Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-11-2012, 04:44 PM
Re: How has this forum changed you?
How in anyway is it not falsifiable.. When the results come in against a prediction, that aspect can be seen as wrong.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 05:15 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(29-11-2012 04:04 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  Evolution is a fact, I think we can all agree on this.

Modern synthesis is the current scientific theory that better explains evoultion. The thing is no scientific theory is an absolute truth.
If scientists demonstrate, in a consistent way, that there are, for example, lamarckistic mechanisms in evolution, then modern synthesis will be revised.

My question is: what's your point?

A) Because there is discussion in scientific community it automatically invalidates evolution. In other words, you're a creationist.
B) Because there is discussion in scientific community it automatically invalidates modern synthesis as the explanatory scientific theory. In other words, you don't really know nothing about epistemology.
C) You see the modern synthesis as an incomplete scientific theory. In other words, you're a rational person.

Which one are you?

(Edit: I now realized that you believe in ID. I think you would be a definite A. In other words, you're just an idiot)
It doesn't matter who or what I am which was already adressed in previous thread. The question was one of neo Darwinism as a theory, and this is what I responded too. I did not make an argument for intelligent design, or creationism, because this was not the subject matter. As adults, I see no reason why people cannot discuss issues without being labeled or called childish names. Who knows? Maybe we did indeed evolve from some pre Cambrian prokaryote organsim, but on thing seems to now be certain based on the current observable evidence, and that is, if it did happen, it didn't happen through a neo Darwinian mechanism, yet this is the dogma we still teach to students till this day, in spite of the current scientific literature and this is theory that is defended by law.

I know of no other theory that is, with the acception of outlawing the teaching of anything other than Lysenkoism in Stallins Russia. Massimo Pigliucci is as much of an evolutionist and atheist as you can get, and even he was attacked by Jerry Coyne for simply and publicly proposing (along with many other scientist from around the globe) yet another "extended synthesis" at the Altenberg meeting in Austria in 2008. Stuart Newman who also an attendee, and who is also an evo devo evolutionist was even accused of being a creationist by a few people who I spoke with, and for just being critical of the Dover case, as well as being just as critical of neo Darwinism, yet as for him being an ID'er or creationist, nothing could be further from the truth. He also speaks of this shift in paradigmes in part 4 of the video "Will the real theory of evolution please stand up?" I'm sorry if this place we're at in evolutionary theory bothers you, but it is what it is. Don't kill the messenger. I have not lied or mis-represented anything. I have no need too. If a theory is filled with gaps, holes and many failed predictions, as well as being refuted by evolutionist themselves, then maybe the theory is obsolete, in spite of its orthodoxy in textbooks. I have a feeling someone said similar to that thirty years ago
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 05:20 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(29-11-2012 05:15 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  If a theory is filled with gaps, holes and many failed predictions, as well as being refuted by evolutionist themselves, then maybe the theory is obsolete, in spite of its orthodoxy in textbooks. I have a feeling someone said similar to that thirty years ago
But the theory is not "filled with gaps, holes and many failed predictions", nor is it "being refuted by evolutionist themselves".

Evolutionary biologists argue about mechanisms, levels of selection, units of selection, and so on. It is a lively, healthy, active debate. The idea that the modern synthesis is in some kind of trouble only comes from those who don't understand science.

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
29-11-2012, 05:30 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(29-11-2012 05:15 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  
(29-11-2012 04:04 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  Evolution is a fact, I think we can all agree on this.

Modern synthesis is the current scientific theory that better explains evoultion. The thing is no scientific theory is an absolute truth.
If scientists demonstrate, in a consistent way, that there are, for example, lamarckistic mechanisms in evolution, then modern synthesis will be revised.

My question is: what's your point?

A) Because there is discussion in scientific community it automatically invalidates evolution. In other words, you're a creationist.
B) Because there is discussion in scientific community it automatically invalidates modern synthesis as the explanatory scientific theory. In other words, you don't really know nothing about epistemology.
C) You see the modern synthesis as an incomplete scientific theory. In other words, you're a rational person.

Which one are you?

(Edit: I now realized that you believe in ID. I think you would be a definite A. In other words, you're just an idiot)
It doesn't matter who or what I am which was already adressed in previous thread. The question was one of neo Darwinism as a theory, and this is what I responded too. I did not make an argument for intelligent design, or creationism, because this was not the subject matter. As adults, I see no reason why people cannot discuss issues without being labeled or called childish names. Who knows? Maybe we did indeed evolve from some pre Cambrian prokaryote organsim, but on thing seems to now be certain based on the current observable evidence, and that is, if it did happen, it didn't happen through a neo Darwinian mechanism, yet this is the dogma we still teach to students till this day, in spite of the current scientific literature and this is theory that is defended by law.

I know of no other theory that is, with the acception of outlawing the teaching of anything other than Lysenkoism in Stallins Russia. Massimo Pigliucci is as much of an evolutionist and atheist as you can get, and even he was attacked by Jerry Coyne for simply and publicly proposing (along with many other scientist from around the globe) yet another "extended synthesis" at the Altenberg meeting in Austria in 2008. Stuart Newman who also an attendee, and who is also an evo devo evolutionist was even accused of being a creationist by a few people who I spoke with, and for just being critical of the Dover case, as well as being just as critical of neo Darwinism, yet as for him being an ID'er or creationist, nothing could be further from the truth. He also speaks of this shift in paradigmes in part 4 of the video "Will the real theory of evolution please stand up?" I'm sorry if this place we're at in evolutionary theory bothers you, but it is what it is. Don't kill the messenger. I have not lied or mis-represented anything. I have no need too. If a theory is filled with gaps, holes and many failed predictions, as well as being refuted by evolutionist themselves, then maybe the theory is obsolete, in spite of its orthodoxy in textbooks. I have a feeling someone said similar to that thirty years ago
Again, evoultion is a fact. The modern synthesis is the current scientific theory that explains evolution. If there is a new rising scientific theory that explains what modern synthesis explains and more, then it will become the new paradigm and that is what it will be teached in schools.

This is the great thing of science, the ability to change paradigms.

Now, you cannot change the paradigm with some challenges. You need to create a new and better scientific theory.

So, on the question 'is modern synthesis a scientific theory ?'. The answer is yes, until we have a better explanation. And 'god did it' does not apply.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 05:50 PM (This post was last modified: 29-11-2012 05:57 PM by tiagorod84.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
"based on the current observable evidence, and that is, if it did happen, it didn't happen through a neo Darwinian mechanism"

This is simply not true. I can make infinite citations that support the modern synthesis. Thus, the challenges that you have presented do not refute, but rather optimize the explanation of evolution.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 06:14 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?



[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 06:31 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(29-11-2012 05:50 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  "based on the current observable evidence, and that is, if it did happen, it didn't happen through a neo Darwinian mechanism"

This is simply not true. I can make infinite citations that support the modern synthesis. Thus, the challenges that you have presented do not refute, but rather optimize the explanation of evolution.
I think you mean you can "cite" many, and maybe you can, but check the dates on them. I am speaking of current challenges based on the observable evidence. And these challenges are not only true, they are documented, and again the most vocal challenges are coming from evo devo i.e. biologist who are actually in the field of evolutionary biology.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 06:41 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(29-11-2012 05:50 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  "based on the current observable evidence, and that is, if it did happen, it didn't happen through a neo Darwinian mechanism"

This is simply not true. I can make infinite citations that support the modern synthesis. Thus, the challenges that you have presented do not refute, but rather optimize the explanation of evolution.
Maybe this might help you better understand. Its pretty neutral and speaks of the controversy.

COMPREHENSIVE REFERENCE FOR EVO-DEVO OR COLLECTIVE CHALLENGE TO NEO-DARWINISM?

  1. Ehab Abouheif
Article first published online: 9 MAY 2007
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 06:48 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
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 .
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 07:00 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Challenging, in this case, means that the modern synthesis does not explain it all, there are other mechanisms of evolution. There's nothing unscientific with that. My problem with your claim is that these challenges are supposed to refute modern synthesis. That is just wrong, in spite of all the citations you make.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: