Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-12-2012, 04:36 PM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2012 04:40 PM by Chas.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 04:25 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  
(04-12-2012 03:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  Michael Cremo is not a credible source for evolutionary theory.


Of course not. Anyone who disputes the status quo is not considered a credible source. Now of course he is credible enough to have his work published in peer review science journals, but hey, thats just a technicality right? You asked me to cite examples of out of place artifacts and I did, and your only answer without any evidence to support it is, "he is not a credible source". Yet again I find it hard to believe that you could research every example given in the time I posted. Chas, you like many others here seem to un wittingly make my points for me, and again like other poster, you also completely ignored the Virginia Steen Mcintyre story.
What do either of these have to do with the basis of evolutionary theory?
These issues pose questions about the detailed history and timeline of early man, but do not overturn Neo-Darwinism.

Cremo's idea that mankind has been around for billions of years is without merit. Not only is there no evidence for it, there is profound evidence against it.

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
04-12-2012, 04:53 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
The Hueyatlaco case seems to be an interesting case. I simply don't know much about the matter to criticize its veracity. But it seems to me that it is more a case of archaeology than a evolution matter. Maybe if its veracity is attested, it is the time line of the 'out of africa' model that have to be revised, not evolution!

As to the deluted that state an existence of billions of years, based on coins and strange metal spheres... well, I'm not going to waste time looking into it!

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 04:57 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 04:53 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  The Hueyatlaco case seems to be an interesting case. I simply don't know much about the matter to criticize its veracity. But it seems to me that it is more a case of archaeology than a evolution matter. Maybe if its veracity is attested, it is the time line of the 'out of africa' model that have to be revised, not evolution!

As to the deluted that state an existence of billions of years, based on coins and strange metal spheres... well, I'm not going to waste time looking into it!
The thread has been thoroughly derailed by THEMAYAN.

Can we get back to your original question?
I would like you to restate it clearly.
Thanks.

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
04-12-2012, 04:59 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(28-11-2012 05:08 PM)Chas 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?


Your understanding is incorrect.

Many predictions have been made and proved true. Google, for instance, tiktaalik.
Tiktaalik was debunked in In the Nature journal study, led by Grzegorz Niedz a while back. Unfortunately it is still being parroted till this day. We have found four legged creatures that are much older. Just like Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, IDA, Coelacanth, archaeopteryx, and Archaeoraptor. Tiktaalik is one of the latest to fall from grace. So much for accurate predictions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 05:06 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 04:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-12-2012 04:53 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  The Hueyatlaco case seems to be an interesting case. I simply don't know much about the matter to criticize its veracity. But it seems to me that it is more a case of archaeology than a evolution matter. Maybe if its veracity is attested, it is the time line of the 'out of africa' model that have to be revised, not evolution!

As to the deluted that state an existence of billions of years, based on coins and strange metal spheres... well, I'm not going to waste time looking into it!
The thread has been thoroughly derailed by THEMAYAN.

Can we get back to your original question?
I would like you to restate it clearly.
Thanks.
Well, the original question was if the current theory of evolution is a scientific theory. It was an epistemological question. I think that with one obvious exception, we can all agree that it is until we have a better one.

So, I yould like to recenter the debate: Does the extended synthesis:

A) Totally refutes the current theory of evolution?
B) Optimise the current theory of evolution?

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 05:17 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 04:59 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  
(28-11-2012 05:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your understanding is incorrect.

Many predictions have been made and proved true. Google, for instance, tiktaalik.
Tiktaalik was debunked in In the Nature journal study, led by Grzegorz Niedz a while back. Unfortunately it is still being parroted till this day. We have found four legged creatures that are much older. Just like Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, IDA, Coelacanth, archaeopteryx, and Archaeoraptor. Tiktaalik is one of the latest to fall from grace. So much for accurate predictions.
I think you misunderstand the facts here. Tiktaalik is from 375 MYA; the footprints found by Grzegorz Niedz in Poland were from 250 MYA. No debunking.

Piltdown man was a hoax, 'Nebraska man' never existed. You don't have a good grasp of the facts.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
04-12-2012, 05:26 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
A) tiktaalik is a fossil showing the similarities between fish and amphibians, but is still a fish. There is nothing to debunk in that respect. What it shows as a connection is also clear. Are there ancestors of tiktaalik that we may later find showing more similarities? Possibly.

B) trace fossils of footprints can be classified in a number of ways but positively distinguishing between "fish-like" amphibian and "amphibian-like" fish is not possible.

C) look up a guy named mark mcmenemin at Mount Holyoke as the type specimen of a batshit crazy person who built up credit through legitimate science and has spent his time ever since doing junk pseudoscience that only gets published as abstracts for posters and talks but remains in the public eye because stupid people (jourmalists) can't distinguish science from bullshit.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 05:26 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 05:06 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  
(04-12-2012 04:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  The thread has been thoroughly derailed by THEMAYAN.

Can we get back to your original question?
I would like you to restate it clearly.
Thanks.
Well, the original question was if the current theory of evolution is a scientific theory. It was an epistemological question. I think that with one obvious exception, we can all agree that it is until we have a better one.

So, I yould like to recenter the debate: Does the extended synthesis:

A) Totally refutes the current theory of evolution?
B) Optimise the current theory of evolution?
I go with 'B', with reservations.

This is a lot like 'punctuated equilibrium overturns Darwinism'. It is overblown.

The framework of evolutionary theory is that descent with modification and selection occur. It is the description of an algorithm.

The vehicle for descent is DNA, the mechanism for modification is gene modification, and selection is done by differential survival.

We are learning more and more about genetics, embryology, and development. DNA is not a blueprint, it is a recipe. We are learning that it's not even that simple - it seems to be a recipe of recipes, or even a programming language. But the tracks of its evolution are there.

But this doesn't overturn Neo-Darwinism any more than learning more details about the core of the earth and its interaction with the mantle overturns plate tectonics.

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
04-12-2012, 05:32 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
D) while neither truth nor science is a consensus opinion, it doesn't bode well when only fringe "scientists" are the ones supporting your claims while everyone else devotes their time to showing how badly wrong they are or chooses not to waste their time doing so because it is an obvious observation among scientists.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 05:35 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 05:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-12-2012 05:06 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  Well, the original question was if the current theory of evolution is a scientific theory. It was an epistemological question. I think that with one obvious exception, we can all agree that it is until we have a better one.

So, I yould like to recenter the debate: Does the extended synthesis:

A) Totally refutes the current theory of evolution?
B) Optimise the current theory of evolution?
I go with 'B', with reservations.

This is a lot like 'punctuated equilibrium overturns Darwinism'. It is overblown.

The framework of evolutionary theory is that descent with modification and selection occur. It is the description of an algorithm.

The vehicle for descent is DNA, the mechanism for modification is gene modification, and selection is done by differential survival.

We are learning more and more about genetics, embryology, and development. DNA is not a blueprint, it is a recipe. We are learning that it's not even that simple - it seems to be a recipe of recipes, or even a programming language. But the tracks of its evolution are there.

But this doesn't overturn Neo-Darwinism any more than learning more details about the core of the earth and its interaction with the mantle overturns plate tectonics.
In my opinion, epigenetics and all the evo-devo field offer different and more complex ways to obtain variability. Note: These new sources of variability only accounts to evolution if transmissible.

However, in the end, the judge of what form prevails will always be natural selection or genetic drift.

In other words it may change the evolutionary dynamics, but it will still be a matter of selection.

Therefore, I'm going with B).

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: