Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-12-2012, 10:45 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Anything more modern than the modern synthesis will get synthesized. Thumbsup

I, too, tend to think the words "neo-Darwinism" mostly fall from the lips of creationists. The only thing more valid than the modern synthesis is QM; there ain't no competing theory going on.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2012, 10:50 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(02-12-2012 10:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(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.
I was responding to another poster who implied that that dogmas in science are a positive thing, and as for your comment, the fact is, most people dont understand science and are more than willing to view it from a dogmatic view, i.e. "you know honey, after all he is a doctor" paradigme.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2012, 10:55 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Mainstream science is intensely conservative - which you can call dogmatic - because when it ain't, neutrinos go faster than the speed of light. Dodgy

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2012, 10:55 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(02-12-2012 10:45 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Anything more modern than the modern synthesis will get synthesized. Thumbsup

I, too, tend to think the words "neo-Darwinism" mostly fall from the lips of creationists. The only thing more valid than the modern synthesis is QM; there ain't no competing theory going on.
Given that the mechanism of natural selection has been verified in a consistent way, I guess that IF there are other mechanisms accounting for evolution, they'll be added to the modern synthesis. So, yeah it will be synthesized Yes

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2012, 11:13 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(29-11-2012 03:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-11-2012 03:13 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  I couldn't help but respond to this when I received it in my Yahoo alert. Yes indeed, Neo Darwinism is considered a theory. It is also referred to as the modern synthesis but this often parroted notion that it has withstood the test of time, is simply false. The only thing that has withstood the test of time is the name Darwin, but not the theory. It is well known that classical Darwinism could not even pass the science standards of the nineteen thirties, and for this reason, it had to be reformulated into what again what we now know as the neo Darwinian synthesis. "Neo" meaning new. Darwin knew nothing of genetics and it is actually the Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel who is considered the father of modern genetics. In fact "natural selection" which is not only an important part of the theory, (and one part that is actually excepted even by ID'ers like myself, and even creationist) was not even his original idea, but was the idea of Edward Blythe, and like Mendel, another creationist. In fact Mendel disagreed with Darwins theory as cited in...

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.

The more recent discoveries about DNA, biochemistry, and the complexity of gene expression and fetal development only add to the theory - they in no way overturn it.
Nothing inheritable happens without it being in the DNA. What goes during gene expression is either directly or indirectly caused by the DNA. Effects from anything else are not heritable - they come from the environment.

Quote:There are objections to the use of the term epigenetic to describe chemical modification of histone since it remains unknown whether or not these modifications are heritable.


I have to disagree with you on your comment...... "The modern synthesis combined the idea of genes with Darwin's algorithm" You also have to remember, it was Darwins provisional theory of pangenesis (and which was debunked long ago) which was supposed to be the molecular framework for his theory on the scale of cellular structure. As for your next comment......"Nothing inheritable happens without it being in the DNA" This is based on "Cricks central dogma" and this notion is also being challenged in the field of epigenetics as we speak. Again Mendel's work was piggy backed onto the modern synthesis without his approval because he was already dead. They simply ignored his work in life, and it wasnt rediscovered until after his death decades later, and again he refuted Darwins theory.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2012, 11:19 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(02-12-2012 11:13 AM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  
(29-11-2012 03:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

The more recent discoveries about DNA, biochemistry, and the complexity of gene expression and fetal development only add to the theory - they in no way overturn it.
Nothing inheritable happens without it being in the DNA. What goes during gene expression is either directly or indirectly caused by the DNA. Effects from anything else are not heritable - they come from the environment.



I have to disagree with you on your comment...... "The modern synthesis combined the idea of genes with Darwin's algorithm" You also have to remember, it was Darwins provisional theory of pangenesis (and which was debunked long ago) which was supposed to be the molecular framework for his theory on the scale of cellular structure. As for your next comment......"Nothing inheritable happens without it being in the DNA" This is based on "Cricks central dogma" and this notion is also being challenged in the field of epigenetics as we speak. Again Mendel's work was piggy backed onto the modern synthesis without his approval because he was already dead. They simply ignored his work in life, and it wasnt rediscovered until after his death decades later, and again he refuted Darwins theory.
Mendel's genetics in no way refuted Darwin's theory.

Epigenetics is a misunderstanding of DNA and its role in development.

And where does 'permission' come into it at all?

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
02-12-2012, 11:25 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(02-12-2012 11:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  Epigenetics is a misunderstanding of DNA and its role in development.
What do you mean?

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2012, 05:43 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(02-12-2012 11:25 AM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  
(02-12-2012 11:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  Epigenetics is a misunderstanding of DNA and its role in development.
What do you mean?
Sorry, that wasn't clear.
The idea that epigenetics is somehow different from or disconnected from control by DNA is a mistaken idea, if we are talking about sexual reproduction here.

All inheritance is via DNA, nuclear or mitochondrial. Development takes place under control of the information in the DNA. It is a combination of direct and indirect effects and is also affected by environment.

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
02-12-2012, 10:23 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
I have a feeling that there are many who are not aware of what kind of the new challenges there are to the neo Darwinian theory.
Simply adding in information onto an already vibrant and strong theory is one thing, and a good thing, but having to reformulate a theory by having to propose yet again a new extended synthesis, is a whole different animal. I have already cited current challenges in peer review journals, yet they were just written off or ignored as being false without any technical or compelling argument other than to say, evolution is an incontrovertible truth/a dogma. However the subject was one of the neo Darwinian synthesis, and again this is what we are still teaching in spite of the current challenges. This argument is not based on throwing the baby out with the bath water, but it is also not the same as just adding on to what we already know.

This extended synthesis ala Altenberg is based on challenging many of the major tenants of the theory itself, including the limitations of natural selection. Let me repeat, including the limitations of natural selection, along with gene placidity vs the gene centric view, including molecular biologies central dogma as well as epigenetic models, but what really bothers the status quo, and the reason why Eugenie Scott and the NCSE will not support this extended synthesis, is because it also includes the mechanism of "self organization" models which are also completely foreign to neo Darwinism. In the words of Eugenie Scott, her reasons for not supporting the extended synthesis, according to Suzan Mazur, is that people might confuse self organization with intelligent design. In my opinion this is a pretty piss poor excuse for not supporting an advancement of a theory, and more evidence that some see the culture war as more important than science, and that those that do, are not always the ones you would expect to see, in spite of the popular press.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2012, 10:28 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU_f0r8Sm7w










http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmpH18J-6HI
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: