Why is evolution so controversial?

It is often enunciated that Modern biology only makes sense in light of evolution. Yet a growing number of scientists are frowning upon the modern synthesis and seem to be still quite useful scientists.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. I expected it to be given as a subject on its own, but lo and behold that is not the case in medical school! It doesn't look like Medicine is that into Evolution!Even more shocking was my biology professor's reply when I asked her to elaborate on some detail of evolution during a class, she told me not to trouble myself with such question that will only distract the lesson, and then she added evolution is contentious anyway. "Evolution is contentious!" From the lips of a research professor!Many would say that doubters are in denial since evolution happens all the time, and they would speak of malarial resistance to chloroquine. Yet this is not the theory of evolution that is typically inflicted on the public. This relatively minor population changes has been empirically observed, what we haven't seen is body-plan level changes.So why is evolution so controversial? Is there something wrong with the science or are people just stubborn? I would say that although many reject it on religious reasons other still reject it on grounds of science! As for me, after a full course in anatomy, topographical anatomy, and neurology, I simply cannot accept evolution, life looks very designed and so for the time being I will side with those scientists who call nonsense on the modern synthesis. Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

And truth is not a popularity contest, consensus is not how truth is arrived at, otherwise you're just left with a argument from consensus/popularity!

Yes there is a growing number of scientists who do question the Neo Darwinism.

No new body plans, no information-rich systems, no complex functional machines have ever been observed or seen by direct experimentation to come about through alleged evolutionary mechanisms. All of the interesting questions about evolution lie at the end of a long trail of inferences, suppositions, and speculations.

What are you talking about? Neo Darwinism is the modern evolutionary synthesis. It is still the standard model! Looks like the ignorance is strong in you.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! Hence your demand that I prove that the modern synthesis is questioned is rather odd.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

Neo-Darwinism is the conventional view of evolution. By saying it isn't you're the one who seems not to understand what's going on.

Hello RAZD, thanks for your response.You said: I'm no first rate biologist like yourself, I am a medical student so I can be excused for misunderstanding evolution and for showing some ignorance, and so I invite any corrections were my understanding falters.Having said that, I did a college level basic course on evolution. As I already pointed out medical school doesn't concentrate on evolution, unfortunately -- I wish it did since I find it a fascinating subject, but I've tried to keep up with what the experts on both sides of the issue are saying.There are dozens of different phyla of animals, each with its own body plan, and according to Wikipedia a "phyla can be thought of as grouping organisms based on general specialization of body plan", so it goes without saying that new body plans arose to account for the phyla of animals we see around us today. So if a new phylum emerges we can reasonably predict that it would have a unique body plan.Now, you said: Without providing any evidence that unguided changes are capable of generating new, viable body plans, you matter of factly declare that at some point in the past, body plans have been generated. This is the problem we've not observed new body plans and yet we are expected to believe that evolution accounts for body plan morphogenesis... Please!So unless I have this wrong it is you who seems to not understand how new body plans can be predicted by evolution with respect to the emergence of a new phylum.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

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.

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!

See Message 32 of 36 again for the answer!

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.

You said: How so? How have I misused terminology. Let's have an honest respectable exchange shall we, I am not here to disrespect anyone.

It feels like I am being interrogated! To answer your question, see the header of the thread! Why is evolution controversial?

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: That is if you ignore the critics!

What is your relationship to evolution? Are you a scientist?Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.