|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: who was this 70s researcher who questioned evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jimiwa Inactive Member |
Hi, I heard about a researcher of the 1970's. He came to the conclusion through his research, and he was the leading researcher in his time in his field, I think it had to do with genetics and evolution, that it is possible that Darwin's theory of evolution is false. This is an interesting case because it could be used as an example to break the ice for people who don't believe in evolution because he was not motivated by religious beliefs, he came to this belief solely by his research, which to an agnostic/atheistic scientist would be a more effective way at convincing them. Then, after such people realize that there's someone not motivated by religious beliefs that came to question evolution, they may have more room in their mind to come to a level of faith or be more open to the possiblity of creation.
Does anyone know who this researcher was? I really want to know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Then, after such people realize that there's someone not motivated by religious beliefs that came to question evolution, they may have more room in their mind to come to a level of faith or be more open to the possiblity of creation. Scientists don't reject creationism because those who promote it are motivated by religious beliefs. They reject it because the scientific evidence points to evolution, and only to evolution. The scientific evidence provides no support whatsoever for creationism. Thus, if there were one "researcher" in the 70s who was not motivated by religion, that's not going to make any difference to any scientist. If the "researcher" produced evidence that supported creationism, that would make a difference.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi jimiwa, and welcome to the fray.
I heard about a researcher of the 1970's. He came to the conclusion through his research, and he was the leading researcher in his time in his field, I think it had to do with genetics and evolution, that it is possible that Darwin's theory of evolution is false. There have been several people I've heard about that expressed some reservations regarding strict Darwinism, and which have been misquoted or misrepresented by creationists as doubting the truth of evolution. This includes developmental biologists, a field that involves how embryos develop into mature organisms, and where environmental effects (chemicals, temperatures, etc) can alter the development. The results of such effects are not passed in the DNA, yet they do affect survival and reproductive success. You can also look through the lists of names compiled by various creationist and intelligent designists of scientists who doubt evolution. See A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism - Wikipedia for a discussion of same (including the analysis of the statement used). What you may have is most likely a statement that some aspect of evolutionary theory is not a complete explanation for the diversity of life as we know it. For instance"
. . . that it is possible that Darwin's theory of evolution is false. In a strict sense Darwin's theory was that natural selection was the cause of some variations being more successful in passing on hereditary traits to offspring, and we know that this is not the only mechanism involved: it's not so much that it is false, but rather incomplete as a explanation of all the evidence. The theory of evolution, however, is not limited to just natural selection. Evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities, and this includes several mechanisms, one of which is natural selection. We know that these processes and mechanisms occur and cause changes in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits, and thus that evolution does in fact occur in the world around us. Evolution has been observed to actually occur, including speciation and the formation of trees of hereditary traits by descent from common ancestors. The Theory of Evolution is that the processes and mechanisms of evolution are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.
This is an interesting case because it could be used as an example to break the ice for people who don't believe in evolution because he was not motivated by religious beliefs, he came to this belief solely by his research, which to an agnostic/atheistic scientist would be a more effective way at convincing them. It is pretty hard to convince someone with an open mind that something demonstrated to actually occur is false.
Then, after such people realize that there's someone not motivated by religious beliefs that came to question evolution, they may have more room in their mind to come to a level of faith or be more open to the possiblity of creation. Proving X to be false does not mean that Y is any more likely to be true. The problem with creationism is that it does not explain the facts of the diversity of life as we know it, not that evolution is a better explanation. Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message): ... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
The last time you posted this in researcher of 70's who questioned evolution I referred you to Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate, but instead you have decided to try the Coffee House. Since you've garnered some responses I'll let this one live (for now), but be aware that it is expected that you will follow moderator directions if you are to have any sort of future debating here.
Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
jimiwa writes: It is also possible that the theory of gravity is false. ...it is possible that Darwin's theory of evolution is false.It is also possible that germ theory is false. It is possible that every single scientific theory is false because science relies in inductive reasoning - which is falsifiable. But even if all the science in the world was proved wrong - that wouldn't give one iota of support to creationism.Showing that something is wrong does not prove something else is correct. Your desperate search for a single researcher from the 1970's who might have questioned the Theory of Evolution is going to be end up as a failed Appeal To Authority.And your acceptance of his conclusion (despite it conflicting with a HUGE amount of evidence to the contrary) shows that your are simply cherry-picking evidence. You don't need a researcher from the 70's to make a logical argument to support creationism: you just need to make a logical argument. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Hi, I heard about a researcher of the 1970's. He came to the conclusion through his research, and he was the leading researcher in his time in his field, I think it had to do with genetics and evolution ... Well, couldn't you track him down like that, then? If he was the leading researcher in genetics, it should not be too hard to identify him --- find out who was top dog in genetics in the 1970s, and see if he did in fact go barking mad.
Here's a list of the winners of the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine together with a short summary of their achievements. From this you can determine which of them were geneticists, and then cross-referencing with Wikipedia should allow you to find out if any of them has subsequently lost his marbles. Of course this method will be of little use if, as I suspect, you made this guy up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
The only guy I can think of is Kent Hovind, but I think he's from the eightees. He never was a researcher, although he pretended to be one. He calls himself "Dr. Dino", although he's got no degree in the natural sciences at all. He's only got a "degree" in "Christian Education" from some Bible College in the desert, where he bought his "degree" from. He still writes from gaol, where he ended up for tax evasion. He made millions from naive religious folks while pretending to be a "researcher".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Apart from the fact that the OP specifies a researcher in biology I think that Fred Hoyle would be a reasonable fit, provided we broadened 'evolution' out to cover chemical evolution/abiogenesis.
He did after all provide the ever popular 'tornado in a junkyard' metaphor. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Let's take your post at face value
jimiwa writes: He came to the conclusion through his research ... that it is possible that Darwin's theory of evolution is false. ....[H]e came to this belief solely by his research, which to an agnostic/atheistic scientist would be a more effective way at convincing them. Let's assume that this unknown person won a noble prize for his work in genetics. Do you think that this scientist's work 30-40 years ago, where such work merely opened a possibility that Darwin's theory was wrong would be effective and convincing? What's this unknown buffoon we're trying to convince supposed to make of all of the evidence to the contrary? In fact, I would expect a rationale person would ask you for your next argument. I don't think you could even convince many Christians who had doubts about evolution with this line of reasoning. Anyway, assuming that the story is even true, I'd expect the answer to be available on any number of apologetics web pages.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2533 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:This thread doesn't look likely to go anywhere interesting, so instead I'll challenge the above assertion. All other things being equal, proving X false does mean that Y is more likely, assuming X and Y are alternative possibilities. More specifically, if new data show that X is impossible, but do not distinguish between Y and any other possibilities, then the posterior probability of Y is p(Y|data) = 1/(1-p(X)), where p(X) is the prior probability of X being true (i.e. the probability before the new data arrived).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Dean H. Kenyon, perhaps? Co-author of Of Pandas and People. Though his conversion wasn't through his research, but rather from reading creationists' books, starting with one containing arguments against Kenyon's own work (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_H._Kenyon:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
All other things being equal, proving X false does mean that Y is more likely, assuming X and Y are alternative possibilities. Really? So proving that earth is not a flat disk mounted on the backs of turtles makes it more likely that the earth is actually being pushed around its orbit by butterflies? I don't believe you've thought this principle through.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
jimiwa writes:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, I heard about a researcher of the 1970's. He came to the conclusion through his research, and he was the leading researcher in his time in his field, I think it had to do with genetics and evolution, that it is possible that Darwin's theory of evolution is false. This is an interesting case because it could be used as an example to break the ice for people who don't believe in evolution because he was not motivated by religious beliefs, he came to this belief solely by his research, which to an agnostic/atheistic scientist would be a more effective way at convincing them. Then, after such people realize that there's someone not motivated by religious beliefs that came to question evolution, they may have more room in their mind to come to a level of faith or be more open to the possiblity of creation.Does anyone know who this researcher was? I really want to know. Hi Jimewa. Welcome to EvC. What really matters, after all is what is said and done pro and con for or against evolution, not whether the person is a creationist or secularist. It doesn't even matter if the person is a scientist. That's what is supposedly what EvC (evolution vs creation) means. Creationism, usually implies a creator ('ID). Anything applying to the supernatural is not considered science here at EvC, however. I guess, question impies [i]Evolution vs ? since creationism implies a creator. Creation implies the supernatural. No?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2533 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:Yes, it does. Of course, increasing a probability that is already vanishingly small by an infinitesimally small amount isn't going to matter very much in practical terms, but why do you think it has no effect? quote:In the original formulation, let the prior probabilities of X and Y be p(X) and p(Y), and the probability of all other possibilities be p(Z). Given these definitions, p(X) + p(Y) + p(Z) = 1. After encountering the new data (call it D), p(X|D) = 0 and by Bayes' theorem p(Y|D) = p(D|Y)p(Y) / (p(D|Y)p(Y) + p(D|Z)p(Z)). I stipulated that the new data does not distinguish between Y and Z, which I take to mean that Y and Z and equally likely to yield the observed data if they are true, i.e. p(D|Y) = p(D|Z). Given that, the above expression for p(Y|D) reduces to p(Y) / (p(Y) + p(Z)). Our relative certainty about Y (that is, our estimate of the probability that Y is true after seeing the new data, relative to our starting estimate) is given by p(Y|D) / p(Y) = 1 / (p(Y) + p(Z)) = 1 / (1 - p(X)), which was what I claimed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
n the original formulation, let the prior probabilities of X and Y be p(X) and p(Y), and the probability of all other possibilities be p(Z). Nonsense. I understand how probability works, but your calculations are not applicable. How does disproving something that has a zero probability of being correct improve the odds that something else is true. There was never any probability or any evidence for the earth being mounted to the backs of turtles. The fact that people might nonetheless have believed the proposition means absolutely nothing. The probability that butterflies are pushing the earth around in its orbit is exactly zero. Disproving some unrelated proposition is never going to improve those odds. ABE: Here's an alternative way of looking at things. The number of made up nonsense possible explanations for how the earth moves is infinite. Removing p(x) doesn't increase the probability that any unrelated explanation is correct. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024