabuEx

The understanding of how evolution functions is absolutely fundamental in medicine to the proper handling of diseases caused by microorganisms capable of extremely rapid multiplication. It allows us, for example, a far greater understanding of the behavior of infectious strains such as influenza, and what to watch out for, that was simply unavailable in 1918.

So this has created useful products?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="I"]

Depends what you assume the purpose of science is. If it's to make life better for people, then no, natural selection isn't useful, at all.

Palantas

The understanding of how evolution functions is absolutely fundamental in medicine to the proper handling of diseases caused by microorganisms capable of extremely rapid multiplication. It allows us, for example, a far greater understanding of the behavior of infectious strains such as influenza, and what to watch out for, that was simply unavailable in 1918.

So this has created useful products?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="I"]

Depends what you assume the purpose of science is. If it's to make life better for people, then no, natural selection isn't useful, at all.

Palantas

The understanding of how evolution functions is absolutely fundamental in medicine to the proper handling of diseases caused by microorganisms capable of extremely rapid multiplication. It allows us, for example, a far greater understanding of the behavior of infectious strains such as influenza, and what to watch out for, that was simply unavailable in 1918.

So this has created useful products?

"Useful products" are the only thing that can make life better for people? :?

"Useful products" are the only thing that can make life better for people? :?

GabuEx

I'll answer your question in the same fashion as you answered mine: With a non-answer.

As opposed to useless products?

EDIT:

Don't answer that. We got all the sarcasm out of our systems now, so we can move on.

So, are you telling me that understanding the theory of natural selection has allowed scientists in the 20th century to create new medicines? I think that's what you're telling me, but I'm not 100% sure.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

"Useful products" are the only thing that can make life better for people? :?

Palantas

I'll answer your question in the same fashion as you answered mine: With a non-answer.

As opposed to useless products?

The theory of evolution has enabled modern medicine to progress by leaps and bounds. That's not something packaged in a product, however, so as such, no, it has not led to "useful products" in the common understanding of the term, unless you consider medical treatments and knowledge leading to effective pandemic preparation to be a "product".

So, are you telling me that understanding the theory of natural selection has allowed scientists in the 20th century to create new medicines? I think that's what you're telling me, but I'm not 100% sure.

Palantas

It's the theory of evolution (natural selection is just a part of it, but that's what Discovery was referring to), but yes. Thanks to the theory of evolution, we now understand how bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics and how viruses mutate and become more virulent, both of which have contributed heavily to proper, effective treatment of diseases and to proper preparation for outbreaks and pandemics.

The theory of evolution has enabled modern medicine to progress by leaps and bounds. That's not something packaged in a product, however, so as such, no, it has not led to "useful products" in the common understanding of the term, unless you consider medical treatments and knowledge leading to effective pandemic preparation to be a "product".

It's the theory of evolution (natural selection is just a part of it, but that's what Discovery was referring to), but yes. Thanks to the theory of evolution, we now understand how bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics and how viruses mutate and become more virulent, both of which have contributed heavily to proper, effective treatment of diseases and to proper preparation for outbreaks and pandemics.

GabuEx

I think what you're telling me is that thetheory of evolution has enhanced our ability to treat diseases, but has not led to the creation of any specific drug. Is that accurate?

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="Human-after-all"]

Not that groundbreaking? :-/

Ravenchrome

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

The theory of evolution has enabled modern medicine to progress by leaps and bounds. That's not something packaged in a product, however, so as such, no, it has not led to "useful products" in the common understanding of the term, unless you consider medical treatments and knowledge leading to effective pandemic preparation to be a "product".

It's the theory of evolution (natural selection is just a part of it, but that's what Discovery was referring to), but yes. Thanks to the theory of evolution, we now understand how bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics and how viruses mutate and become more virulent, both of which have contributed heavily to proper, effective treatment of diseases and to proper preparation for outbreaks and pandemics.

Palantas

I think what you're telling me is that thetheory of evolution has enhanced our ability to treat diseases, but has not led to the creation of any specific drug. Is that accurate?

I say the discovery of how to create fire would have had a larger impact on humanity.

[QUOTE="I"]

I think what you're telling me is that thetheory of evolution has enhanced our ability to treat diseases, but has not led to the creation of any specific drug. Is that accurate?

Ravenchrome

That show was about how a scientific theories propel, deepen and even revolutionize our understanding of the universe. Of existence, corporeally.

Thanks, that clears up everything.

Anyway, it seems I was in error. I retract this statement:

Depends what you assume the purpose of science is. If it's to make life better for people, then no, natural selection isn't useful, at all.

I