Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 92 (8839 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-24-2018 11:33 PM
237 online now:
Capt Stormfield, DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (3 members, 234 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Calvin
Post Volume:
Total: 832,405 Year: 7,228/29,783 Month: 1,452/1,708 Week: 343/474 Day: 84/42 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3536
37
3839
...
51NextFF
Author Topic:   Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 541 of 760 (620029)
06-13-2011 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 532 by shadow71
06-13-2011 7:59 PM


Bad atheists! Bad!
Well be prepared there are many more scientific papers coming out that are seriously challenging the Atheistic view of evolution, which states, there cannot be anything but nature that is driving the Universe.

Unless you can come up with evidence you have nothing.

And from what we've seen, you have to misrepresent the various articles you're pushing, so that they say something far different from what the authors had actually said. Examples have been provided upthread.

So where is the evidence that there is any such thing as "supernatural" and that there are various deities out there?

Evidence, not ancient tribal myths.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 532 by shadow71, posted 06-13-2011 7:59 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16012
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 542 of 760 (620030)
06-13-2011 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 539 by shadow71
06-13-2011 9:00 PM


Re: You have got to be kidding me
Have you read the papers of Shapiro et. al that I have cited on this thread?
Do you disagree that these scientlist are in fact questioning the MS as presented?

They unquestionably think that evolutionary biology today is in advance of evolutionary biology in the 1930s (the "modern synthesis", so-called). They also seem quite pleased about this fact, as is every other evolutionist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 539 by shadow71, posted 06-13-2011 9:00 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

shadow71
Member (Idle past 709 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 543 of 760 (620031)
06-13-2011 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 534 by Panda
06-13-2011 8:09 PM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
Panda writes:


Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?
No?
I thought not.

Yes I do. I will be posting scientific papers in the future. Because of my Grandfather joys I may not be on board for awhile, but I will post the papers for discusion when I have the available time.

Looking forward to discussing them with you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 534 by Panda, posted 06-13-2011 8:09 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 544 by Panda, posted 06-13-2011 9:13 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1488 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 544 of 760 (620032)
06-13-2011 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 543 by shadow71
06-13-2011 9:08 PM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
shadow71 writes:

Panda writes:

Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?
No?
I thought not.


Yes I do. I will be posting scientific papers in the future.

So that is a 'No' then.

I didn't think you did, and you proved me correct.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 543 by shadow71, posted 06-13-2011 9:08 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

jar
Member
Posts: 30352
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 545 of 760 (620035)
06-13-2011 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 539 by shadow71
06-13-2011 9:00 PM


No kidding.
I did not quote myself, I pointed out that you have added nothing that contradicts what I pointed out back in Message number three so the last 539 messages have been irrelevant.

quote:
Do you disagree that these scientlist are in fact questioning the MS as presented?

YUP.

I am saying that they are NOT questioning the Modern Synthesis.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 539 by shadow71, posted 06-13-2011 9:00 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 546 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-13-2011 10:03 PM jar has not yet responded
 Message 547 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2011 10:18 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3858
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 546 of 760 (620042)
06-13-2011 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 545 by jar
06-13-2011 9:26 PM


You're pissing me off
Topics are not chat lines. Get more substance into your messages.

And don't reply to this message, in the context of this topic.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 545 by jar, posted 06-13-2011 9:26 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16012
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 547 of 760 (620044)
06-13-2011 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 545 by jar
06-13-2011 9:26 PM


Re: No kidding.
I am saying that they are NOT questioning the Modern Synthesis.

But see posts #194, #197, #198, #199. They are certainly not questioning modern evolutionary biology; but if by "the modern synthesis" we mean the state of evolutionary biology in the 1930s, they naturally join every other evolutionist in rejoicing at how far we've come since then


This message is a reply to:
 Message 545 by jar, posted 06-13-2011 9:26 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2372
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 548 of 760 (620080)
06-14-2011 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 532 by shadow71
06-13-2011 7:59 PM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
That I read and discuss views by scientist that challenge the "THEORY' really bothers you doesn't it Manny?

You asked me a question and I answered. That the answer was not to your liking shouldn't surprise you. Are you really yet to work out that this is a debate site? Why so shocked at an opposing view?

I have already told you what bothers me. It is that those ignorant of science, a category that most assuredly includes yourself, seek to replace it with superstition. You asked me where Catholic dogma on evolution has been falsified. I told you. You have no answer, so you resort to childish taunts and whining. You misrepresented Pigliucci, several of us clearly demonstrated that his views are actually the opposite of what you claimed. You have no answer for that either, so you once again resort to whining. It is a sad spectacle.

Well be prepared there are many more scientific papers coming out that are seriously challenging the Atheistic view of evolution,

You haven't cited one yet.

which states, there cannot be anything but nature that is driving the Universe.

You are confusing Philosophical Materialism with Methodological Materialism. Try again when you have something of substance.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 532 by shadow71, posted 06-13-2011 7:59 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16012
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 549 of 760 (620083)
06-14-2011 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 536 by Mazzy
06-13-2011 8:27 PM


I heard the creationist preacher; he said:
"Evolution is constantly forging ahead
and we learn more and more every day;
from Darwin's first thoughts, it's developed at length
to a theory possessed of great scope and great strength ---
which is why we should throw it away."

"By dint of research that is terribly clever
the theory is finer and better than ever
and should be dismantled for scrap;
Since Darwin first published, it's grown more profound,
and more accurate, evidenced, detailed and sound,
which proves that it's totally crap."

"It's a truth that is known to the fundie elect
that every step forward is twenty steps back:
if someone grows wiser in every respect
then this proves that he doesn't know jack."

And I marveled to hear as he prated at length
of how progress must indicate weakness, not strength
'til I felt I had something to add.
"If it's true what you say", I exclaimed with delight,
"that in getting much righter, we cease to be right
then all modern science is bad."

"How foolish I feel to have spent my time cheering
advances in science, design, engineering,
that ought to have caused me to curse
if only I'd heeded creationist sages ---
since things have improved since the late Middle Ages
it's clear that they must have got worse."

"For nothing was ever improved by improvement;
no theory that's strengthened will last very long;
to go forging ahead is a retrograde movement;
and things we've corrected are bound to be wrong."

"The chemists have grown more precise and exact,
thus proving that nothing they say is a fact:
(it was better by far to be vague);
and every improvement in medicine teaches
we ought to go back to blood-letting and leeches
and die of the bubonic plague."

"In math we've been having unbroken success
which informs us we're doing it wrong, I would guess
and proves, as one has to suppose
that it isn't as good as in ages of yore ---
let's return to the way that we did it before
and count on our fingers and toes."

"For every improvement's a form of decline
and every advance is a shameful retreat;
when you're making no progress, you're doing just fine,
but a victory counts as defeat."

"In physics, we've come very far, very fast,
which proves it was better in ages gone past
before Einstein and Pauli and Bohr.
You can keep modern physics --- I hope the whole lot'll
be scrapped, and we'll just resurrect Aristotle
and not use our brains any more."

"And so" (I went on) "in biology too,
since it keeps on improving, what else should we do
but hearken and heed to your call
to set aside science, and blindly subscribe
to the primitive myths of an ignorant tribe
which never get better at all."

"Increasing in wisdom's the mark of a fool
and every advance is a form of regress.
In science, let's follow this excellent rule:
there's nothing that fails like success."

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 536 by Mazzy, posted 06-13-2011 8:27 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1870 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 550 of 760 (620093)
06-14-2011 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 540 by Dr Adequate
06-13-2011 9:01 PM


Re: You have got to be kidding me
To produce a paradigm shift it is not sufficient to be original, you also have to be right, which is kinda where Sandford falls down.

Sanford original, srsly? He's just put a shiny patina of academic respectability on Walter Remine's tired old Haldane's dilemma schtick which he's been pounding out since at least the 90s.

They've even collaborated together on the "Mendel's accountant" software.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2011 9:01 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10596
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 551 of 760 (620115)
06-14-2011 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 505 by shadow71
06-12-2011 7:19 PM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
shadow71 writes:

Pigliucci cannot use those terms because he is an Atheist dedicated to the BELIEF not scientific fact that evolution cannot be planned.
Shapiro has the intestinal fortitude to say what his research reveals, not what the protectors of the MS say you must say.

Yet you don't even know what natural selection is. Shapiro talks about the role of negative selection on genetic engineering produced changes and his words won't enter your head.

We know you are motivated reader who does not understand biology particularly well. You've been caught in any number of interpretation errors when reading these papers, all in favor of your own position. So why would anyone accept your reading of Pigliucci paper over Pigliucci's own interpretation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 505 by shadow71, posted 06-12-2011 7:19 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 417 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


(1)
Message 552 of 760 (620139)
06-14-2011 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 537 by Dr Adequate
06-13-2011 8:50 PM


Just an opinion?
Actually, it isn't necessary for ideologues to "silence" Pigliucci when he says: "This, contrary to the misleading claims of creationists and other pseudoscientists, is no harbinger of a crisis but rather the opposite [...] none of these additions have in any way undermined the foundations of the Darwinian edifice".

Nice find, Dr. A!

Allow me to quote the whole abstract for shadow.

Evolutionary theory is undergoing an intense period of discussion and reevaluation. This, contrary to the misleading claims of creationists and other pseudoscientists, is no harbinger of a crisis but rather the opposite: the field is expanding dramatically in terms of both empirical discoveries and new ideas. In this essay I briefly trace the conceptual history of evolutionary theory from Darwinism to neo-Darwinism, and from the Modern Synthesis to what I refer to as the Extended Synthesis, a more inclusive conceptual framework containing among others evo-devo, an expanded theory of heredity, elements of complexity theory, ideas about evolvability, and a reevaluation of levels of selection. I argue that evolutionary biology has never seen a paradigm shift, in the philosophical sense of the term, except when it moved from natural theology to empirical science in the middle of the 19th century. The Extended Synthesis, accordingly, is an expansion of the Modern Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s, and one that--like its predecessor--will probably take decades to complete.

Are you going to dismiss this as "just an opinion" as well?
As I mentioned upthread, dismiss Pigluicci's expert opinion and you must dismiss Shapiro's.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 537 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2011 8:50 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

shadow71
Member (Idle past 709 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 553 of 760 (620368)
06-15-2011 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 522 by Wounded King
06-13-2011 4:56 PM


Both Shapiro and Pigliuccci are saying that micro and macro evolRe: Define your terms
Both Shapiro and Pigliuccci are saying that micro and macro evolution are not the same, ie. macroevolution is not just gradual micro evolution.
If correct does that require a change to the MS?

Wounded King writes:


think this runs into a definitional issue of what exactly everyone means by macroevolution.

Mayr stated in his 1963 book "Animal Species and Evolution" that the synthetic therory maintains that all evolution is due to the accumulation of small genetic changes guided by natural selection, and that transpecific evolution (macroevolution) is nothing more than an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species (microevolution).

Is that a a valid definition today?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by Wounded King, posted 06-13-2011 4:56 PM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 554 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-15-2011 9:43 PM shadow71 has responded
 Message 555 by Wounded King, posted 06-16-2011 4:20 AM shadow71 has responded
 Message 556 by molbiogirl, posted 06-16-2011 10:28 AM shadow71 has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16012
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 554 of 760 (620372)
06-15-2011 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 553 by shadow71
06-15-2011 8:40 PM


Re: Both Shapiro and Pigliuccci are saying that micro and macro evolRe: Define your terms
Both Shapiro and Pigliuccci are saying that micro and macro evolution are not the same, ie. macroevolution is not just gradual micro evolution.

NB: Not a quotation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 553 by shadow71, posted 06-15-2011 8:40 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 565 by shadow71, posted 06-16-2011 3:48 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1870 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 555 of 760 (620390)
06-16-2011 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 553 by shadow71
06-15-2011 8:40 PM


Changing to another undefined term doesn't really help
Both Shapiro and Pigliuccci are saying that micro and macro evolution are not the same, ie. macroevolution is not just gradual micro evolution.
If correct does that require a change to the MS?

Wow you just won't get the message will you no matter how many people tell you how many times. The answer is no because the MS is a very specific thing. There is no way to modify the population genetic basis of the MS to accomodate some of the events that have occurred during the diversification of life on Earth.

What is required is the information and models from the other relevant fields that encompass those mechanisms distinct from microevolutionary ones and a framework on which to identify when these mechanisms have been in operation. That is why Pigliucci calls it an extended synthesis, because we need additional mechanism to explain those situations for which a molecular pop. gen. model is insufficient.

Is that a a valid definition today?

In the majority of cases it probably is, but as I said in my earlier post there are obviously some evolutionary events, such as the endosymbiotic origins of mitochondria and chloroplasts, which are necessary to explain the diversity of life on earth and for which the MS is insufficient.

All you have really done is change the question to what you mean by transpecific evolution. There is a very wide range of things this could encompass, from changes in recently isolated sister species to differences between the animal and plant kingdoms.

So rather than quoting Mayr why don't you actually tell me what you understand transpecific evolution to mean.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 553 by shadow71, posted 06-15-2011 8:40 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 568 by shadow71, posted 06-16-2011 3:57 PM Wounded King has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
3536
37
3839
...
51NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018