Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-11-2012, 07:12 PM (This post was last modified: 29-11-2012 07:20 PM by tiagorod84.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Actually, in another thread I've proposed that the arise of genetic therapy will make lamarckism (in the sense of directed mutations) an actual force of evolution. A very weak one, because genetic therapy will only operate in our species, or in a little set of species if we want to modify them. So, as you can see I am really not a fundamentalist on the issue.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 08:14 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(29-11-2012 05:15 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  [...] 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.
It doesn't hurt to grab a dictionary once in a while.

dogma
Pronunciation: /ˈdôgmə/
noun
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true

incontrovertible
Pronunciation: /inˌkäntrəˈvərtəbəl/
adjective
not able to be denied or disputed

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
30-11-2012, 06:49 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Hey, Phaedrus.

Just a quick note. Darwinism is a term. And scientists do use it. For example, in his 1976 book, The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins outlines Universal Darwinism, a principle that I place great stock in.

Hey, Mayan.

Thanks for bringing all of that knowledge.

I gotta say though, I think that the entire Lamarck, Weismann argument is bunk. It's a closed-minded frame that needs to be discarded. Biology can be so penis/vagina-centric sometimes.

Hey, Chas.

Quote:What has withstood the test of time from Darwin is the mechanism of
random variation and natural selection. Darwin did not know the
mechanisms, but he showed the algorithm. The modern synthesis combined
the idea of genes with Darwin's algorithm.

Booyah!

Hey, Tia.

I gotta say, I think this notion of neo-Darwinism is unnecessary (although I freely admit I haven't heard it before today). Darwin rocks. Best idea ever. As Chas says, all of this business about genetics and biology is just the permutations of his theory. I don't so much mind this modern synthesis term because all it seems to be doing is attempting to include disparate biological theory with basic Darwinism. Sounds reasonable to me. My larger issue with that is that genes are not the only replicator that undergo evolution, so stop all the hogging Cool Memetics what!!! Betta recognise!!!

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 07:03 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(30-11-2012 06:49 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Tia.

I gotta say, I think this notion of neo-Darwinism is unnecessary (although I freely admit I haven't heard it before today). Darwin rocks. Best idea ever. As Chas says, all of this business about genetics and biology is just the permutations of his theory. I don't so much mind this modern synthesis term because all it seems to be doing is attempting to include disparate biological theory with basic Darwinism. Sounds reasonable to me. My larger issue with that is that genes are not the only replicator that undergo evolution, so stop all the hogging Cool Memetics what!!! Betta recognise!!!

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
My only problem was the claim that additional layers of complexity in evolution refutes Darwinism! You betta recognize hidden agendas!

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 07:13 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Hey, Tia.

Who is refuting Darwin? Certainly not I. What's this agenda you speak of?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 07:15 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(30-11-2012 07:13 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Tia.

Who is refuting Darwin? Certainly not I. What's this agenda you speak of?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
I was explaining to you that my 'hogging memetics' was simply to show Mayan that new evidence does not refute, but rather adds to Darwinism.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 07:23 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Hey, Tia.

Oh, for sure. But I wasn't accusing you of hogging memetics. I was accusing biologists of hogging Darwin Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 07:38 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(30-11-2012 07:23 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Tia.

Oh, for sure. But I wasn't accusing you of hogging memetics. I was accusing biologists of hogging Darwin Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
My mistake then. Sorry. Laughat

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2012, 10:32 AM (This post was last modified: 02-12-2012 10:36 AM by THEMAYAN.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(29-11-2012 08:14 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(29-11-2012 05:15 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  [...] 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.
It doesn't hurt to grab a dictionary once in a while.

dogma
Pronunciation: /ˈdôgmə/
noun
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true

incontrovertible
Pronunciation: /inˌkäntrəˈvərtəbəl/
adjective
not able to be denied or disputed
Thank you for your reply, and this is exactly my point. Something that is thought to be "inconvertibly true" or "not able to be denied or disputed" can never be falsified based on this fact alone, no matter how much a theory breaks down or crumbles in light of current empirical data. Unfortunately dogmas are not only sometimes abused in politics, but also on social issues, culture wars, and often from both parties. With all due respect, I think the part of the sentence you completely ignored was the word "authority" I urge you to go look up the definition of that specific word as cited below.









(Authority) "the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience : he had absolute authority over his subordinates | positions of authority | they acted under the authority of the UN Security Council | a rebellion against those in authority"


Maybe the bigger question is, should science be run like a military with authoritarians telling you what is or what isn't inconvertibly true?
The point being, even though "neo Darwinism as a theoretical frame work" is being challenged by evo devo and ID'ers, and for what ever their own purposes, the fact remains that even without a sound theory, evolution in general will still be by many considered a dogma= "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true" (as you have so clearly defined.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2012, 10:35 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(02-12-2012 10:32 AM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  The point being, even though "neo Darwinism as a theoretical frame work" is being challenged by evo devo and ID'ers, and for what ever their own purposes, the fact remains that even without a sound theory, evolution in general will still be by many considered a dogma= "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true" (as you have so clearly defined.

Only those who don't understand what science is would do this.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: