Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-11-2012, 04:06 PM
Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Evolution is a natural phenomenon, no doubt.

Neo-darwinism explains how evolution works and the evidences supporting it are astonishing. However, due to the lack of falsifiable predictions regarding some aspects of evolution, the classification as a scientific theory does not gather consensus.


I'm pragmatic and thereby I consider neo-darwinism a scientific theory.

What do you think about this issue?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2012, 04:26 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(28-11-2012 04:06 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  Evolution is a natural phenomenon, no doubt.

Neo-darwinism explains how evolution works and the evidences supporting it are astonishing. However, due to the lack of falsifiable predictions regarding some aspects of evolution, the classification as a scientific theory does not gather consensus.


I'm pragmatic and thereby I consider neo-darwinism a scientific theory.

What do you think about this issue?
Following the development, from about 1937 to 1950, of the modern evolutionary synthesis, now generally referred to as the synthetic view of evolution or the modern synthesis, the term neo-Darwinian is often used to refer to contemporary evolutionary theory. However, such usage has been described by some as incorrect; with Ernst Mayr writing in 1984:


"...the term neo-Darwinism for the synthetic theory
is wrong, because the term neo-Darwinism was coined by Romanes in 1895
as a designation of Weismann's theory."

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2012, 04:30 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(28-11-2012 04:26 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Following the development, from about 1937 to 1950, of the modern evolutionary synthesis, now generally referred to as the synthetic view of evolution or the modern synthesis, the term neo-Darwinian is often used to refer to contemporary evolutionary theory. However, such usage has been described by some as incorrect; with Ernst Mayr writing in 1984:


"...the term neo-Darwinism for the synthetic theory
is wrong, because the term neo-Darwinism was coined by Romanes in 1895
as a designation of Weismann's theory."
Fair enough. Do you think that the "modern synthesis" is a scientific theory?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2012, 04:39 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(28-11-2012 04:30 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  
(28-11-2012 04:26 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Following the development, from about 1937 to 1950, of the modern evolutionary synthesis, now generally referred to as the synthetic view of evolution or the modern synthesis, the term neo-Darwinian is often used to refer to contemporary evolutionary theory. However, such usage has been described by some as incorrect; with Ernst Mayr writing in 1984:


"...the term neo-Darwinism for the synthetic theory
is wrong, because the term neo-Darwinism was coined by Romanes in 1895
as a designation of Weismann's theory."
Fair enough. Do you think that the "modern synthesis" is a scientific theory?
Yes.




Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2012, 05:08 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(28-11-2012 04:06 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  Evolution is a natural phenomenon, no doubt.

Neo-darwinism explains how evolution works and the evidences supporting it are astonishing. However, due to the lack of falsifiable predictions regarding some aspects of evolution, the classification as a scientific theory does not gather consensus.


I'm pragmatic and thereby I consider neo-darwinism a scientific theory.

What do you think about this issue?


Your understanding is incorrect.

Many predictions have been made and proved true. Google, for instance, tiktaalik.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2012, 05:08 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(28-11-2012 04:06 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  Evolution is a natural phenomenon, no doubt.

Neo-darwinism explains how evolution works and the evidences supporting it are astonishing. However, due to the lack of falsifiable predictions regarding some aspects of evolution, the classification as a scientific theory does not gather consensus.


I'm pragmatic and thereby I consider neo-darwinism a scientific theory.

What do you think about this issue?
What is with your obsession with the term "neo"? And you don't sound like a scientist. No one but creationists use the term "darwinism". That word has literally never been used by a scientist to describe the theory of evolution. Unless you call Ken Ham a scientist...


The theory of evolution, and more specifically the so-called "Modern Synthesis" of evolutionary theory which was formed in the 1940s and 50s, is one of the most well-proven, best-understood, bulletproof theories in science. Period. All of genetics, phylogeny, phylogenetics, paleontology, developmental biology, molecular biology, and even geology and physics lend credence to the theory. Evolution is observed in real time with bacteria, both in the lab and in the wild with drug-resistant microbes. The theory has made predictions (predicted similarities between human and other primate DNA, including specific shared genes) which have been tested and proven to be correct (after the sequencing of both human and chimp DNA). We have football fields worth of transitional fossils, including all the ones creationists challenged us to find, not just one or two per transition, but whole gradations, between apes and humans, land mammals and whales, dinosaurs and birds, fish and amphibians, and so on. You cannot do work in the field of biology without using evolution, because as has been so famously said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Not to mention the massive advances in medical science that would not have been possible without the theory.




If you're a creationist, stop dicking around and come out and say it. If your question was sincere, I hope I've answered your question.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2012, 05:26 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(28-11-2012 05:08 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  
(28-11-2012 04:06 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  Evolution is a natural phenomenon, no doubt.

Neo-darwinism explains how evolution works and the evidences supporting it are astonishing. However, due to the lack of falsifiable predictions regarding some aspects of evolution, the classification as a scientific theory does not gather consensus.


I'm pragmatic and thereby I consider neo-darwinism a scientific theory.

What do you think about this issue?
What is with your obsession with the term "neo"? And you don't sound like a scientist. No one but creationists use the term "darwinism". That word has literally never been used by a scientist to describe the theory of evolution. Unless you call Ken Ham a scientist...


The theory of evolution, and more specifically the so-called "Modern Synthesis" of evolutionary theory which was formed in the 1940s and 50s, is one of the most well-proven, best-understood, bulletproof theories in science. Period. All of genetics, phylogeny, phylogenetics, paleontology, developmental biology, molecular biology, and even geology and physics lend credence to the theory. Evolution is observed in real time with bacteria, both in the lab and in the wild with drug-resistant microbes. The theory has made predictions (predicted similarities between human and other primate DNA, including specific shared genes) which have been tested and proven to be correct (after the sequencing of both human and chimp DNA). We have football fields worth of transitional fossils, including all the ones creationists challenged us to find, not just one or two per transition, but whole gradations, between apes and humans, land mammals and whales, dinosaurs and birds, fish and amphibians, and so on. You cannot do work in the field of biology without using evolution, because as has been so famously said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Not to mention the massive advances in medical science that would not have been possible without the theory.




If you're a creationist, stop dicking around and come out and say it. If your question was sincere, I hope I've answered your question.
One correction: Modern Synthesis == Neo-Darwinism

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2012, 05:35 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
I've used neo-darwinism because, in this forum, not all people are aware of the evolutionist terminology.

This has nothing to do with creationism. This is about epistemology! I am a biologist, I've observed evolution.

The question is related with the claims of some epistemologists that, because the modern synthesis cannot predict how organisms will evolve, it cannot be regarded as a scientific theory. What these guys fail to understand is that evolution has a factor of pure chance (mutations) that does not allow such a prediction.

Therefore, my claim is, who cares?! Modern synthesis explains by itself, in a very consistent way, all the biodiversity, which is just brilliant!

I'm really what you can call an evolution geek and I'm not affraid to discuss evolution. Are you? Are you affraid that because we have this discussion, creationists will use it against science? Because if you are, you shouldn't!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2012, 05:55 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
I just get very, very, very... very... ah...

vehement...

When discussing evolution with creationists. I have a short fuse on that subject. Your wording lit it.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2012, 06:15 PM (This post was last modified: 28-11-2012 06:24 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(28-11-2012 05:35 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  I've used neo-darwinism because, in this forum, not all people are aware of the evolutionist terminology.

This has nothing to do with creationism. This is about epistemology! I am a biologist, I've observed evolution.

The question is related with the claims of some epistemologists that, because the modern synthesis cannot predict how organisms will evolve, it cannot be regarded as a scientific theory. What these guys fail to understand is that evolution has a factor of pure chance (mutations) that does not allow such a prediction.

Therefore, my claim is, who cares?! Modern synthesis explains by itself, in a very consistent way, all the biodiversity, which is just brilliant!

I'm really what you can call an evolution geek and I'm not affraid to discuss evolution. Are you? Are you affraid that because we have this discussion, creationists will use it against science? Because if you are, you shouldn't!
I think you could take samples(dna and others) and see a trend or movement in one direction over the other. However due to the amount of factors that effect evolution.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: