Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-12-2012, 11:11 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 11:15 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Where is this 30% difference from?

The Ediacaran radiation preceding the Cambrian explosion actually has its origins somewhere on the order of 700 million years ago (ie, ~160 million years before the Cambrian explosion) after the "Snowball Earth" event. The ancestors to the modern phyla that appear in the Cambrian where all likely soft-bodied (as evidenced by the Ediacaran fauna itself), and as such, would be highly unlikely to be preserved.

Which phyla from the Cambrian explosion are unchanged? That is the most ignorant statement you may have made yet.

Simple to complex is what the fossil record shows. Diversity, radiation, extinction, coevolution, adaptation, it's all there. Ancestor to fish? Check. Ancestor to amphibians? Check. Ancestor to reptiles? Check. Ancestor to mammals? Check. Ancestor to primates? Check. Ancestor to humans? Check.

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, 11:17 AM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2012 11:21 AM by THEMAYAN.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
A for your statement "As for the OP, you've already been corrected on the neo-Darwinism is not equal to the Modern Synthesis notion"


This is false ......"It is also referred to as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis,
the evolutionary synthesis, millennium synthesis and the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Sourced in wikipedia.


As for predictions. Yes agreed, theories do require accurate prediction, but I can name many failed predictions of the modern synthesis/the neo Darwinian synthesis/ the evolutionary synthesis, or what even name you choose to use, and can do so upon request.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 11:19 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 11:00 AM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  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?

Neo-Darwinism posits no relationship between genome size and the complexity of an organism. This is not part of the theory.

Quote: 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.

There is no paradigm of simple-to-complex. Evolution has no goals, no path. Again, this is not part of the theory.

Quote: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 continue to misunderstand the vast extents of time involved. The 'explosion' occurred over millions of years.
Also, prior to the Cambrian, there weren't easily fossilizable organisms - no hard skeletons.

Quote: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.

There are many ways to compare genomes. The '99%' is not false, the '30%' is not false; they are different kinds of measurement.

Quote: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.

Of course the theory can be falsified: rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian.

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, 11:19 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Actual failures or experiments you interpret as failures whereas no one in the science community sees as failures? Big difference there as they kind of have the edge on the whole "background knowledge" issue. You have wikipedia.

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, 11:22 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 11:17 AM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  A for your statement "As for the OP, you've already been corrected on the neo-Darwinism is not equal to the Modern Synthesis notion"


This is false ......"The modern evolutionary synthesis is a union of ideas from several specialties which provides a widely accepted account of It is also referred to as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis,
the evolutionary synthesis, millennium synthesis and the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Sourced in wikipedia.


As for predictions. Yes agreed, theories do require accurate prediction, but I can name many failed predictions of the modern synthesis/the neo Darwinian synthesis/ the evolutionary synthesis, or what even name you choose to use, and can do so upon request.
Please cite these failed predictions.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
04-12-2012, 11:56 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 11:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-12-2012 11:00 AM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  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?

Neo-Darwinism posits no relationship between genome size and the complexity of an organism. This is not part of the theory.
(04-12-2012 11:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  First off all simple to complex is a a part of the theory. Why do you think it was a shock too scientist when they discovered this observation? Why do you think it is called C Value enigma or sometimes referred to as the older term C Value paradox? Again Neo Darwinsm predicted simple to complex organisms. If you think that it is intellectual honest to want to ignore this observation well then again. It is what it is.
Quote: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.

There is no paradigm of simple-to-complex. Evolution has no goals, no path. Again, this is not part of the theory.
(04-12-2012 11:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  Descent with modification from more simple prokaryote creatures up unto more complex eukaryotic mammals is, and has always has been a part of the theory. Your just speaking nonsense now.
Quote: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 continue to misunderstand the vast extents of time involved. The 'explosion' occurred over millions of years.
Also, prior to the Cambrian, there weren't easily fossilizable organisms - no hard skeletons.
(04-12-2012 11:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, you have a reading comprehension problem. I made a distinction between the initial radiation event which occurred between 10 to 3 million years which is when these phyla initially show up abruptly in the fossil record, and the 60my years of diversification that proceeded the initial radiation event. What is referred to as the Cambrian Explosion or biologies big bang encompasses the entirety. This is called lazy reading or skimming on your part. If we can find soft bodied sponge embryos which show up in the very early Cambrian rock (which also appear abruptly) and if half of the fossils from the Cambrian era were soft bodied, then we should be able to find their supposed soft bodied proto phyla, so your excuse flies out the window based on this alone.
(04-12-2012 11:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote: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.
(04-12-2012 11:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  There are many ways to compare genomes. The '99%' is not false, the '30%' is not false; they are different kinds of measurement.
(04-12-2012 11:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  No the 99% is false, and in fact no one even uses that number anymore. The number now used is 96%, and even that is false and or misleading and I have explained and cited the reasons why. I cant expect that you even bothered to read the citations which can be found in Pubmed.

Quote: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.
(04-12-2012 11:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  Of course the theory can be falsified: rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian.
This is nonsense. Even wiki has an article on this logical fallacy. The truth is that we have been finding out of place artifact for centuries, and they are either written off as hoaxes without further examination, or they are just considered one of life's mysteries or anomalies, and there are volumes of examples of this. Of course the people that write of these examples are of course called all kinds of childish names as you have done the same.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 12:01 PM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2012 12:05 PM by Chas.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 11:56 AM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  
(04-12-2012 11:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  Neo-Darwinism posits no relationship between genome size and the complexity of an organism. This is not part of the theory.
(04-12-2012 11:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  First off all simple to complex is a a part of the theory. Why do you think it was a shock too scientist when they discovered this observation? Why do you think it is called C Value enigma or sometimes referred to as the older term C Value paradox? Again Neo Darwinsm predicted simple to complex organisms. If you think that it is intellectual honest to want to ignore this observation well then again. It is what it is.
There is no paradigm of simple-to-complex. Evolution has no goals, no path. Again, this is not part of the theory.
(04-12-2012 11:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  Descent with modification from more simple prokaryote creatures up unto more complex eukaryotic mammals is, and has always has been a part of the theory. Your just speaking nonsense now.
You continue to misunderstand the vast extents of time involved. The 'explosion' occurred over millions of years.
Also, prior to the Cambrian, there weren't easily fossilizable organisms - no hard skeletons.
(04-12-2012 11:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, you have a reading comprehension problem. I made a distinction between the initial radiation event which occurred between 10 to 3 million years which is when these phyla initially show up abruptly in the fossil record, and the 60my years of diversification that proceeded the initial radiation event. What is referred to as the Cambrian Explosion or biologies big bang encompasses the entirety. This is called lazy reading or skimming on your part. If we can find soft bodied sponge embryos which show up in the very early Cambrian rock (which also appear abruptly) and if half of the fossils from the Cambrian era were soft bodied, then we should be able to find their supposed soft bodied proto phyla, so your excuse flies out the window based on this alone.
(04-12-2012 11:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  There are many ways to compare genomes. The '99%' is not false, the '30%' is not false; they are different kinds of measurement.
(04-12-2012 11:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  No the 99% is false, and in fact no one even uses that number anymore. The number now used is 96%, and even that is false and or misleading and I have explained and cited the reasons why. I cant expect that you even bothered to read the citations which can be found in Pubmed.
(04-12-2012 11:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  Of course the theory can be falsified: rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian.
This is nonsense. Even wiki has an article on this logical fallacy. The truth is that we have been finding out of place artifact for centuries, and they are either written off as hoaxes without further examination, or they are just considered one of life's mysteries or anomalies, and there are volumes of examples of this. Of course the people that write of these examples are of course called all kinds of childish names as you have done the same.
Please cite your source for 'this logical fallacy'. And sources for 'out of place' fossils.

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, 12:06 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 11:56 AM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  This is nonsense. Even wiki has an article on this logical fallacy. The truth is that we have been finding out of place artifact for centuries, and they are either written off as hoaxes without further examination, or they are just considered one of life's mysteries or anomalies, and there are volumes of examples of this. Of course the people that write of these examples are of course called all kinds of childish names as you have done the same.
Isn't it interesting that you keep talking about having "many examples", claiming that there are even "volumes of examples", yet you fail to cite even a single one of them? Drinking Beverage

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
04-12-2012, 01:59 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 12:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-12-2012 11:56 AM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  This is nonsense. Even wiki has an article on this logical fallacy. The truth is that we have been finding out of place artifact for centuries, and they are either written off as hoaxes without further examination, or they are just considered one of life's mysteries or anomalies, and there are volumes of examples of this. Of course the people that write of these examples are of course called all kinds of childish names as you have done the same.
Please cite your source for 'this logical fallacy'. And sources for 'out of place' fossils.
I already cited wiki concerning the article on 'Rabbits in Cambrian rock' and Michael Cremo has documented many of these out of place artifacts including fossils and other anomalies. When Charlton Heston did a program on this topic many years ago the stationed received condemnation from many such as the NCSE before it even aired. You can also research the Virginia Steen McIntyre story for yourself. Her career was ruined when she published an article using only the scientific methods at her disposal including different dating techniques to estimate the age of artifacts which did not fit the accepted time line. The site was immediately shutdown and no one has since been allowed to do research work there anymore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: