|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is evolution so controversial? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
How so? How have I misused terminology. Let's have an honest respectable exchange shall we, I am not here to disrespect anyone. Ernst Mayr said it best. "Having reached the rare age of 100 years, I find myself in a unique position: I'm the last survivor of the golden age of the Evolutionary Synthesis. That status encourages me to present a personal account of what I experienced in the years (1920s to the 1950s) that were so crucial in the history of evolutionary biology. . . By the end of the 1940s the work of the evolutionists was considered to be largely completed, as indicated by the robustness of the Evolutionary Synthesis. But in the ensuing decades, all sorts of things happened that might have had a major impact on the Darwinian paradigm. First came Avery's demonstration that nucleic acids and not proteins are the genetic material. Then in 1953, the discovery of the double helix by Watson and Crick increased the analytical capacity of the geneticists by at least an order of magnitude. Unexpectedly, however, none of these molecular findings necessitated a revision of the Darwinian paradigmnor did the even more drastic genomic revolution that has permitted the analysis of genes down to the last base pair."Just a moment... The Evolutionary Synthesis is neo-Darwinism. Darwin didn't know about genetics or the mechanisms of heredity. However, the discovery of these mechanisms and the evidence they produced did not require a major rewrite of Darwin's theory, as Mayr confirms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
That is if you ignore the critics! Show us their peer reviewed research papers. Show us what we are ignoring.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1515 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined: |
What is your relationship to evolution? Are you a scientist?
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Cedre writes:
Try it without the labels: the theory of evolution, as it is understood and discussed by biologists today, is not questioned. Only the details are disputed.
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? Cedre writes:
You keep talking about the critics but you haven't shown that there are any. Give us some examples of biologists who claim we did not evolve from a common ancestor with the chimps.
That is if you ignore the critics!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
It is however being questioned by elite scientists!
Top men? Hmmmm. ;-)Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1515 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined: |
You keep talking about the critics but you haven't shown that there are any. Give us some examples of biologists who claim we did not evolve from a common ancestor with the chimps. Dr. John Sanford, Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Prof. Vladimir Betina, Dr. Henry Zuill, Dr. Donald Baumann, Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Dr Andrew Bosanquet to name some.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
What is your relationship to evolution? Are you a scientist? Yes. I am somewhere between an investigator and a technician. I only have a bachelors, but after many years of lab experience, there are a handful PhD's that rely on my expertise and guidance. I have attended scientific conferences, and have yet to see a single presentation or poster that challenges evolution, or that presents an alternative theory. I read lots of papers every month, and have yet to see any original, peer reviewed research paper that makes the claims you are trying to make. The only place where I see "scientists" abandoning neo-Darwinism is at the Discovery Center and other creationist political centers. As far as the science goes, there is nothing that we are ignoring since they produce none. What we do have is a political movement that is trying to remove evolution from classrooms because it conflicts with the religious beliefs of a narrow sect in christianity. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Dr. John Sanford, Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Prof. Vladimir Betina, Dr. Henry Zuill, Dr. Donald Baumann, Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Dr Andrew Bosanquet to name some. Peer reviewed papers? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. Which would be an argument from unpopularity. If it was true. Is it true. You say "more" and a "growing number". Do you have any evidence that the number is growing, or that there are, let us say, more this year than last year? Or is your unsubstantive point simply a daydream that you'd like to believe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cedre writes:
Thank you. Now show us some evidence that they do actually reject the common ancestry of humans and chimps. What peer-reviewed papers have they published on the subject?
Dr. John Sanford, Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Prof. Vladimir Betina, Dr. Henry Zuill, Dr. Donald Baumann, Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Dr Andrew Bosanquet to name some.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1515 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined: |
They are trained biologists with PhD's from secular universities who reject evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
They are trained biologists with PhD's from secular universities who reject evolution. Yes, and they do so because of their religious beliefs, not because of the scientific evidence. If you think I am wrong, then show us their peer reviewed scientific papers where they lay out the scientific case for their rejection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1515 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined: |
Thank you. Now show us some evidence that they do actually reject the common ancestry of humans and chimps. What peer-reviewed papers have they published on the subject? My pleasure. Whether or not they reject common ancestry is a different question, one can, like Behe accept common ancestry while rejecting Neo-Darwinism. This is not a thread on common ancestry, so lets try to keep common ancestry out! Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1515 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined: |
Yes, and they do so because of their religious beliefs, not because of the scientific evidence. If that is what you believe, believe it,as far as I am aware they cite scientific reasons for rejecting evolution. Why do I reject evolution? I do so because I cannot bring myself to accept it based on the complexity of the human body. In medical school we're taught just how complex a machine the human body is and I cannot imagine how how evolution can account for our nervous system, or digestive system even our skeletal system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cedre writes:
That was the question I asked in Message 49. That was the question you were supposed to answer.
Whether or not they reject common ancestry is a different question.... Cedre writes:
But common ancestry is what the theory of evolution is all about. I brought it up to avoid the confusion in terminology. This is not a thread on common ancestry, so lets try to keep common ancestry out! If all you're saying is that there's a controversy over what to to call the theory of evolution, you won't get much disagreement here. But if you're suggesting that real working biologists - who publish real peer-reviewed papers on biology - have major disagreements about how evolution works, you're dead wrong. Edited by ringo, : Spellin.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024