Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-12-2012, 11:15 PM (This post was last modified: 08-12-2012 01:49 AM by THEMAYAN.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(07-12-2012 06:51 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  
(07-12-2012 02:28 AM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  It was in response to Chas who said they were to busy being non mammals when I posed question to you, which he instead responded to.
Technically they exist in all eukaryotes, but we are mammals, and this is why I used the term mammals, but the question still remains concerning the necessity of both apparatuses being needed at the same time. This is why evo devo's do not think like non evo devo biologist who never bother asking these questions, and who unfortunately think strictly in terms of reductionism, cladistics, phylogeny, homology etc. This is why even as an ID'er, I still give credit to evo devo's who for the most part at least think outside the box, challenge orthodox ideas, and are not the average cheerleaders.
As far as I know there is not any homologous structure to BF or TTSS in eukaryotes. There are unrelated structures that serve the same purpose (not the injectosome of course, but export of molecules). So putting the question on Eukaryotes is non-sense.

That question makes sense in the prokaryote context. After reading some articles on the subject, I guess that the hypothesis of BF and TTSS evolving from one common ancestor is the most reasonable explanation.But, of course, more data is needed.
You lost me there. I'm not even sure what you are arguing or if you even understood the question. We are eukaryotic organisms. What did you think we were? And what related structure serves the same purpose as the BF? Please tell me and be specific. I didn't know such a thing existed but if you do please explain. Who told you the BF had an injectisome?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 02:47 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(07-12-2012 10:57 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  
(07-12-2012 08:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  I think you entirely miss the meaning of the discussions and disagreements within evolutionary biology.

You think they are a sign of weakness; in science, these are a sign of strength and health.
This is absurd. I have used current science itself to back up what I said. It is you who mistakenly believes that being critical of a specific theory equals being anti science. It seems you also have the inability to respond to issues or questions point by point.
No, where did I say that?
I don't need to respond to you point by point because I am responding to your whole argument.
Your whole argument misses the point.

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
08-12-2012, 08:09 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(08-12-2012 02:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-12-2012 10:57 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  This is absurd. I have used current science itself to back up what I said. It is you who mistakenly believes that being critical of a specific theory equals being anti science. It seems you also have the inability to respond to issues or questions point by point.
No, where did I say that?
I don't need to respond to you point by point because I am responding to your whole argument.
Your whole argument misses the point.
Yeah OK man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2012, 05:13 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Oh. It's the flagellum. That explains every-fucking-thing. You know, because a god that is supposed to be fucking obvious in all fucking things is actually, maybe, only visible at the ass end of a fucking bacterium. Cause that is the very definition of Almighty.


You know, I think it would be cool as fuck if ID actually had anything to say, but it doesn't. Irreducible Complexity... you know what that means? Goddidit. Cause it don't have no fucking meaning. It is some fucking dickhead - Behe - making noises people assume denote intelligence. It's Irreducible! It's Complex! So if we put 'em together, they're doubly both! And it sounds way cool!

But it ain't cool. It's willful ignorance of the worst kind. It's not, we don't know, it's, we don't wanna know. We want it to be Designed so our lives can have Meaning...

There ain't no fucking meaning. There's eat or get eaten, fuck or get fucked; live then fucking die and get the fuck outta the way. Having no point is the whole fucking point. That is what assures survival - diversity - not design.

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
27-08-2013, 04:59 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(29-11-2012 06:48 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  The core of the modern synthesis is very simple: random mutations, genetic transmissibility, natural selection, differential reproduction. To say that this is false and that there are no observations supporting it, well... it's just not rational. I am a microbiologist. I observe the modern synthesis mechanism almoast everyday in the lab.

Epigenetics is a very interesting field in biology and there's no doubt that it presents some challenges to the abovementioned mechanism. But, it does not refute modern synthesis, at the maximum, if consistently demonstrated, it can add a mechanism of evolution .

We spoke on the subject of the demise of the modern synthesis a years ago, and since then there are now 24 additional papers that have been released by Cornell University challenging and refuting the same modern synthesis I spoke of last year.
I also found an interesting video which is a university level lecture by Dennis Noble. And keep in mind I never said that natural selection did not happen only that it is much more limited than the popular orthodox view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJhotrNeYGE


Also see...Beyond neo-Darwinism—an epigenetic approach to evolution
M.W. Ho

The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis
Michael R Rose1* and Todd H Oakley2


Soft inheritance: challenging the modern synthesis
Eva JablonkaI; Marion J. LambII
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2013, 06:05 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
You might have to wait abit before a reply can be made, Themayan. I wouldn't consider this a necro post, but definitely a buried thread. Big Grin

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2013, 05:52 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Evolution has only showed that a supreme being isn't and wasn't needed to create or facilitate what we call life on earth. Its a great anti-theory, however when making an argument on its own for itself it has many areas left to be filled in.


Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2013, 06:38 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(28-08-2013 05:52 AM)I and I Wrote:  Evolution has only showed that a supreme being isn't and wasn't needed to create or facilitate what we call life on earth. Its a great anti-theory, however when making an argument on its own for itself it has many areas left to be filled in.


Drinking Beverage

Such as... ?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2013, 06:47 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(28-08-2013 06:38 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(28-08-2013 05:52 AM)I and I Wrote:  Evolution has only showed that a supreme being isn't and wasn't needed to create or facilitate what we call life on earth. Its a great anti-theory, however when making an argument on its own for itself it has many areas left to be filled in.


Drinking Beverage

Such as... ?

The very tool that we use to make scientific discoveries brain/mind is not in the evolutionary equation due to our lack of understanding in this area = big hole.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2013, 06:59 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(28-08-2013 06:47 AM)I and I Wrote:  The very tool that we use to make scientific discoveries brain/mind is not in the evolutionary equation due to our lack of understanding in this area = big hole.

Sure, given the lack of fossilization of neurological evidence, but I wouldn't characterize it as 'big'.

Out of curiosity, do chimpanzees have minds? Did australopithecus? Did homo erectus? Neanderthals?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: