Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-12-2012, 08:36 PM
RE: AW: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(03-12-2012 06:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-12-2012 06:27 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Why are you guys arguing with a proponent of ID about evolution again? Consider
Well, we were having an intelligent discussion and it wasn't obvious at first that he was an idiot. Consider
And the childish name calling begins. If this is all you have, then so be it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 04:02 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(03-12-2012 08:26 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  
(03-12-2012 05:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are not properly accounting for opportunity. Huge numbers of organisms and unimaginably large amount of time. While most mutations are neutral and many are deleterious, a few are beneficial. And those only have to happen occasionally.You have noting to base this oppurtunity on
You have nothing to base this opportunity on, and use time as a magic wand. Time wears things down. It doesn't build things up to a higher state of order. In fact we have in the past few years discovered C Value enigma which holds that the complexity of an organism cannot be determined by its genetic composition and especially its size. Scientist were stunned at yet another failed prediction when it was discovered that the lowly protozoa contained more genomic information than that of humans, and by orders of magnitude. In fact the simple onion has more genetic information than we do.

According to the accepted time line, if true, we see the very first eukaryotic creatures/multicellular creatures appearing within a geological blink of an eye. Some say (depending on who you ask) the radiation event took place within ten, five, or three million years. Some Chinese who have the best fossils on the planet of that era use words like genesis when describing this part of our history. The Cambrian radiation event alone which began the Cambrian explosion shows life appearing abruptly and already highly specialized with no known ancestry and already within their respected categories, globally and also within orders of magnitude. This shows anything but Darwinian gradualism. This diversification of life continues for another sixty million years. Dawkins admits... 'Its as they were just planted there out of nowhere' which he referes to as a delight to the creationist. Of course he believes this sudden appearance is an illusion, but I and many others do not. And your wrong about mutations. I pointed to the human chimp genome earlier and the amount of mutations that would have to have happened within the accepted time frame would have been fatal, and at the same time, they would have also had to be all beneficial, yet again beneficial mutation are so rare that I only know of one, and that is the sickle cell mutation which could possibly give a person a functional advantage in a malaria stricken region, but also comes with a cost because if both parent have this trait, it can cause sickle cell disease which is deadly.

Evolutionary theory cannot account for the origin of the digital encoded specified information within our genome. It is a specific language which is useless without an equally sophisticated transcription process along with the ribosome which can read and interpret the language of DNA into the language of amino acids and proteins in order to produce the same complex proteins and genes living things require. Now just recently in the last few years we have discovered even more complex under layers of reams and reams of encoded information once written off as junk and again once used as a poster child for bad design, yet nothing could be further from the truth, and this is yet another example of a failed prediction or analogy that failed to conform to the neo Darwinian model. Neo Darwinism cant even touch, muchless answer these few questions, and that is only the tip of the iceberg. The theory only makes sense when it is accepted without question as I did so for so many years, but I got tired of having my arguments destroyed by people who already knew the theory was based largely on assumptions and unfounded extrapolations, and this was twenty plus years ago. We have learned so much more in the last two decades.
Now you are just ranting.
You have no idea what you are talking about, no understanding of the mechanisms of evolution.

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
04-12-2012, 04:27 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(29-11-2012 06:41 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  
(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


There is no controversy. Prof. Abouheif is trying to extend the understanding of regulatory genes in morphological and phenotypoical development. He is very mainstream.

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
04-12-2012, 06:12 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Hey, Mayan.

Genome complexity does not refute evolution. The Cambrian explosion does not refute evolution, it confirms it (because every species alive today can be traced back to the Cambrian) and it also confirms punctuated equilbrium. I can't even comprehend your issue with human/chimp genetic drift and cladogenesis, but I do know that you're incorrect about these so-called fatal mutations. Your suggestion that sicle cell is the only advantageous mutation is quite stunning and entirely unsupportable. Of course evolution accounts for our genome. The notion that transcription machinery somehow makes it impossible is ludacris. The manner in which viruses hijack transcription machinery is a monument to evolution. Junk DNA is an abandoned notion because we now know what it does. Neither junk DNA nor our new understanding of the three levels of coding refute evolution in any way.

If Neo Darwinism somehow makes all kinds of crank statements that don't hold up, I'll take your word for it. I don't know enough about it. But nothing of what you said refutes evolution itself. Not a single solitary thing.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 08:21 AM
RE: AW: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(03-12-2012 06:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-12-2012 06:27 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Why are you guys arguing with a proponent of ID about evolution again? Consider
Well, we were having an intelligent discussion and it wasn't obvious at first that he was an idiot. Consider
IDiot. Otherwise, it's an insult. Dodgy

One thing I got out of Tao is the necessity to manufacture dualities. This duality fails. Evolution being wrong makes no kind of creationism right.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 08:44 AM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2012 08:49 AM by THEMAYAN.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 04:27 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-11-2012 06:41 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  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








There is no controversy. Prof. Abouheif is trying to extend the understanding of regulatory genes in morphological and phenotypoical development. He is very mainstream.
(04-12-2012 04:27 AM)Chas Wrote:  When did I say that he was not mainstream? Apparently you didn't even bother to read the rest, and apparently you ignored all the other citations I provided. Have you read what Larry Moran, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, Scott, Newman and many others have said about the extended synthesis? To say there is no controversy is exactly what I spoke of before concerning the ignorance is bliss remark. I have provided a very short list of evolutionary scientist going at each others throats and attacking anyone who dare question the tenants of the theory, or publicly suggest that theory needs to be updated reformulated or extended. PZ Myers has gone so far as to say in front of a auditorium filled with students, that those who search for function in ncDNA, are only interested in job security, which was a cheap shot directed at ENCODE, and he still refuses to accept ENCODES demise of the junkDNA paradigme.
(04-12-2012 04:27 AM)Chas Wrote:  Chas you are simply out of the loop, and because of your own unwillingness to be critical of a theory that conforms to your own world view. It also seems that at least one form of criticising other atheist and evolutionist who disagree, is to call them "creationist" or "religious minded" (I bet that hurts below the belt). Maybe it is better that some people stay asleep. Again below are example of a short list of the controversy you claim does not exist concerning this subject.



http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2...-evo-devo/

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2...s-his.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/three-wa...rd-dawkins

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/...mas-nagel/ Jerry Coyne

http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/20...hat-would/

Evolution: A View from the 21st Century

by James A Shapiro Upper Saddle River (NJ): FT Press Science, 2011. 253 pages

reviewed by Laurence A Moran
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 09:01 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 08:44 AM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  
(04-12-2012 04:27 AM)Chas Wrote:  There is no controversy. Prof. Abouheif is trying to extend the understanding of regulatory genes in morphological and phenotypoical development. He is very mainstream.
(04-12-2012 04:27 AM)Chas Wrote:  When did I say that he was not mainstream? Apparently you didn't even bother to read the rest, and apparently you ignored all the other citations I provided. Have you read what Larry Moran, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, Scott, Newman and many others have said about the extended synthesis? To say there is no controversy is exactly what I spoke of before concerning the ignorance is bliss remark. I have provided a very short list of evolutionary scientist going at each others throats and attacking anyone who dare question the tenants of the theory, or publicly suggest that theory needs to be updated reformulated or extended. PZ Myers has gone so far as to say in front of a auditorium filled with students, that those who search for function in ncDNA, are only interested in job security, which was a cheap shot directed at ENCODE, and he still refuses to accept ENCODES demise of the junkDNA paradigme.
(04-12-2012 04:27 AM)Chas Wrote:  Chas you are simply out of the loop, and because of your own unwillingness to be critical of a theory that conforms to your own world view. It also seems that at least one form of criticising other atheist and evolutionist who disagree, is to call them "creationist" or "religious minded" (I bet that hurts below the belt). Maybe it is better that some people stay asleep. Again below are example of a short list of the controversy you claim does not exist concerning this subject.



http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2...-evo-devo/

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2...s-his.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/three-wa...rd-dawkins

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/...mas-nagel/ Jerry Coyne

http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/20...hat-would/

Evolution: A View from the 21st Century

by James A Shapiro Upper Saddle River (NJ): FT Press Science, 2011. 253 pages

reviewed by Laurence A Moran
To quote one of your references:
"An extended synthesis would not involve an overthrow of current theory (hence, “extended”). "

It is unclear to me what you are arguing. Evolutionary theory advances with new knowledge. No one I know has stuck a stake in the ground and declared evolutionary theory fixed.

There are, and should be, controversies, arguments, disagreements in any healthy active area of science. I am not arguing against the modern synthesis being modified by new knowledge, but I am objecting to the idea that it is somehow wrong or fatally flawed.

Maybe you could state your thesis or position in a few short sentences so we could discuss it.

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
04-12-2012, 09:05 AM
Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 09:01 AM)Chas Wrote:  Maybe you could state your thesis or position in a few short sentences so we could discuss it.

I think I can help here. The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, Roman, nor an empire.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 10:00 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
I haven't followed the whole thread but what exactly is Mayan on about? Is he bringing up the tired argument of trying to separate out evolution into "micro" and "macro?"

As for the OP, you've already been corrected on the neo-Darwinism is not equal to the Modern Synthesis notion. The Modern Synthesis is a popular evolutionary biology take on Darwin's theory of natural selection. That is, gradualism. So yes, it is a scientific postulation based on the integration of genetics with natural selection.

Paleontologists also have their take, brought up by someone else along the way too, that we call punctuated equilibrium. Not as an alternative to gradualism but as a contemporaneous process. You also see people combining them into ideas like Punctuated Gradualism (more of a cop-out idea that is really just the two occurring at the same "time").

If you want to figure out whether or not something is a scientific theory or not, ask yourself these questions:
Can I use this idea/concept to make testable predictions?
Do the results of these predictions reinforce the original idea or refute it?

The modern synthesis makes numerous claims that are testable, and as far as I am aware, we have been able to confirm those tests.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 11:00 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 06:12 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Mayan.

Genome complexity does not refute evolution. The Cambrian explosion does not refute evolution, it confirms it (because every species alive today can be traced back to the Cambrian) and it also confirms punctuated equilbrium. I can't even comprehend your issue with human/chimp genetic drift and cladogenesis, but I do know that you're incorrect about these so-called fatal mutations. Your suggestion that sicle cell is the only advantageous mutation is quite stunning and entirely unsupportable. Of course evolution accounts for our genome. The notion that transcription machinery somehow makes it impossible is ludacris. The manner in which viruses hijack transcription machinery is a monument to evolution. Junk DNA is an abandoned notion because we now know what it does. Neither junk DNA nor our new understanding of the three levels of coding refute evolution in any way.

If Neo Darwinism somehow makes all kinds of crank statements that don't hold up, I'll take your word for it. I don't know enough about it. But nothing of what you said refutes evolution itself. Not a single solitary thing.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
First of all, if you cannot tell the difference between the genomic complexity of an organism, then how can you tell which organsim is more complex from a simpler one? Again just based on genome size alone, i.e. the amount of genetic information, it would seem that protozoa and lungfish are much more complex than humans with our puny and measly 20-30 genes. In a macro evolutionary paradigme of simple to complex, this becomes a problem. Secondly you missed the entire point about the Cambrian explosion, in that there are no known ancestors to these phyla which appear abruptly, globally and in orders of magnitude, and I am speaking of the initial Cambrian radiation event, not to be confused with the 60 million year record that proceeded it, and even this additional 60million years, it is still regarded as blink of an eye in geological time. And third, you have to assume that Cambrian phyla evolved into modern creatures. In fact many of the Cambrian phyla still exist till this day just as they were 530MY ago.

You have no known sequence of fossils to prove this notion of yours. Instead what we do witness is mass extinction, again (with a small percentage remaining which is still formidable) and which still exist today. My issue with human and chimp genome is that when it was thought that our genomes were 99% similar, this was touted as undeniable proof. Now that we know that this is false, and that there is actually an overall differential of 30% (which is around the same as we have compared to horses) now the 30% becomes proof. With this kind of heads I win, tails you lose thinking, prokaryote to man evolution can never be falsified.

If a theory does not have the means to be falsified in some way, then it cannot be regarded as a scientific theory despite its orthodoxy in textbooks much like Haeckel's drawings and the thoroughly refuted and debunked concept of 'biogenetic law' (which again can still be found in textbooks even today) In todays dogmatic thinking concerning evolution theory, nothing anyone can say will refute evolution, so in a sense you kind of make my point for me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: