Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is evolution so controversial?
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 31 of 969 (723965)
04-11-2014 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Cedre
04-10-2014 4:29 PM


When I started my General Medicine course some three years ago, I was surprised to discover just how modest a role Evolution plays in medical school, aside from an introduction level treatment (1st year) it only received passing mentions for the most part.
In car mechanic school, the students are not taught about stellar nucleosynthesis and how the iron in those engines came to be. Doctors are glorified car mechanics. They are taught enough about biology to allow them to fix humans. The scientists who do basic science research in biology are the ones that need to understand evolution, and they will tell you how it has a major impact in their studies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Cedre, posted 04-10-2014 4:29 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 32 of 969 (723966)
04-11-2014 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Dr Adequate
04-11-2014 10:00 AM


More confusion!
I wasn't making an argument from popularity. I simply said more scientists are questioning Neo-Darwinism. Now if I had said because more scientists are questioning Neo-Darwinism, therefore Neo-Darwinism is wrong, then you could charge me of making an argument from consensus. The reason I said this was to show how evolution is contentious. I hope this is clear!
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2014 10:00 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Taq, posted 04-11-2014 12:10 PM Cedre has replied
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2014 1:21 PM Cedre has not replied
 Message 72 by Theodoric, posted 04-11-2014 3:08 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 33 of 969 (723967)
04-11-2014 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Cedre
04-11-2014 12:07 PM


Re: More confusion!
I simply said more scientists are questioning Noe-Darwinism.
Why did you say that?
Can you even show that it is true?
Now if I had said because more scientists are questioning Neo-Darwinism and therefore Neo-Darwinism is wrong, then you could charge me of making an argument from consensus.
That is exactly what you are trying to imply, is it not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 12:07 PM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 12:15 PM Taq has replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 34 of 969 (723968)
04-11-2014 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Taq
04-11-2014 12:10 PM


Re: More confusion!
I already said why I said it, reload the page and read my post again since you may have missed the changes I made.
No! I am not making a argument from consensus, I never did! Don't presume to know what my intentions are, you're no psychic!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Taq, posted 04-11-2014 12:10 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Taq, posted 04-11-2014 12:23 PM Cedre has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 35 of 969 (723973)
04-11-2014 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Cedre
04-11-2014 12:15 PM


Re: More confusion!
I already said why I said it, reload the page and read my post again since you may have missed the changes I made.
No! I am not making a argument from consensus, I never did! Don't presume to know what my intentions are, you're no psychic!
Why did you say it? What point are you trying to make by claiming that scientists are abandoning neo-Darwinism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 12:15 PM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 12:27 PM Taq has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 36 of 969 (723974)
04-11-2014 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Cedre
04-10-2014 7:49 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
Cedre writes:
If as you say the Neo-Darwinism went out years ago, then clearly it has been questioned by enough scientist in order to be thrown out years ago!
Yes, scientific theories do change. I might even dare to say that they evolve. Some parts are replaced by new improved parts. That is not the same as throwing out the whole theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Cedre, posted 04-10-2014 7:49 PM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 12:30 PM ringo has replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


(1)
Message 37 of 969 (723975)
04-11-2014 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Taq
04-11-2014 12:23 PM


Stubborn much!
See Message 32 of 36 again for the answer!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Taq, posted 04-11-2014 12:23 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Taq, posted 04-11-2014 12:31 PM Cedre has replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 38 of 969 (723976)
04-11-2014 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by ringo
04-11-2014 12:25 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
Something going out the window ages ago, is not a little change. In any case Neo-Darwinism didn't go out the window ages ago, it still is widely accepted, and is the conventional view of contemporary evolution. It is however being questioned by elite scientists!
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ringo, posted 04-11-2014 12:25 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Taq, posted 04-11-2014 12:32 PM Cedre has not replied
 Message 41 by ringo, posted 04-11-2014 12:36 PM Cedre has replied
 Message 50 by Coyote, posted 04-11-2014 1:13 PM Cedre has not replied
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2014 1:38 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 39 of 969 (723977)
04-11-2014 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Cedre
04-11-2014 12:27 PM


Re: Stubborn much!
See Message 32 of 36 again for the answer!
What point are you trying to make by claiming that evolution is contentious?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 12:27 PM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 12:46 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 40 of 969 (723978)
04-11-2014 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Cedre
04-11-2014 12:30 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
It is however being questioned by elite scientists!
What questions are they asking?
Where are their peer reviewed papers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 12:30 PM Cedre has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 41 of 969 (723979)
04-11-2014 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Cedre
04-11-2014 12:30 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
Cedre writes:
Something going out the window ages ago, is not a little change. In any case Neo-Darwinism didn't go out the window ages ago, is still widely accepted, and is the conventional view of evolution.
You're just confused about the terminology. Some still call it Neo-Darwinism, some don't. The fact is that nothing major has ben thrown out the window. Only minor changes have been made. A lot of minor changes may look like a big change to you but hey, that's what evolution is all about - a lot of minor changes adding up to big changes.
Cedre writes:
It is however being questioned by elite scientists!
No biologist questions the theory itself. They have differences of opinion on minor details.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 12:30 PM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 12:40 PM ringo has replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 42 of 969 (723980)
04-11-2014 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by ringo
04-11-2014 12:36 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
You said:
You're just confused about the terminology.
How so? How have I misused terminology. Let's have an honest respectable exchange shall we, I am not here to disrespect anyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ringo, posted 04-11-2014 12:36 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by ringo, posted 04-11-2014 12:54 PM Cedre has replied
 Message 46 by Taq, posted 04-11-2014 1:01 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


(1)
Message 43 of 969 (723981)
04-11-2014 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Taq
04-11-2014 12:31 PM


Re: Stubborn much!
What point are you trying to make by claiming that evolution is contentious
It feels like I am being interrogated! To answer your question, see the header of the thread! Why is evolution controversial?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Taq, posted 04-11-2014 12:31 PM Taq has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 44 of 969 (723983)
04-11-2014 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Cedre
04-11-2014 12:40 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
Cedre writes:
How have I misused terminology.
I didn't say "misused"; I said "confused". Remember the exchange with AZPaul3 and Percy earlier? Some people still call it Neo-Darwinism and some don't. You're seeing George say "pink" and Jim say "light red" and you think they're disagreeing about the colour. They're not; they're just using a different name for it.
I repeat: there is no controversy among biologists about the general theory of evolution. There is only minor disagreement about minor details.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 12:40 PM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 1:00 PM ringo has replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 45 of 969 (723985)
04-11-2014 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by ringo
04-11-2014 12:54 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
You can blame AZPaul3 and Percy for my confusion. I didn't expect to be told that the modern synthesis has been abandoned. How could it be when it is the conventional theory of evolution as taught nowadays?
Anyway, moving on, you said:
I repeat: there is no controversy among biologists about the general theory of evolution. There is only minor disagreement about minor details.
That is if you ignore the critics!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ringo, posted 04-11-2014 12:54 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Taq, posted 04-11-2014 1:02 PM Cedre has replied
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 04-11-2014 1:07 PM Cedre has replied
 Message 74 by Theodoric, posted 04-11-2014 3:12 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024