Customer Discussions > Science forum

Evolution is not Darwinian


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 242 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Sep 25, 2012 6:44:29 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Mar 26, 2013 5:09:31 PM PDT]

Posted on Sep 25, 2012 7:28:22 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 27, 2012 11:15:33 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 25, 2012 7:40:26 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 25, 2012 7:42:51 PM PDT
RR says:
Strawman 1: "Evolution is not Darwinian"
Obviously, since Darwin didn't even know about genes, genetic drift, etc are all non-Darwinian.

Strawman 2: gradualism
Hasn't meant constant rate of change since the 1930s. Once you define what a saltational change is, we can see if you are introducing anything new or interesting that isn't already part of punk eek and its variations.

Strawman 3: tree of life
It can be a bush or a network, doesn't matter. Metaphor isn't mechanism.

Strawman 4: genomes show very little if any signs of optimal design.
Evolution satisfices, not optimizes. As long as the species can make it to the next generation, that's all evolution really affects.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 25, 2012 8:34:14 PM PDT
noman says:
The entire paper:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/

"...Are there any glimpses of a new synthesis on the horizon? At the distinct risk of overestimating the promise of the current advances, I will mention two candidates. The first one is the population-genetic theory of the evolution of genomic architecture according to which evolving complexity is a side product of non-adaptive evolutionary processes occurring in small populations where the constraints of purifying selection are weak 16. The second area with a potential for major unification could be the study of universal patterns of evolution such as the distribution of evolutionary rates of orthologous genes which is nearly the same in organisms from bacteria to mammals 20 or the equally universal anticorrelation between the rate of evolution and the expression level of a gene 21. The existence of these universals suggests that simple theory of the kind used in statistical physics might explain some crucial aspects of evolution..."

Posted on Sep 25, 2012 8:58:27 PM PDT
S. Kessler says:
Oh, dear. Forests has started another Darwin Hate thread. I'd get that OCD checked f I were you, Forests.

Posted on Sep 26, 2012 3:07:38 AM PDT
This "thesis" is as totally damned silly as the last one.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2012 5:36:40 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Still running and hiding from the question you're scared to answer, eh Haynes? Too bad it's not going to work. Here it is again:

"So basically, every sighting of a UFO, dragon, ghost, Superman, sharks with lasers, or any other outrageous claim made by someone actually DID happen because, after all, they observed it happening, right?"

Creationists are cowards.

Posted on Sep 26, 2012 5:38:06 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 26, 2012 8:15:44 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Clearly Charles Darwin killed Forests' grandfather or something. I can't imagine any other reason for his personal century-old vendetta.

Got any cheap shots you'd like to take at Tycho Brahe while you're at it?

Posted on Sep 26, 2012 5:48:03 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 26, 2012 5:48:51 AM PDT
noman says:
Gravity is not Newtonian
Atoms are not Boltzmannian
Electromagnetism is not Faradayian

Germ Theory is not Varroian

"...In the western tradition, the Roman scholar Marcus Terentius Varro first laid out the germ theory in his book, On Agriculture, a practical guide published in about 36 B.C. In it, Varro advises the farmer against building near swamps because "certain minute animals, invisible to the eye, breed there and, borne by the air, reach inside the body by way of the mouth and nose and cause diseases that are difficult to get rid of."..."
http://birthstory.net/tag/germ-theory/

**...in the sense that science has progressed --better instruments, improved theories and etc.

NOTE: Wow...that Pasteur guy stole Varro's idea!

For a timeline of the development of Germ Theory and how science really works (as opposed to certain paranoid delusions):
http://germtheorycalendar.com/GridWithNotes.aspx

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2012 6:46:33 AM PDT
Gwaithmir says:
OP: "Evolution is not Darwinian."

>And this proves...what?

Posted on Sep 26, 2012 9:23:39 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Mar 26, 2013 2:53:48 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2012 9:52:52 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2012 10:07:58 AM PDT
HGT?

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2012 10:20:44 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 26, 2012 10:21:18 AM PDT
Ambulocetus says:
"Anyway note how none of the neo-Darwinian users I listed above never mention the following mechanisms: gene flow, genetic draft, or genetic hitchhiking, horizontal gene transfer, endosymbiosis, symbiogenesis, paleopolyploidy (genome duplications), group selection, internal selection, molecular drive, niche construction, saltationism, self-organization, epigenetics, hybridization, natural genetic engineering etc etc."

Here is a book published in 1970 and written by one of the foremost architects of the modern synthesis, Ernst Mayr.
Populations, Species, and Evolution: An Abridgment of <i>Animal Species and Evolution</i> (Belknap Press)

In this book, Mayr specifically mentions as evolutionary mechanisms gene flow (pp. 215, 217, 297), genetic drift (120, 128), and hybridization (69ff). He doesn't mention saltationism, because there is no evidence for this as an evolutionary mechanism. He says very little about group selection, because both mathematical and empirical studies, then as now, show that extremely unlikely situations must obtain in order for group selection to occur.

If you want to treat the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis as some sort of Torah that scientists are heretically deviating from, fine, but understand that this is not how science works. Even something TRULY heretical, which most scientists rejected when first formulated--Margulis's ideas about a symbiogenic origin for eukaryotic cells--is now an accepted part of evolutionary biology.

Has evolutionary biology changed since the 1940s? Certainly. Just look at evo-devo, or inclusive fitness. Do we need a "new synthesis" to utterly replace the evolutionary theory of the 1940s, one which is saltationist and group selectionist?

Doubtful.

Posted on Sep 26, 2012 10:52:27 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
It seems that his objection revolves solely around the use of Darwin's name; evolutionary theory can expand and improve all it likes, but as long as Darwin's name is attached to it, Forests will be angry.

Posted on Sep 26, 2012 11:11:31 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Mar 26, 2013 2:53:58 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2012 11:19:12 AM PDT
... Yawn ... What's amusing is that creationists seem to think that by criticizing "Darwinism" or even "neo-Darwinism" they are criticizing the theory of evolution, which has undergone its own evolution ever since Darwin proposed his formulation. The amazing thing is not that Darwin failed to anticipate things like endosymbiosis, but that he got so much right given the state of science at the time.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2012 11:31:08 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 26, 2012 12:01:16 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
"Perhaps you should scan some of the users I mentioned above posts all they ever mention is mutation or natural selection, or a bit of genetic drift. Oddly enough genetic drift is very non-Darwinian there has been a debate about that since the 70s regarding the whole neutral evolution debate."

Hmm, another biased thread... Curiously, Forests, I have mentioned epigenesis, horizontal gene transfer etc. in numerous places, and noted that Darwin was working from incomplete information, and so could not define a complete mechanism. I note you haven't mentioned your interest in pseudoscience such as 'psychogenesis'.

Perhaps you've forgotten my responses to your openly creationist friend: in reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2012 1:23:06 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
"Where can I read these modern theories of evolution?"

In modern books and journals. Several aspects have been previously touched on in this thread, but you've ignored them.

"Why does Richard Dawkins believe in Darwinian evolution if there are more modern theories available?"

Because Darwin's work was fundamental to the development of modern biological science.

As James Watson wrote: 'Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles.'

And note that 'theory' doesn't denote only the work of Darwin, but all subsequent work, some of which, including epigenetics and horizontal gene transfer contradicts some of Darwin's assumptions. You seem to assume that Darwin was some sort of holy prophet who provided a complete and fixed basis for evolution. Real science doesn't work like that.

Now explain why you believe in the panspermia of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe (for which there is no evidence) but decry evolution (for which there is fossil and rRNA evidence).

If you don't start playing the game then you simply aren't playing fairly and not worth wasting time in replying to.
http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Evolution-Denial/forum/Fx238ZENNZM4HA2/TxD1VFILHXDE6V/47/ref=cm_cd_search_res_ti?_encoding=UTF8&asin=0618680004&cdSort=oldest#Mx282VWBQDNFH7N

"The users who tend to log on this forum and post everyday M. Helsden, noman, Brian Curtis, S. Kessler, RR etc etc are all advocates of the neo-Darwinian synthesis and have defended neo-Darwinism in many of their posts. Some of these users even post in the Dawkins forum (Dawkins describes himself as a "neo-Darwinist". Remember the neo-Darwinian view of evolution is working in a dogmatically Darwinian framework still, this is very narrow minded and limited."

It seems your perceptual filter is.... "narrow minded and limited."

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2012 3:07:06 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2012 3:07:43 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2012 3:08:34 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2012 3:34:24 PM PDT
horse: I see. So I guess you will never tire of flogging that dead horse.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2012 4:42:53 PM PDT
S. Kessler says:
Forests, you love to erect your own straw man. Sorry, but I, for one, have not confined my understanding of evolution to natural selection and mutation. I have read a great deal on a wide range of evolutionary mechanisms, including group selection, epigemetics, and genetic drift. Also the nexus between biological evolution and cultural evolution. My beef with you is not about how evolution is understood to work today with the new knowledge we have gained from all sorts of scientific disciplines since Darwin's time. My beef with you is with your silly and obsessive attack of Darwin's character, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the science.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2012 4:50:03 PM PDT
S. Kessler says:
Forests, as I have already stated, your obsession with discrediting Darwin is silly. Physics has moved very far since Newton's day, but we still venerate the contribution Newton made to our understanding of the physical laws of the universe. It matters not that physics has changed since his day. What we have today would probably not have been possible without the leaps that Newton made in our understanding of the subject. As he said, he stood on the shoulders of giants as have today's nuclear physicists. The same thing is true of Darwin. He set the field in motion by providing the most comprehensible and understandable articulation of the process of evolution and the role of natural selection. Those who came after have built on his foundation. They have both refined his theory and upended some aspects of it because the science has matured and our techniques and instruments for investigating evolution to a finer and finer degree enables them to do that. But Darwin laid the foundation and all of today's scientists working in the field owe him a debt.

Posted on Sep 26, 2012 6:34:12 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Mar 26, 2013 2:54:10 PM PDT]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Solar Flare will Knock Out All Electronics in 12 Hours. 24 49 minutes ago
The Origins Of Life 2138 1 hour ago
A real scientific question for physicists: 44 1 hour ago
Questions for Intelligent Design Fans 7121 1 hour ago
Global warming is the most serious problem of our generation part 2 4693 2 hours ago
Why are Darwinists here so scientifically illiterate? 9042 2 hours ago
Antarctic ice at record levels. Read the AGW Pushing Author, doing back flips trying to explain this. 2 5 hours ago
Nasa is lying Asteroid will hit the Earth in less than 24 hours. 90 5 hours ago
Scientifically..........When does human life begin? 134 6 hours ago
Is the advent of child psychology the reason we have so many screwed up people in this country? 69 11 hours ago
Is America Killing Its Own Citizens? 52 15 hours ago
Knowledge 3377 19 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  29
Total posts:  242
Initial post:  Sep 25, 2012
Latest post:  May 1, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions