Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-12-2012, 06:08 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?


No, the ES does not refute evolution as a paradigme or concept, only as a theoretical frame work, and the reason being, is we cannot honestly divorce ourselves from neo Darwinism/the modern synthesis after all these years of teaching it, if not as a dogma, at least a glorified axiom. I think Stuart Newman adresses this issue very well in video I cited, and he himself still believes in evolution, but admits that the curent theory is not adequate. He does not contest Darwinian evolution as if it does not pertain.

What he does question, is the limitations of neo Darwinism, including the limitations of natural selection to account for living things as we know them, and again, when I speak of evolution, I mean prokaryote to man evolution.
What it has done is caused a lot of conflict within evolutionary biology. As I said before, Wiki has a pretty fair article on evo devo. The biggest problem for people like those of the NCSE and NAS who have been shoving the neo Darwinian paradigm down peoples throats for decades, is how do they tell the general public, maybe they were wrong? This is a whole they have dug for themselves.

Will the public accept a kind of statement such as......(OK we may have been wrong about the mechanisms, and we may have been wrong for using the neo Darwinian model at Dover, and we may have even been wrong for villainizing other evolutionist who disagreed with the Darwinian model, but this time its gona be different? This new extended synthesis is going to have the real creamy feeling?

When you have very influential people like Eugenie Scott of the NCSE who has made a lot of money at speaking engagements and who has won many Darwin awards for her contribution for promoting evolution in schools, universities and to the public, and who is also a backer of the clergy letter project which asks fringe churches to honor Darwin and celebrate Darwin day, this is no easy task

Secondly we still know even less about the epigenetic and self organization models that make up the ES than we know of the current theory itself. How do explain that to people? So in essence just like a person who is in-between jobs, we are unofficially now in between a theories. The question is, while this is happening, who will pay the bills? The answer for many is, lets pretend like the problem does not exist.

My personal reasons for not accepting evolutionary theory as taught, are for completely different reasons as I advocate intelligent design, which is a much different thing than evo devo who feel that chemistry and physics alone can account for life. I have not heard one bit of evidence that could not be challenged on a scientific level, and for the life of me, I dont know why people cant discuss their views without name calling.

As for epistemology, sure OK, but lets teach all of it. The good, bad and ugly. Lets not sugar coat it, or approach it as cheerleaders, or just teach the part of the theory that seems to agree, but lets also teach the conflicting data and failed predictions for which there are many. I have no problem with having to wait for intelligent design to go through the same scrutiny and peer review process as any other new theory has to go through, as it is doing now as we speak.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 06:17 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 06:08 PM)THEMAYAN 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?


No, the ES does not refute evolution as a paradigme or concept, only as a theoretical frame work, and the reason being, is we cannot honestly divorce ourselves from neo Darwinism/the modern synthesis after all these years of teaching it, if not as a dogma, at least a glorified axiom. I think Stuart Newman adresses this issue very well in video I cited, and he himself still believes in evolution, but admits that the curent theory is not adequate. He does not contest Darwinian evolution as if it does not pertain.

What he does question, is the limitations of neo Darwinism, including the limitations of natural selection to account for living things as we know them, and again, when I speak of evolution, I mean prokaryote to man evolution.
What it has done is caused a lot of conflict within evolutionary biology. As I said before, Wiki has a pretty fair article on evo devo. The biggest problem for people like those of the NCSE and NAS who have been shoving the neo Darwinian paradigm down peoples throats for decades, is how do they tell the general public, maybe they were wrong? This is a whole they have dug for themselves.

Will the public accept a kind of statement such as......(OK we may have been wrong about the mechanisms, and we may have been wrong for using the neo Darwinian model at Dover, and we may have even been wrong for villainizing other evolutionist who disagreed with the Darwinian model, but this time its gona be different? This new extended synthesis is going to have the real creamy feeling?

When you have very influential people like Eugenie Scott of the NCSE who has made a lot of money at speaking engagements and who has won many Darwin awards for her contribution for promoting evolution in schools, universities and to the public, and who is also a backer of the clergy letter project which asks fringe churches to honor Darwin and celebrate Darwin day, this is no easy task

Secondly we still know even less about the epigenetic and self organization models that make up the ES than we know of the current theory itself. How do explain that to people? So in essence just like a person who is in-between jobs, we are unofficially now in between a theories. The question is, while this is happening, who will pay the bills? The answer for many is, lets pretend like the problem does not exist.

My personal reasons for not accepting evolutionary theory as taught, are for completely different reasons as I advocate intelligent design, which is a much different thing than evo devo who feel that chemistry and physics alone can account for life. I have not heard one bit of evidence that could not be challenged on a scientific level, and for the life of me, I dont know why people cant discuss their views without name calling.

As for epistemology, sure OK, but lets teach all of it. The good, bad and ugly. Lets not sugar coat it, or approach it as cheerleaders, or just teach the part of the theory that seems to agree, but lets also teach the conflicting data and failed predictions for which there are many. I have no problem with having to wait for intelligent design to go through the same scrutiny and peer review process as any other new theory has to go through, as it is doing now as we speak.
There is no scientific basis for ID, so we won't be teaching that in science class.
There is no evidence that physics & chemistry don't explain life. However., that's the wrong level to approach the issue as it it too reductionist to be practical.
There is also no good reason to doubt mutation and selection as the primary mechanisms for evolution.

The arguments against it are primarily arguments from incredulity or a wish to inject the supernatural into the algorithm.

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, 06:24 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
It would seem you can prove or disprove anything, granted you ignore the arguments against you.

Are you really Mark Mcmenemin?

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, 06:25 PM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2012 06:29 PM by tiagorod84.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 06:08 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  As for epistemology, sure OK, but lets teach all of it. The good, bad and ugly. Lets not sugar coat it, or approach it as cheerleaders, or just teach the part of the theory that seems to agree, but lets also teach the conflicting data and failed predictions for which there are many. I have no problem with having to wait for intelligent design to go through the same scrutiny and peer review process as any other new theory has to go through, as it is doing now as we speak.
Let us see... ID again?! I thought we were through with that.

Why ID cannot be a part of science:

1) Science deals with the natural world. ID has a super-natural premise.

2) Science and pseudo-science are clearly distinguished through the principle of falsifiability. Would you care telling me how can ID be empirically refuted?

Call it creationist reasoning, whatever you want, just not science!

Let us keep discussing evolution!

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes tiagorod84's post
04-12-2012, 07:47 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 06:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-12-2012 06:08 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  No, the ES does not refute evolution as a paradigme or concept, only as a theoretical frame work, and the reason being, is we cannot honestly divorce ourselves from neo Darwinism/the modern synthesis after all these years of teaching it, if not as a dogma, at least a glorified axiom. I think Stuart Newman adresses this issue very well in video I cited, and he himself still believes in evolution, but admits that the curent theory is not adequate. He does not contest Darwinian evolution as if it does not pertain.

What he does question, is the limitations of neo Darwinism, including the limitations of natural selection to account for living things as we know them, and again, when I speak of evolution, I mean prokaryote to man evolution.
What it has done is caused a lot of conflict within evolutionary biology. As I said before, Wiki has a pretty fair article on evo devo. The biggest problem for people like those of the NCSE and NAS who have been shoving the neo Darwinian paradigm down peoples throats for decades, is how do they tell the general public, maybe they were wrong? This is a whole they have dug for themselves.

Will the public accept a kind of statement such as......(OK we may have been wrong about the mechanisms, and we may have been wrong for using the neo Darwinian model at Dover, and we may have even been wrong for villainizing other evolutionist who disagreed with the Darwinian model, but this time its gona be different? This new extended synthesis is going to have the real creamy feeling?

When you have very influential people like Eugenie Scott of the NCSE who has made a lot of money at speaking engagements and who has won many Darwin awards for her contribution for promoting evolution in schools, universities and to the public, and who is also a backer of the clergy letter project which asks fringe churches to honor Darwin and celebrate Darwin day, this is no easy task

Secondly we still know even less about the epigenetic and self organization models that make up the ES than we know of the current theory itself. How do explain that to people? So in essence just like a person who is in-between jobs, we are unofficially now in between a theories. The question is, while this is happening, who will pay the bills? The answer for many is, lets pretend like the problem does not exist.

My personal reasons for not accepting evolutionary theory as taught, are for completely different reasons as I advocate intelligent design, which is a much different thing than evo devo who feel that chemistry and physics alone can account for life. I have not heard one bit of evidence that could not be challenged on a scientific level, and for the life of me, I dont know why people cant discuss their views without name calling.

As for epistemology, sure OK, but lets teach all of it. The good, bad and ugly. Lets not sugar coat it, or approach it as cheerleaders, or just teach the part of the theory that seems to agree, but lets also teach the conflicting data and failed predictions for which there are many. I have no problem with having to wait for intelligent design to go through the same scrutiny and peer review process as any other new theory has to go through, as it is doing now as we speak.
There is no scientific basis for ID, so we won't be teaching that in science class.
There is no evidence that physics & chemistry don't explain life. However., that's the wrong level to approach the issue as it it too reductionist to be practical.
There is also no good reason to doubt mutation and selection as the primary mechanisms for evolution.

The arguments against it are primarily arguments from incredulity or a wish to inject the supernatural into the algorithm.



There is a scientific basis for ID, and that is why ID theorist get their work published in peer review science journals. In addition, design theory is now being used in the emerging field of systems biology, and viewing the cell as a complex and engineered system, and in doing so, the field is producing great results.

And yes, there is no evidence that physics and chemistry alone can explain life, and people who have tried to explain it through chemistry and physics alone, (yet have failed) like Jack Szostak, Craig Venter, and
Gerald Joyce use reductionism all the time. The only difference is that it is based on a non teleological paradigme. The selex systems that are used are also based on reductionism.

As for the supernatural, I dont believe that nature can transcend itself. Three hundred years ago people like you would have thought that computers and space shuttles were supernatural, but this would have been based on a narrow minded and limited view of the real world.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 07:50 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 07:47 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  
(04-12-2012 06:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is no scientific basis for ID, so we won't be teaching that in science class.
There is no evidence that physics & chemistry don't explain life. However., that's the wrong level to approach the issue as it it too reductionist to be practical.
There is also no good reason to doubt mutation and selection as the primary mechanisms for evolution.

The arguments against it are primarily arguments from incredulity or a wish to inject the supernatural into the algorithm.
There is a scientific basis for ID, and that is why ID theorist get their work published in peer review science journals. In addition, design theory is now being used in the emerging field of systems biology, and viewing the cell as a complex and engineered system, and in doing so, the field is producing great results.


And yes, there is no evidence that physics and chemistry alone can explain life, and people who have tried to explain it through chemistry and physics alone, (yet have failed) like Jack Szostak, Craig Venter, and Jerald [font=arial, sans-serif]Joyce[/font] use reductionism all the time. The only difference is that it is based on a non teleological paradigme. The selex systems that are used are also based on reductionism.

As for the supernatural, I dont believe that nature can transcend itself. Three hundred years ago people like you would have thought that computers and space shuttles were supernatural, but this would have been based on a narrow minded and limited view of the real world.
ID in peer-reviewed science journals? Really? Citations, please.

There is no evidence that physics and chemistry can not explain life. There is nothing else.

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, 08:22 PM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2012 08:40 PM by tiagorod84.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 07:47 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  There is a scientific basis for ID, and that is why ID theorist get their work published in peer review science journals. In addition, design theory is now being used in the emerging field of systems biology, and viewing the cell as a complex and engineered system, and in doing so, the field is producing great results.

And yes, there is no evidence that physics and chemistry alone can explain life, and people who have tried to explain it through chemistry and physics alone, (yet have failed) like Jack Szostak, Craig Venter, and
Gerald Joyce use reductionism all the time. The only difference is that it is based on a non teleological paradigme. The selex systems that are used are also based on reductionism.

As for the supernatural, I dont believe that nature can transcend itself. Three hundred years ago people like you would have thought that computers and space shuttles were supernatural, but this would have been based on a narrow minded and limited view of the real world.
Man, systems biology has nothing to do with ID. That's applying engineering principles to biology. It's a HUMAN design of biological circuits. Are you claiming that systems biology is based on ID? I know some fellow biologists working on system biology that would like to give you a word... You're getting insulting again...

As to the peer reviewed articles, there's a simple thing to do: search 'inteligent design' in PubMed and see the result with your own eyes.

If you deny the transcendent, super-natural, or whatever bogus you want to call it, then you're not even a creationist. Unless you'r and thee a believer on that E.T. thing, but then you would have to explain the origin of E.T. life and the problem would persist.

If a creator exists and designed the universe, then it must be placed beyond this universe, it must be beyond our natural world. Anyway this is just semantics and meta-physical hypothesis.

As to the narrow minded, yeah I've been called that by New Age people. It's OK, I don't mind. The high-techonology example, from a creationist, that's just laughable!

Yet, the questions stand:

How can science deal with a concept that transcends (oh yeah) the natural world?

How can you empirically test the ID hypothesis?

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 08:31 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 08:22 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  
(04-12-2012 07:47 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  There is a scientific basis for ID, and that is why ID theorist get their work published in peer review science journals. In addition, design theory is now being used in the emerging field of systems biology, and viewing the cell as a complex and engineered system, and in doing so, the field is producing great results.

And yes, there is no evidence that physics and chemistry alone can explain life, and people who have tried to explain it through chemistry and physics alone, (yet have failed) like Jack Szostak, Craig Venter, and
Gerald Joyce use reductionism all the time. The only difference is that it is based on a non teleological paradigme. The selex systems that are used are also based on reductionism.

As for the supernatural, I dont believe that nature can transcend itself. Three hundred years ago people like you would have thought that computers and space shuttles were supernatural, but this would have been based on a narrow minded and limited view of the real world.
Man, systems biology has nothing to do with ID. That's applying engineering principles to biology. It's a HUMAN design of biological circuits. Are you claiming that systems biology is based in ID? I know some fellow biologists working on system biology that would like to give you a word... You're getting insulting again...

If yo deny the transcendent, super-natural, or whatever bogus you want to call it, you're not even a creationist.
If a creator exists and designed the universe, then it must be placed beyond this universe, it must be beyond our natural world. Anyway this is just semantics and meta-physical hypothesis.

Please do tell me how do you test empyrically ID?
No, you said that systems biology is based on ID not me. Please read carefully. I said that design theory is now being used in systems biology, i.e. when viewing the cell from a perspective of an intelligently designed complex engineered systems (and more specifically the kind of engineered systems such as complex electrical systems, or parts for space shuttles, etc. We are better able to understand the cell, as apposed to viewing it as non engineered biological system.
Try reading without the emotion and it will be much clearer the first time. When did I say I was a creationist? Was Francis Crick a creationist for proposing directed panspermia?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 08:52 PM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2012 08:57 PM by tiagorod84.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 08:31 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  No, you said that systems biology is based on ID not me. Please read carefully. I said that design theory is now being used in systems biology, i.e. when viewing the cell from a perspective of an intelligently designed complex engineered systems (and more specifically the kind of engineered systems such as complex electrical systems, or parts for space shuttles, etc. We are better able to understand the cell, as apposed to viewing it as non engineered biological system.
Try reading without the emotion and it will be much clearer the first time. When did I say I was a creationist? Was Francis Crick a creationist for proposing directed panspermia?
First, what do you mean by design theory? Systems biology is engineering principles applied to biology.

When you say something like this: " There is a scientific basis for ID, and that is why ID theorist get their work published in peer review science journals. In addition, design theory is now being used in the emerging field of systems biology, and viewing the cell as a complex and engineered system, and in doing so,
the field is producing great results.". Aren't you trying to take credit from systems biology to ID. Are you really going to deny that?

Francis crick was not a creationist but that hypothesis of an E.T. civilisation is useless to what matters: explaining the natural world.

You...You believe in ID, but there's a designer in the natural world... This is just non-sense to me! Please be clear on what your position is and then we can get a fair debate. Otherwise you'll be always avoiding, by saying that's not what I believe.

Yet, the questions stand:

How can science deal with a concept that transcends (oh yeah) the natural world?

How can you empirically test the ID hypothesis?


(Note: how about those peer-reviewed articles?
I mean some scientists have some crazy surstitious believes and yet they do excellent science. Those are very separate things.)

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes tiagorod84's post
04-12-2012, 09:16 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 08:52 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  
(04-12-2012 08:31 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  No, you said that systems biology is based on ID not me. Please read carefully. I said that design theory is now being used in systems biology, i.e. when viewing the cell from a perspective of an intelligently designed complex engineered systems (and more specifically the kind of engineered systems such as complex electrical systems, or parts for space shuttles, etc. We are better able to understand the cell, as apposed to viewing it as non engineered biological system.
Try reading without the emotion and it will be much clearer the first time. When did I say I was a creationist? Was Francis Crick a creationist for proposing directed panspermia?
First, what do you mean by design theory? Systems biology is engineering principles applied to biology.

When you say something like this: " There is a scientific basis for ID, and that is why ID theorist get their work published in peer review science journals. In addition, design theory is now being used in the emerging field of systems biology, and viewing the cell as a complex and engineered system, and in doing so,
the field is producing great results.". Aren't you trying to take credit from systems biology to ID. Are you really going to deny that?

Francis crick was not a creationist but that hypothesis of an E.T. civilisation is useless to what matters: explaining the natural world.

You...You believe in ID, but there's a designer in the natural world... This is just non-sense to me! Please be clear on what your position is and then we can get a fair debate. Otherwise you'll be always avoiding, by saying that's not what I believe.

Yet, the questions stand:

How can science deal with a concept that transcends (oh yeah) the natural world?

How can you empirically test the ID hypothesis?


(Note: how about those peer-reviewed articles?)



No I am not trying to take credit for anything. I was merely citing a fact. I'm sorry the fact that design theory is now being used in systems biology bothers you. I never said Crick was a creationist. I simply asked a question that you cant or wont answer.
My position is simple in that why would a designer have to be supernatural?

Why couldn't a designer be as natural as rain, and that maybe it is our limited thinking of the natural world that is the problem? As I said before, design theory is being used as we speak. What could be a better test. Now if your asking me how you can falsify ID, that is easy. All you have to do is provide a plausible detailed account for a irreducible complex system. Kenneth Miller and many others have attempted yet have failed. If you know of someone who has, then please let me know. All I ask is that you are knowledgable enough to go into details and or able to defend it in your own words. A person that cant, didn't do their home work.


If I could cite multiple peer review articles, would it make a difference? Would you then concede that ID is a scientific construct, or would you hand waive it away, or like Jerry Coyne, villainize or call for a boycott of the journal that published it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: