Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-10-2015, 04:11 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
EvolutionKills, you enjoy our dialog, don't you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2015, 04:53 AM (This post was last modified: 08-10-2015 06:02 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(08-10-2015 04:11 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  EvolutionKills, you enjoy our dialog, don't you?

What dialogue? That kind of requires two participants, and you maybe rate at 0.3 if I were being really generous; so it's really more of a pseudo-monologue. Drinking Beverage

[Image: NOT-SURE-IF-TROLL-OR-JUST-VERY-STUPID.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2015, 05:05 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Dear Peebothuhul, they are merely forced to tell because otherwise their theory of microevolution is dead. Though this doesn't imply that you can't build a proper theory of microevolution. Quite naturally.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2015, 07:52 AM (This post was last modified: 08-10-2015 08:06 AM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
So.... again, you don't understand sex. ...... therefore something else is happening?

Or, have you missed the Discovery Channel shows on Dinosaurs and such?

It is also of sad note that your ability to wax lyrically has withered over time.

I do love how the new 'Buzz' words are 'Micro' and 'Macro'. Intelligent Design has so thoroughly been shone up/beaten down that certain folks have been forced to move on to a new catch phrase.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2015, 11:54 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(08-10-2015 02:56 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  Yet, as I see, you (especially good Unbeliever) suffer some difficulties with embracing the perplexing statement that we each have fathers and mothers.

I think you may have misinterpreted something here.

That, or you just didn't read my posts and are simply trolling. Either one.

(08-10-2015 02:56 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  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.

Again, this is flatly wrong.

Individual fitness is no more of an incoherent concept than individual player skill on a basketball team.

You do not understand the system that you are trying to comment on.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
08-10-2015, 04:25 PM
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...

You do not understand the modern synthesis. Drinking Beverage

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
08-10-2015, 04:27 PM (This post was last modified: 08-10-2015 04:36 PM by Chas.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(02-10-2015 02:10 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  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.

You have a poor understanding of Neo-Darwinism and how evolution works.

Why do you assume that evolution is unidirectional?

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
08-10-2015, 04:28 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(02-10-2015 04:04 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(02-10-2015 02:10 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  Following certain enlightened opinions, I presume that, in the world of sex, the proper evolution begins with speciation.

Yup, sounds about right to myself. Thumbsup

Except it's wrong. So, there's that.

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
08-10-2015, 04:34 PM
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!

Evolution occurs in populations, not individuals. Your argument is null and void.

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
08-10-2015, 04:36 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(08-10-2015 04:11 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  EvolutionKills, you enjoy our dialog, don't you?

Do you have another membership title Alla?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: