Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?

[THEMAYAN]

(07-12-2012 06:51 PM)tiagorod84 Wrote:  

(07-12-2012 02:28 AM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  It was in response to Chas who said they were to busy being non mammals when I posed question to you, which he instead responded to.
Technically they exist in all eukaryotes, but we are mammals, and this is why I used the term mammals, but the question still remains concerning the necessity of both apparatuses being needed at the same time. This is why evo devo's do not think like non evo devo biologist who never bother asking these questions, and who unfortunately think strictly in terms of reductionism, cladistics, phylogeny, homology etc. This is why even as an ID'er, I still give credit to evo devo's who for the most part at least think outside the box, challenge orthodox ideas, and are not the average cheerleaders.

As far as I know there is not any homologous structure to BF or TTSS in eukaryotes. There are unrelated structures that serve the same purpose (not the injectosome of course, but export of molecules). So putting the question on Eukaryotes is non-sense.

That question makes sense in the prokaryote context. After reading some articles on the subject, I guess that the hypothesis of BF and TTSS evolving from one common ancestor is the most reasonable explanation.But, of course, more data is needed.

You lost me there. I'm not even sure what you are arguing or if you even understood the question. We are eukaryotic organisms. What did you think we were? And what related structure serves the same purpose as the BF? Please tell me and be specific. I didn't know such a thing existed but if you do please explain. Who told you the BF had an injectisome?

[Chas]

(07-12-2012 10:57 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  

(07-12-2012 08:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  I think you entirely miss the meaning of the discussions and disagreements within evolutionary biology.

You think they are a sign of weakness; in science, these are a sign of strength and health.

This is absurd. I have used current science itself to back up what I said. It is you who mistakenly believes that being critical of a specific theory equals being anti science. It seems you also have the inability to respond to issues or questions point by point.

No, where did I say that?
I don't need to respond to you point by point because I am responding to your whole argument.
Your whole argument misses the point.

[THEMAYAN]

(08-12-2012 02:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(07-12-2012 10:57 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  This is absurd. I have used current science itself to back up what I said. It is you who mistakenly believes that being critical of a specific theory equals being anti science. It seems you also have the inability to respond to issues or questions point by point.

No, where did I say that?
I don't need to respond to you point by point because I am responding to your whole argument.
Your whole argument misses the point.

Yeah OK man.

[houseofcantor]

Oh. It's the flagellum. That explains every-fucking-thing. You know, because a god that is supposed to be fucking obvious in all fucking things is actually, maybe, only visible at the ass end of a fucking bacterium. Cause that is the very definition of Almighty.


You know, I think it would be cool as fuck if ID actually had anything to say, but it doesn't. Irreducible Complexity... you know what that means? Goddidit. Cause it don't have no fucking meaning. It is some fucking dickhead - Behe - making noises people assume denote intelligence. It's Irreducible! It's Complex! So if we put 'em together, they're doubly both! And it sounds way cool!

But it ain't cool. It's willful ignorance of the worst kind. It's not, we don't know, it's, we don't wanna know. We want it to be Designed so our lives can have Meaning...

There ain't no fucking meaning. There's eat or get eaten, fuck or get fucked; live then fucking die and get the fuck outta the way. Having no point is the whole fucking point. That is what assures survival - diversity - not design.