Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-08-2013, 10:30 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(28-08-2013 05:12 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(28-08-2013 04:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, for fuck's sake. Just Google "post-natal brain development".


You said: "The mind is the result of human evolution and at the same time a catalyst for human evolution. It's an area that science hasn't had too many explanations for and neither has it deemed it a worthy subject in the field of human evolution."

No stupid, I said that humans are born with the physical brain itself not fully formed, you are referring to brain function.

No, asshole, I'm referring to the brain.

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
29-08-2013, 10:35 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(29-08-2013 07:24 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(28-08-2013 07:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  All of them.

But no, that's glib. All mammals, though, absolutely so.

As I was saying...
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/obse...ss-babies/

Did you read it?
Scientific American Wrote:Human babies are thus born when their brains are less than 30 percent of adult brain size so that they can fit through the narrow passageway. They then continue development outside of the womb, with brain size nearly doubling in the first year.

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
30-09-2015, 03:13 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Being a convinced evolutionist, I think that "modern synthesis" (which is by no means modern) is all about microevolution (that is not evolution at all) and tells virtually nothing about the proper evolution. The trouble is that "modern synthesis" tells, in fact, nothing about speciation - beyond the banalities of allopatry...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2015, 03:19 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(30-09-2015 03:13 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  Being a convinced evolutionist, I think that "modern synthesis" (which is by no means modern) is all about microevolution (that is not evolution at all) and tells virtually nothing about the proper evolution. The trouble is that "modern synthesis" tells, in fact, nothing about speciation - beyond the banalities of allopatry...

Lots of long words in just your first post.

I think I'm going to like you.

Welcome to TTA.

Smile

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2015, 03:41 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(30-09-2015 03:13 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  Being a convinced evolutionist, I think that "modern synthesis" (which is by no means modern) is all about microevolution (that is not evolution at all) and tells virtually nothing about the proper evolution. The trouble is that "modern synthesis" tells, in fact, nothing about speciation - beyond the banalities of allopatry...

Interesting first post as DLJ mentioned.

There'd be a lot of big words in there missy and we're but humble atheists.

Might ye be shortenin' the lingo, just a little? Wink

Perhaps you'd wish to start a new thread as opposed to resurrecting an old one? Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
30-09-2015, 03:48 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
What's with the derp this morning? Is it some kind of holy day?

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
01-10-2015, 07:19 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?

Being by no means a biologist - er, a system analyst and, pluralistically, a convinced evolutionist, - I am acquainted with neo-darwinist literature for at least 18 years. And that long familiarity makes me give doubly negative answer to the question.
Firstly, neo-darwinism (alias "modern synthesis", alias STE) is not a theory of evolution. In fact, STE is merely a theory of microevolution, and as such it should be deservedly denoted STM.
Then, secondly, STE (STM) is not a scientific theory of microevolution. By my humble opinion, it is simply the incoherent pile of fallacious statements. A shame.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2015, 07:26 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Hello again.
Hmmm... as a way of beginning at the beginning with your statement(Opinion? Consider )

So, as some one far smarter than myself has posted already on these boards;

Where does this 'Micro-evolution' stop and 'Macro-evolution' start? What delineates the two, in your opinion?

Also, perhaps starting your own thread might be a neat idea?

Much cheers to you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
02-10-2015, 02:10 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Following certain enlightened opinions, I presume that, in the world of sex, the proper evolution begins with speciation. As against microevolution, speciation is an irreversible process. Irreversible! While microevolution is predominantly quite reversible process.
Let me quote the professor of integrative biology, University of California, Berkeley: "...An allele with a frequency of 0.75 in one generation can change to 0.73 in the next, and this is evolution. Well, sort of. In the next generation, the frequency can change back to 0.75. So what has evolved?" (Kevin Padian. Correcting Some Common Misrepresentations of Evolution in Textbooks and the Media. Evolution: Education and Outreach 2013, 6:11. See at
evolution-outreach.com/content/6/1/11).
Once the notorious peppered moth has got darker – then the moth has got lighter. Then what?
There is deep qualitative difference between the two processes. And at that, microevolution is so micro- that it is not evolution at all. Suppose, microevolution is dropped out of the "modern synthesis", and what is left?
My apologies for too many too long words.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2015, 02:58 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
[Image: oprah-squint.gif]

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: