|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is evolution so controversial? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1520 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia 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. I hope this is clear!
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given. Edited by Cedre, : No reason given. Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1520 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cedre writes:
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.
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1520 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined:
|
See Message 32 of 36 again for the answer!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1520 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
See Message 32 of 36 again for the answer!
What point are you trying to make by claiming that evolution is contentious?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
It is however being questioned by elite scientists! What questions are they asking? Where are their peer reviewed papers?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cedre writes:
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.
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. Cedre writes:
No biologist questions the theory itself. They have differences of opinion on minor details.
It is however being questioned by elite scientists!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1520 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1520 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined:
|
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cedre writes:
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. How have I misused terminology. I repeat: there is no controversy among biologists about the general theory of evolution. There is only minor disagreement about minor details.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1520 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined: |
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!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024