|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2965 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2965 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Wounded King writes:
Yawwwn, indeed as we have all agreed from the start because the MS is a series of mathematical formulations describing population genetics almost a century old. Could you stop repeating the same thing over and over again? Both Shapiro and Pigliuccci are saying that micro and macro evolution are not the same, ie. macroevolution is not just gradual micro evolution.If correct does that require a change to the MS?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2965 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Granny Magda writes:
The idea that humans evolved to a certain point, only for A&E to have souls inserted into them like so much jelly in a doughnut, is not only palpably stupid, it is in contradiction of known facts about human evolution. If there had been such a pairing, they would show up in our genomes. Is there a scientific paper that finds "the soul" would have a genetic marker?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2965 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
molbiogirl writes:
. You cite an expert and then reject that expert's findings.You don't get to pick and choose the bits of the paper you like, shadow. The guy said, and I quote: Do these new potential developments represent the possibility of what Kuhn called a paradigm shift, that is a dramatic change in the way we understand evolution? I DOUBT IT. ... The fundamental Darwinian insights that all life on earth share a common descent, and that natural selection is a major mechanism of diversification of biological forms, are still valid and at the core of evolutionary theory. Emphasis mine.He doubts it, but cannot absoutley refute a dramatic change in the way we understand evolution. Yet his paper is full of examples that the MS does not deal with. So it's his OPINION that the scientific findings he cites do not change the theory, that is not a fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2965 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
jar writes:
Shadow seems to think that if he can put a doubt in the mind of the jury he can overturn science and reality. That idea is simply laughable. All ideaologists are very afraid of the doubt, ie, the truth, because that challenges their beliefs and scares them incredibilty. When these very qualilfied scientists such as Shapiro and even Piglucci express findings that are incompatible with the "THEORY" they must be silenced, or in the case of molbiogirl ridiculed. The truth is so very hard to accept when it upsets the apple cart. Keep an open mind and be not afraid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2965 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Granny magda writes:
For as long as the church hierarchy insists upon inserting just a little bit of magic into its biology, it is always going to be out of step with the scientific consensus. Similarly, you are doing yourself no favours by insistently scouring the scientific literature for gaps in the Modern Synthesis within which you can house the God of the Gaps. That I read and discuss views by scientist that challenge the "THEORY' really bothers you doesn't it Manny?Well be prepared there are many more scientific papers coming out that are seriously challenging the Atheistic view of evolution, which states, there cannot be anything but nature that is driving the Universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2965 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
jar writes:
I really don't see much if any point to the topic.Looking at science, when sufficient evidence is found to require a modification to a theory and when a mechanism is found that explains the model and mechanism that accounts for the new evidence then theories change. So far nothing in Shapiro's work seems to require such change or is unexplained. Further he in no way points to any directed non-natural methodology. Jar, thats pretty eloquent, you quote yourself to prove your point. Get a life.
jar writes:
If evidence is ever presented that there is any external designer, then maybe ID will become something more than a joke. But it will also mean that whatever that outside influence happens to be will no longer be supernatural, but just more pond scum. Have you read the papers of Shapiro et. al that I have cited on this thread?Do you disagree that these scientlist are in fact questioning the MS as presented?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2965 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Panda writes:
Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?No? I thought not. Yes I do. I will be posting scientific papers in the future. Because of my Grandfather joys I may not be on board for awhile, but I will post the papers for discusion when I have the available time. Looking forward to discussing them with you. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2965 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Both Shapiro and Pigliuccci are saying that micro and macro evolution are not the same, ie. macroevolution is not just gradual micro evolution.
If correct does that require a change to the MS? Wounded King writes:
think this runs into a definitional issue of what exactly everyone means by macroevolution. Mayr stated in his 1963 book "Animal Species and Evolution" that the synthetic therory maintains that all evolution is due to the accumulation of small genetic changes guided by natural selection, and that transpecific evolution (macroevolution) is nothing more than an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species (microevolution). Is that a a valid definition today? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2965 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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? .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2965 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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, EVOLUTIONA 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2965 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2965 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes:
NB: Not a quotation. I did not say it was a quotation. I don't know what NB means. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2965 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2965 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
molbiogirl writes:
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. Pigliucci from "An Extended Synthesis for Evolutionary Biology writes: . If mechanisms such as facilitation and accommodationare more frequent than previously imagined, then one of the consequences for evolutionary theory is that the gradual evolution described by MS-type population genetics models will not always account for macroevolutionary change on paleontological time scales. Accordingly, evidence is now accumulating that the predictive power of short term observations of evolutionary change (such as the classic examples of industrial melanism) is not strong at all when extrapolated over temporal scales that are orders of magnitude larger (Eldredge & Gould 1972; Gould 2002). Evolutionary stasis, nonrandom origination of evolutionary novelties in time and space, and species selection are just some of the macroevolutionary phenomena that a view of evolution limited to the MS is simply ill equipped to deal with (Jablonski 2000, 2008. Darn that Pigliucci. His words keep getting in the way of your ideas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2965 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
molbiogirl writes:
Howzabout you show me where Pigliucci said micro doesn't lead to macro? That would be mighty impressive. pigliucci writes:
... then one of the consequencesfor evolutionary theory is that the gradual evolution described by MS-type population genetics models will not always account for macroevolutionary change on paleontological time scales. Accordingly, evidence is now accumulating that the predictive power of short term observations of evolutionary change (such as the classic examples of industrial melanism) is not strong at all when extrapolated over temporal scales that are orders of magnitude larger (Eldredge & Gould 1972; Gould 2002). Evolutionary stasis, nonrandom origination of evolutionary novelties in time and space, and species selection are just some of the macroevolutionary phenomena that a view of evolution limited to the MS is simply ill equipped to deal with (Jablonski 2000, 2008. What Pigliucci is saying is that microevolution does not lead to macroevolutionary changes. They are two different entities.Macro changes are novel adapations that require changes at multiple locations and can arise within a single generation (per Shapiro) while micro is basically stability. So the MS did not recognize this and held that macro was a result of gradual micro changes.Pigluicci is saying that is not so, and so the ES must recognize Macro as a different entity from micro.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024