Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-10-2015, 03:27 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(O_o)

Dafaq did I just read?

Bravo on your lexicon and word-smithery.

Is there either a reply or other question buried within the tulmit of your verbage?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2015, 03:56 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
EvolutionKills, feel free to skip all this gibberish. Sleep well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2015, 04:00 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(07-10-2015 03:56 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  EvolutionKills, feel free to skip all this gibberish. Sleep well.

Unfortunately for you, I can not. I have a somewhat pathological need to intervene when I see someone shitting on the rug.

[Image: article-2310904-195C90DC000005DC-607_638x521.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2015, 04:18 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
EvolutionKills, go on shitting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2015, 04:41 AM
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?

Here is the Oxford English Dictionary definition.

Definition of neo-Darwinian in English:
adjective

Relating to the modern version of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, incorporating the findings of genetics.
EXAMPLE SENTENCES
Derivatives

neo-Darwinism
1
Pronunciation: /niːəʊˈdɑːwɪnɪən/
noun
EXAMPLE SENTENCES
neo-Darwinist
2
Pronunciation: /niːəʊˈdɑːwɪnɪən/
noun& adjective

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2015, 04:48 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(07-10-2015 04:18 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  EvolutionKills, go on shitting.

I'm not the one with bowel issues here, I actually know how to use paragraphs. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2015, 09:47 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Why do we have the luck to attract so many crazies?

I mean, yes, the crank will no doubt ignore the content of any and all responses in favour of more turgid word salad, but...

Variation.
Selection.
Heredity.
Which does he deny, I wonder?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2015, 05:14 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(07-10-2015 03:00 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  Well, judging by fervent comments, the affront is not accepted easily.

It is not an affront.

It is simply wrong.

(07-10-2015 03:00 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  Of course Unbeliever judges ex professo who understands evolution - and who does not.

No. I judge by comparing your exceptionally incoherent posts to reality.

Reality wins.

(07-10-2015 03:00 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  Yes, a basketball team is a true system (while a team of swimmers is not), and there is no way to break the win down to individual players. A shame. Just like there is no way to build a perpetual motion machine able to work. Elementary, my dear Watson! Surely, sports journalists estimate personal contributions with ease, and this is the abysmal difference between journalism and science.

Again, this is gibberish, and any point you may have had is lost.

I assume that you are pointing out that, yes, of course we can analyze the skill of individual players in a basketball team, even though they win as a group. And you are quite right. That was, in fact, my point.

I would say that I do not understand what your point is, but really, I'm fairly certain that you don't either.

(07-10-2015 03:00 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  As against "modern synthesis", consider the views of late Lynn Margulis who by no means was the last person in evolutionary theoretical pastime. <snip ramble>

Yes, yes. That's wonderful.

Again, what is your point?

(07-10-2015 03:00 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  As for definition... Well, I should warely say that the proper evolution is the irreversible process. If you like, it is the irreversible process of "descent with modification". Irreversible. Sapienti sat.

Tell me: how old are you?

I wouldn't normally ask, because it's largely irrelevant, but really. This just smacks of an arrogant sixteen-year-old who thinks that a thesaurus and a list of pseudo-Latin buzzphrases are an acceptable substitute for an actual understanding of what they are talking about.

I would heavily advise you to do some actual reading, not to just Google names and throw them at the wall until you see what sticks. Doing the latter just ensures that your "argument" ends up as an incoherent mess.

As it has here.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2015, 02:56 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
I feel grateful to you, guys, for your active participation; you provided me with real moral support. So nice of you, I'll manage - with a little help from my friends.
Yet, as I see, you (especially good Unbeliever) suffer some difficulties with embracing the perplexing statement that we each have fathers and mothers. Unlike prokaryotes (and also dandelions, Taraxacum plants), which are asexual organisms, we, beloved, have two (!) parents. Who would have thought??? Moreover, dragonflies, poplars and cats each have two parents as well...
I understand that this paradoxical circumstance heavily bewilders you, and I heartily feel with. Sure, you are not used to think with your own head, you are used to believe those who knows better. The trouble is that they also are not used to think, and for almost 75 years they repeat, in good faith, all the same commonplace. You know, as a crocked shellac platter...
Yes, it is difficult, still you are to try harder and you will manage. I belive in your (latent) intellectual potential; you dare! You see, the evolutionary shift to sexual reproduction was a real game changer. That is, the main rule of the game rested: fitness remained the attribute of units of reproduction. Yet, new players have emerged: heterosexual pairs have come in place of individuals as the units of reproduction. While an individual is nothing, in the world of sex, and has no name at all.
Naturally, the attribute of fitness corresponds now to a heterosexual pair as a true system. And there is no way to break its fitness down to individuals. In science, this is, regrettably, verboten. Yet, since "modern synthesis" is not a scientific theory, STE theorists are not aware of the sad interdiction and feel free to produce any absurdity. A shame.
Once again, there is no such thing as individual fitness, in the world of sex, and you can't help it. For non-biologistы this is quite clear, they are used to think with their own head. See, scientific knowledge is paradoxical, and it has nothing to do with common sense. That is all there is to it. You dare, guys!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2015, 03:04 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(08-10-2015 02:56 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  I feel grateful to you, guys, for your active participation; you provided me with real moral support. So nice of you, I'll manage - with a little help from my friends.
Yet, as I see, you (especially good Unbeliever) suffer some difficulties with embracing the perplexing statement that we each have fathers and mothers. Unlike prokaryotes (and also dandelions, Taraxacum plants), which are asexual organisms, we, beloved, have two (!) parents. Who would have thought??? Moreover, dragonflies, poplars and cats each have two parents as well...
I understand that this paradoxical circumstance heavily bewilders you, and I heartily feel with. Sure, you are not used to think with your own head, you are used to believe those who knows better. The trouble is that they also are not used to think, and for almost 75 years they repeat, in good faith, all the same commonplace. You know, as a crocked shellac platter...
Yes, it is difficult, still you are to try harder and you will manage. I belive in your (latent) intellectual potential; you dare! You see, the evolutionary shift to sexual reproduction was a real game changer. That is, the main rule of the game rested: fitness remained the attribute of units of reproduction. Yet, new players have emerged: heterosexual pairs have come in place of individuals as the units of reproduction. While an individual is nothing, in the world of sex, and has no name at all.
Naturally, the attribute of fitness corresponds now to a heterosexual pair as a true system. And there is no way to break its fitness down to individuals. In science, this is, regrettably, verboten. Yet, since "modern synthesis" is not a scientific theory, STE theorists are not aware of the sad interdiction and feel free to produce any absurdity. A shame.
Once again, there is no such thing as individual fitness, in the world of sex, and you can't help it. For non-biologistы this is quite clear, they are used to think with their own head. See, scientific knowledge is paradoxical, and it has nothing to do with common sense. That is all there is to it. You dare, guys!


You know, if English is not your first language, maybe you should try working on your grammar and usage before trying to engage in in-depth conversations on very technical topics? Your point will always be lost if you lack the capability to sufficiently communicate what it is, and all of your posts so far have shown you currently lack that capability.


I don't know if you're trying to sound like a Deepak Chopra random phrase generator, but you're coming close.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: