|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is evolution so controversial? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
You're going to confuse more than just Cedre if you insist that neo-Darwinism and the modern synthesis are no longer accepted within evolutionary science. According to the the Wikipedia article on Neo-Darwinism, this term's definition has "evolved" over time, and it says at one point:
Wikipedia writes: ...the term neo-Darwinian is often used to refer to contemporary evolutionary theory. But it also goes on to say that as eminent a personage as Ernst Mayr demurs from this view, but that others like Dawkins and Gould (ironically) agree in accepting it as applying to modern evolutionary theory. So maybe there's a little controversy about the term, but do we need to have that debate in *this* thread? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Here's our boy as a patient:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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. Why is it that when you express the "scientific" reasons not to believe in evolution, the reasons are exactly the same standard misinformation the creationists always use? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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. Please support this. My appreciation of the subject shows a diminishing number of scientist frowning on ToE.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Cedre writes: Yet a growing number of scientists are frowning upon the modern synthesis and seem to be still quite useful scientists. Really? Please support this statement with actual numbers and percentages of the relevant scientists (biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, etc.) who reject the ToE now and the actual number and percentages of the relevant scientists who rejected the ToE ten years ago. Please avoid the Gish Gallop such as you displayed in your opening post. It's frowned upon by persons with even a lttle bit of an education behind their names. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
So maybe there's a little controversy about the term, but do we need to have that debate in *this* thread? It is done. As you command, Sire.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Perhaps evolution is "controversial" because of a lack of knowledge. This applies to the general public, but more so to creationists.
In the first college class I taught that covered evolution I started with a simple hands-on experiment. I provided three bones--innominates--and asked everyone to separate them into two groups. A simple task, as two resembled each other closely, although one was smaller than the other, while the third was markedly different in shape. The class agreed that the two with the similar shape should be grouped, as size was less important, while the one with the different shape should be separate. It turns out the two innominates that the class chose to group together were from a modern human and an Australopithecus fossil a couple of million years old. The odd-ball was modern chimpanzee. After that, if there were any creationists in the class, I never heard a word out of them. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing--for creationists.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Statements don't suddenly 'evolve' to be true if you repeat them. Provide reliable evidence for your statement. This is a science forum. Read the rules.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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! Sorry, but I have to ask: did you choose your school because it was friendly to your religion or because it was the best rated medical school you could afford and get accepted to? You must realize that this is anecdotal evidence and does not represent anything more than one class by one teacher in one university\college. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
No new body plans, ... have ever been observed or seen by direct experimentation to come about through alleged evolutionary mechanisms. ... The process ofevolutioninvolves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities. Can you tell me where that says new body plans should happen on demand during your lifetime just to please you? Can you tell me where that says that new body plans must occur at all? You are confusing what HAS happened with what must happen. Have you seen a new continent form? Do you think plate tectonics is bogus because this has not been observed?
... no information-rich systems, ... have been observed or seen by direct experimentation to come about through alleged evolutionary mechanisms. ... Please define "information-rich system" so that we can tell what you are claiming. New means of dealing with ecological changes are evolving every day, and this would seem to me to be "information-rich system" evolution - or as close to it as is necessary in biology.
... no complex functional machines have ever been observed or seen by direct experimentation to come about through alleged evolutionary mechanisms. ... Again ... don't confuse what HAS happened with what must happen ...
The process ofevolutioninvolves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities. Can you tell me where that says that "complex functional machines" (whatever that means) must happen on demand during your lifetime just to please you? Again I ask have you seen a continent form? Can you tell me why you think this means that evolution is questionable? Do you understand that your posts are more indicative of ignorance\undereducation than any real issue with evolution? by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
I'm going off topic now, but I don't think that we'll get any meaningful answers from him. Hopefully he can still surprise us.
To me it seems as if he watched a few Kent Hovind videos and doesn’t have a clue on what the Theory of Evolution actually is. From that I think that he will confuse everything from the Big Bang to the Aztec Empire with the Theory of Evolution. Anyway, here we go.
RAZD writes: Seeing that he's in Namibia, I think a great question to ask him is: Have you seen a new continent form? Do you think plate tectonics is bogus because this has not been observed? Did you see the beautiful Brandberg form? Do you think geology is bogus because we didn't see the mountain form?Do you think science is bogus because, even though nobody saw Brandberg forming nor can recreate another Brandberg, geologists can’t study Brandberg itself, as well the relationships with the surrounding rocks; and conclude that Brandberg was formed as an igneous intrusion? Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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! But you brought it up. It's true that truth isn't a popularity contest, but since you tried to make it so with your fantasy that "a growing number of scientists are frowning upon the modern synthesis", it's fair enough for us to point out in reply that if truth was a popularity contest we'd be winning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Cedre writes:
Our body plan isn't that different from the chimps, is it? For that matter, our body plans aren't that different from the bats, the horses or the whales either. With fairly minor adaptations it works in a wide variety of environments. If it ain't broke, evolution don't fix it.
No new body plans....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
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!
Then why use the argument that more and more scientists are rejecting neo-darwinism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1519 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined:
|
Hello RAZD, thanks for your response.
You said:
Do you understand that your posts are more indicative of ignorance\undereducation than any real issue with evolution? 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:
You are confusing what HAS happened with what must happen. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024