Better Scientist: Isaac Newton or Charles Darwin?

Theory of evolution versus law of gravity. I think that probably says enough.

Newton. He f ucking invented calculus for christ's sake.

See what I did ther?

Newton undeniably is the better scientist. Darwin was insightful, more like a philosopher than a scientist.

Both are heretics...hoohoohoo...ahaaaaaaaHERETICS!!! BURN THE WITCHES!!!!

I'm divided on this one.

Newton couldn't figure outa physics problem out so he was like "Screw it I'm going to make calculus"...All Darwin ever did was piss off a bunch of southerners and right wingers.

Whiskers the Magic Kitty wrote:

Newton couldn't figure outa physics problem out so he was like "Screw it I'm going to make calculus"...All Darwin ever did was piss off a bunch of southerners and right wingers.

LOL! Good one!

It's like comparing apples and telephone poles, really.

Darwin's notion of evolution by natural selection has been called the best idea ever. Newton (and Leibniz) invented the calculus.

Newton theorized from reasoning, and relatively small amounts of data collection. Darwin compiled a mountain of evidence before publishing. In that sense, Darwin might better fit today's definition of a scientist.

But they were really different types.

u6e wrote:

It's like comparing apples and telephone poles, really.

This just about says it all. The thing with both these guys is celebrity status though. Once people get as well known as Newton and Darwin, their actual accomplishments get overlooked, or overblown. It's probably safe to say that Darwin's work will have a more lasting impact--Newton's accomplishments would have been achieved by one of many other physicist/mathematicians in the near future, whereas Darwin's work changed our outlook on human life completely.

the cancer guy wrote:

Theory of evolution versus law of gravity. I think that probably says enough.

You're right. The theory of evolution is much more understood and more readily explained than the law of universal gravitation.

The real issue here though is a misunderstanding of what a law and theory is. A law isn't more scientifically valid than a theory. In fact, they sort of work together. Scientific laws describe and predict "what" will happen. Theories describe "why."

For example, the theory of evolution depends on the law of inheritance. Likewise the theory of gravity depends on Newton's law of universal gravitation.

Despite the fact that we can readily observe gravity, it is not very well understood. There are many unexplained aspects of the theory, including some situations where our laws don't work. This is why the Higgs Boson is so important. It is believed that this particle may have something to do with the property of mass, which is related to gravity.

That's an interesting take on it. In many ways, Darwin's theory of evolution is more complete than our entire understanding of gravity today. Regardless, both thinkers will be remembered as two of the most important contributors to humanity's understanding of the world.

Absolutely two of the people who have made the largest impact on our understanding of the world. No question about that.

George Washington Carver. The peanut man.

Newton we may not understand everything

Darwin too many gaps

Winner...Newton

Both very important.

Overall winner...the man who created beer.

Walden Pond wrote:

u6e wrote:

It's like comparing apples and telephone poles, really.

This just about says it all. The thing with both these guys is celebrity status though. Once people get as well known as Newton and Darwin, their actual accomplishments get overlooked, or overblown. It's probably safe to say that Darwin's work will have a more lasting impact--Newton's accomplishments would have been achieved by one of many other physicist/mathematicians in the near future, whereas Darwin's work changed our outlook on human life completely.

I don't understand your logic. Everything you just said about each of those guys can be said about both of them. Darwin's idea was the one most likely to be created by someone else in my opinion (since it didn't require any in-depth understanding of something like math).

And what impact has evolution really had on us? More than that of calculus?Sure, some religious scrutiny and a bit more free-thinking, but Calculus is the basis for all of hard science.

The law of universal gravitation is so simple that you can make high school students figure it out for themselves. Calculus was clever, but it's not science, it's math, and Leibniz invented it at the same time, and if neither of them had, some other mathematician would have before long just because there was a need for it.

The theory of evolution isn't that clever either. It doesn't take too many brains to know creatures inherit traits, and only a few more brains to figure out that the good traits survive and the bad traits die. It became famous because it was controversial, not brilliant.

So neither of them was that great a scientist, they just happened to be in the right place at the right time to be called a great scientist.

Einstein wasn't a great scientist either. Niels Bohr was a pretty good scientist, for figuring out how chemicals are put together. Mendel was a good scientist for figuring out genetic inheritance. Marie Curie was a good scientist for inventing radioactivity. Mendel and Curie paved the way for most Marvel superheroes.

But they weren't great scientists. Rostislav Alexeyev, the inventor of the Ekranoplan, was a great scientist. Alfred Nobel the inventor of smokeless gunpowder was a great, and also evil, scientist.

Exactly what I was going to say. What good does macroevolution do for us? Not much. If one makes the argument that understanding bacteria and breeding animals and plants is part of Darwin's idea, then it has important applications, but that is more Mendel's genetic model. Calculus however has much wider applications that directly influence our lives.However, that does not make one a "better scientist."

And what impact has evolution really had on us? More than that of calculus?Sure, some religious scrutiny and a bit more free-thinking, but Calculus is the basis for all of hard science.

looker wrote:

I don't understand your logic. Everything you just said about each of those guys can be said about both of them. Darwin's idea was the one most likely to be created by someone else in my opinion (since it didn't require any in-depth understanding of something like math).

And what impact has evolution really had on us? More than that of calculus?Sure, some religious scrutiny and a bit more free-thinking, but Calculus is the basis for all of hard science.

Darwin's theory was based on years of observation, which is why it would've been very hard to duplicate. The man hours combined with very solid theory make Darwin's work an incredible accomplishment.

Newton is the disputed creator of calculus--Leibniz was right there. So obviously, calculus was being invented either way. Hard to give Newton god tier for inventing something that was simultaneously being invented by another mathematician.

As for the impact of the Theory of Evolution--it is far greater than just causing religious disputes. It helps us understand life down to its very origins. Where we came from and where we're bound to go.

But like I originally said, both men are overplayed and overblown. The guys out there doing real important work remain nameless. Once you're popular, your ideas are bound to be maimed and mangled by the public.

Walden Pond wrote:

As for the impact of the Theory of Evolution--it is far greater than just causing religious disputes. It helps us understand life down to its very origins. Where we came from and where we're bound to go.

.

What do those statements mean? What specifically has the idea of evolution directly done for us?