Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 556 of 760 (620410)
06-16-2011 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 553 by shadow71
06-15-2011 8:40 PM


Pigliucci said what?
Both Shapiro and Pigliuccci are saying that micro and macro evolution are not the same, ie. macroevolution is not just gradual micro evolution.
From Pigliucci's book, Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science.
One of the creationists' persistent questions concerns the distinction between micro- and macroevolution. Scientists use these terms in a very different way from what creationists seem to imply, which is part of the problem.
Eldredge and Gould attempted to link a standard theory of the origin of new species proposed by biologist Ernst Mayr with the observable fossil record -- that is, to link, to link micro- and macroevolution by means of an established theory and the available empirical evidence. They succeeded.
Darn that Pigliucci. His words keep getting in the way of your ideas.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 571 by shadow71, posted 06-16-2011 4:18 PM molbiogirl has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 557 of 760 (620425)
06-16-2011 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 523 by Nuggin
06-13-2011 5:13 PM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
Nuggin writes:
Accepting that there is a magical wizard who is unbound by any rules, and is infinitely capable and completely unknowable, means that there is NO PREDICTABLE OUTCOME for ANYTHING EVER.
It means that at ANY TIME this wizard can suddenly cause a completely UNPREDICTABLE outcome to occur.
Accepting that there is a Supernatural Being who created, and continues creation, you are correct.
We as human beings have no control over what might happen.
What was there before the big bang.
Did gases, matter etc. just occur out of nothing w/o a Supreme Being creating it.
We are way off thread now, but can you tell me what there was, what existed before the Big bang?
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by Nuggin, posted 06-13-2011 5:13 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 559 by Nuggin, posted 06-16-2011 1:02 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 558 of 760 (620426)
06-16-2011 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 483 by Coyote
06-10-2011 9:04 PM


Re: Better theories?
ok. you dont have to see it in his way.But why do you generalise? What he is only saying (no what he is having in the back of his head) is only that evolution is information driven. If you think this is uncientific, you have to say why.
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by Coyote, posted 06-10-2011 9:04 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 561 by Nuggin, posted 06-16-2011 1:04 PM zi ko has replied
 Message 562 by Coyote, posted 06-16-2011 1:04 PM zi ko has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 559 of 760 (620430)
06-16-2011 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 557 by shadow71
06-16-2011 12:33 PM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
can you tell me what there was, what existed before the Big bang?
Nope, but that doesn't mean that Jews are *magic*.
Lacking a particular piece of knowledge does NOT mean that fairy tales are real.
Religion is for the intellectually lazy. It was invented to shut up the kid that says "why?".
Smart kid: "Why is fire hot?"
Dump parent: "I don't know, because God says so, that's why. Shut up"
Anyway this whole deflection does NOTHING to invalidate my point that your position requires that EVERYTHING is completely random and unpredictable.
You believe that ANY OUTCOME is possible from ANY event.
Start your car and a gold hippo will fall from the sky. PERFECTLY REASONABLE result in your model of the Universe. Nothing to even scratch your head at.
Can you point to a SINGLE event that backs up this belief system? Something that really happened, not something out of a fairy tale.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 557 by shadow71, posted 06-16-2011 12:33 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 560 of 760 (620431)
06-16-2011 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 526 by Taq
06-13-2011 5:39 PM


Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
Shadow71 writes:
Shapiro and Pigliucci and finding that evolution is much more complicated then the MS describes it.
Taq writes:
However, none of this complication requires directed mutations or throwing natural selection out the window.
Here are 2 quotes from Shapiro's recently released book,
EVOLUTION
A View from the 21st Century
June 2011
You can find on Amazon
"In the context of earlier ideological debates about evolution, this insistence on randomness and accident is not suprising. It springs from a determination in the 19th and 20th Centuries by biologists to reject the role of a supernatural agent in the religious accounts of how diverse living organisms originated. While that determination fits with the naturalistic boundaries of science, the continued insistence on the random nature of genetic change by evolutionsts should be surprising for one simple reason: empirical studies of the mutational process have inevitably discovered patterns, environmental influences, and specific biological activities at the roots of novel genetic structures and altered DNA sequences. The perceived need to reject supernatural intervention unfortunately led the pioneers of evolutionary theory to erect an A PRIORI philosophical distinction between the "blind" processes of hereditary variation and all other adaptive functions. But the capacity to change is itself adaptive. Over time, conditions inevitably change, and the organisms that can best acquire novel inherited functions have the greatest potential to survive. The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable. Our current ideas about evolution have to incorporate this basic fact of life."pp2-3
"Genomes are sophisticated data storage organelles integrated into the cellular and multicellular life cycles of each distinct organsim. Thinking about genomes from an informatic perspective, it is apparent that systems engineering is a better metaphor for the evolutionary process than the conventional view of evolution as a selection-biased random walk through the limitless space of possible DNA configurations." p.6
Taq writes:
So you want to replace a well supported theory with your prognistications? Really?
Shapiro does and it makes sense

This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by Taq, posted 06-13-2011 5:39 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 602 by Taq, posted 06-23-2011 6:35 PM shadow71 has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 561 of 760 (620432)
06-16-2011 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 558 by zi ko
06-16-2011 12:37 PM


Re: Better theories?
What he is only saying (no what he is having in the back of his head) is only that evolution is information driven. If you think this is uncientific, you have to say why.
Because science is extremely specific with its vocabulary.
The people making this claim have no definition of "information", no means of testing "information", no examples of "information".
They have basically just said, "If we can't say God did it, then lets just call God 'information'. Maybe that's science."
It's not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by zi ko, posted 06-16-2011 12:37 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 608 by zi ko, posted 06-25-2011 11:20 AM Nuggin has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 562 of 760 (620433)
06-16-2011 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 558 by zi ko
06-16-2011 12:37 PM


Re: Better theories?
What he is only saying (no what he is having in the back of his head) is only that evolution is information driven. If you think this is uncientific, you have to say why.
I see too many creationists trying to sneak their religious beliefs into science in various ways under the guise of "information." This is after previous Trojan horses were shot down by the courts.
There has yet to be convincing evidence that this is correct. I suppose you could stretch things a lot and claim that natural selection was based on "information" but I see that as a mere feedback mechanism. Certainly mutations are random in most respects.
But there is no evidence that "information" causes directed evolution as the creationists are trying to get us to believe.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by zi ko, posted 06-16-2011 12:37 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 579 by zi ko, posted 06-17-2011 12:29 PM Coyote has not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 563 of 760 (620448)
06-16-2011 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 535 by jar
06-13-2011 8:13 PM


Re: More misrepresentation.
jar writes:
There is no atheistic view of evolution.
The major biologists who are responsible for the MS determined that all evolution had to be random and accidental in order to eliminate any possibility of a Supreme Being, Creator.
That is an athestic position, followed by many scientists led by Dawkings, Coyne et.al.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 535 by jar, posted 06-13-2011 8:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 564 by Coragyps, posted 06-16-2011 3:41 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 566 by jar, posted 06-16-2011 3:54 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 570 by Percy, posted 06-16-2011 4:00 PM shadow71 has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 564 of 760 (620449)
06-16-2011 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 563 by shadow71
06-16-2011 3:36 PM


Re: More misrepresentation.
The major biologists who are responsible for the MS determined that all evolution had to be random and accidental in order to eliminate any possibility of a Supreme Being, Creator.
Bullshit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by shadow71, posted 06-16-2011 3:36 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 565 of 760 (620450)
06-16-2011 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 554 by Dr Adequate
06-15-2011 9:43 PM


Re: Both Shapiro and Pigliuccci are saying that micro and macro evolRe: Define your terms
Dr Adequate writes:
NB: Not a quotation.
I did not say it was a quotation. I don't know what NB means.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 554 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-15-2011 9:43 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 567 by Wounded King, posted 06-16-2011 3:54 PM shadow71 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 566 of 760 (620451)
06-16-2011 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 563 by shadow71
06-16-2011 3:36 PM


Re: More misrepresentation.
I'm sorry but that is complete and utter bullshit.
That Evolution is a fact and the the Theory of Evolution is the ONLY explanation and model that explains what is seen is accepted by almost all major Christian Churches.
The theory of evolution was developed over time and Christians were involved in its development.
In fact, almost 13,000 US Christian Clergy have signed the Clergy Letter stating "We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge."
The Christian position is to reject creationism and affirm the theory of evolution.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by shadow71, posted 06-16-2011 3:36 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 585 by shadow71, posted 06-18-2011 1:48 PM jar has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 567 of 760 (620452)
06-16-2011 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 565 by shadow71
06-16-2011 3:48 PM


Note it well
NB means nota bene it is latin for 'note well', in this case Dr. A is drawing our attention once again to your preference for using authority figures as mouthpieces for your own position.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 565 by shadow71, posted 06-16-2011 3:48 PM shadow71 has not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 568 of 760 (620453)
06-16-2011 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 555 by Wounded King
06-16-2011 4:20 AM


Re: Changing to another undefined term doesn't really help
Wounded King writes:
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.
My point is that many of the other revelant fields do not accept random mutation and natural selection or do so as a lesser fundamental causing the changes in the evolution of organisms.
Shapiro has stated clearly that the information based natural genetic engineering process does not rely on random and accidental change.
To my thinking these are findings that require a change to the modern theory of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 555 by Wounded King, posted 06-16-2011 4:20 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 569 by Wounded King, posted 06-16-2011 3:59 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 573 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-17-2011 8:50 AM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 574 by Percy, posted 06-17-2011 9:17 AM shadow71 has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 569 of 760 (620454)
06-16-2011 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 568 by shadow71
06-16-2011 3:57 PM


Re: Changing to another undefined term doesn't really help
To my thinking these are findings that require a change to the modern theory of evolution.
Please settle on one term and use it, do you mean the modern synthesis here or something else?
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 568 by shadow71, posted 06-16-2011 3:57 PM shadow71 has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 570 of 760 (620455)
06-16-2011 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 563 by shadow71
06-16-2011 3:36 PM


Re: More misrepresentation.
shadow71 writes:
The major biologists who are responsible for the MS determined that all evolution had to be random and accidental in order to eliminate any possibility of a Supreme Being, Creator.
Since "the major biologists" did not believe that all evolution is "random and accidental," this can't possibly be true.
"The major biologists" believed that at its core evolution is a combination of random mutation (which is random, of course) and natural selection (which is not random, of course), and they didn't think it had anything to do with whether there is a Supreme Being or not.
Whether evolution requires modification or replacement is not a function of whether there is a Supreme Being.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by shadow71, posted 06-16-2011 3:36 PM shadow71 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