Why is evolution so controversial?

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.

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.

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. No biologist questions the theory itself. They have differences of opinion on minor details.

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.I repeat: there is no controversy among biologists about the general theory of evolution. There is only minor disagreement about minor details.

Try it without the labels: the theory of evolution, as it is understood and discussed by biologists today, is not questioned. Only the details are disputed. You keep talking about the critics but you haven't shown that there are any. Give us some examples of biologists who claim we did not evolve from a common ancestor with the chimps.

Thank you. Now show us some evidence that they do actually reject the common ancestry of humans and chimps. What peer-reviewed papers have they published on the subject?

That was the question I asked in Message 49. That was the question you were supposed to answer. But common ancestry is what the theory of evolution is all about. I brought it up to avoid the confusion in terminology.If all you're saying is that there's a controversy over what to to call the theory of evolution, you won't get much disagreement here. But if you're suggesting that real working biologists - who publish real peer-reviewed papers on biology - have major disagreements about how evolution works, you're dead wrong.Edited by ringo, : Spellin.

What I asked you explicitly to do was:

quote:

---

Give us some examples of biologists who claim we did not evolve from a common ancestor with the chimps.

---

I also asked you to:

quote:

---

Try it without the labels

---

so I definitely did not want you to name critics of "Neo-Darwinism". It pretty much is. All life-forms evolve and there is no limit to how far they can evolve, so common ancestry is inevitable. Remember Darwin's book, The Origin of Species. The origin of species is other species. A real bus driver is somebody who actually drives a bus, not just anybody with a driver's license. A real scientist is somebody who actually does science. If your examples are real scientists, we'd all be happy to see the peer-reviewed papers they've published that question the theory of evolution.

Arguably (though I've never been able to get a creationist to address the argument) a mountain is more complex than the human body. Nobody suggests that mountains need an intelligent designer.

I keep asking you to stop using the term "Neo-Darwinism". I'm arguing that the theory of evolution and common ancestry are essentially the same thing. That's a bizarre claim. Does a walker have to walk? It's possible to be a nominal bus driver and not drive a bus; it's not possible to be an actual bus driver and not drive a bus. Your examples are nominal scientists, not actual scientists.There used to be a commercial that said, "I'm not a real doctor but I play one on TV." That's what your examples are.

As I said, because it means different things to different people.I personally don't like the term for several reasons. For one, it over-emphasizes the contribution of Darwin; he's been dead for more than a century and many others have contributed improvements in the meantime. For another, the "ism" suggests something like a religious dogma instead of a scientific theory. Calling the theory of evolution "Neo-Darwinism" is the equivalent of calling the space program "Neo-Wrightism". Evolution inevitably branches out from common ancestry. There's nothing to prevent species from evolving into other species. When you graduate with an education degree, you're qualified to become a teacher. When you turn eighteen, you're qualified to become a voter. You don't actually become a voter until you vote. A creationist on a website who is preaching the antithesis of science is definitely only pretending to be a scientist.

It is your own fault that you're confused about evolution, though, because you refuse to take the terminology as it is meant. Jim says, "Pink," and you say Jim is wrong because it's light red. Weren't you paying attention? I did.I explained that calling the theory of evolution "Darwinism" is as obsolete as calling aviation "Wrightism". I did. Because organisms evolve, there has to be common ancestry. Eventually, the descendants of any organism will diverge into different species. That's how DNA works. I notice that you ignored my other example: When you turn eighteen you are qaulified to vote but not every eligible voter is an actual voter. Being qualified to do something is not the same as doing it. No word games involved, just the clear meaning of words. You have very low standards.

So you can't name a single person who knows anything about biology who's a critic of evolution? You're shooting yourself in the foot.

"Cow" is funnier because of the "k" sound. The same applies to "crocoduck", which is three times as funny.

More like the Reality Crucible. Reality leaves evidence. If creationists had any evidence it would be treated just like any other evidence. To get through peer review you only have to convince a handful of peers that you have an interesting and valid point. Nobody actually has to accept your hypothesis.Publishing a paper gives your peers a chance to shoot holes in it. The problem for creationists is that their ideas are all holes.