|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is evolution so controversial? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Cedre writes:
Our body plan isn't that different from the chimps, is it? For that matter, our body plans aren't that different from the bats, the horses or the whales either. With fairly minor adaptations it works in a wide variety of environments. If it ain't broke, evolution don't fix it.
No new body plans....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cedre writes:
Yes, scientific theories do change. I might even dare to say that they evolve. Some parts are replaced by new improved parts. That is not the same as throwing out the whole theory.
If as you say the Neo-Darwinism went out years ago, then clearly it has been questioned by enough scientist in order to be thrown out years ago!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cedre writes:
You're just confused about the terminology. Some still call it Neo-Darwinism, some don't. The fact is that nothing major has ben thrown out the window. Only minor changes have been made. A lot of minor changes may look like a big change to you but hey, that's what evolution is all about - a lot of minor changes adding up to big changes.
Something going out the window ages ago, is not a little change. In any case Neo-Darwinism didn't go out the window ages ago, is still widely accepted, and is the conventional view of evolution. Cedre writes:
No biologist questions the theory itself. They have differences of opinion on minor details.
It is however being questioned by elite scientists!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cedre writes:
I didn't say "misused"; I said "confused". Remember the exchange with AZPaul3 and Percy earlier? Some people still call it Neo-Darwinism and some don't. You're seeing George say "pink" and Jim say "light red" and you think they're disagreeing about the colour. They're not; they're just using a different name for it. How have I misused terminology. I repeat: there is no controversy among biologists about the general theory of evolution. There is only minor disagreement about minor details.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Cedre writes:
Try it without the labels: the theory of evolution, as it is understood and discussed by biologists today, is not questioned. Only the details are disputed.
I didn't expect to be told that the modern synthesis has been abandoned. How could it be when it is the conventional theory of evolution as taught nowadays? Cedre writes:
You keep talking about the critics but you haven't shown that there are any. Give us some examples of biologists who claim we did not evolve from a common ancestor with the chimps.
That is if you ignore the critics!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cedre writes:
Thank you. Now show us some evidence that they do actually reject the common ancestry of humans and chimps. What peer-reviewed papers have they published on the subject?
Dr. John Sanford, Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Prof. Vladimir Betina, Dr. Henry Zuill, Dr. Donald Baumann, Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Dr Andrew Bosanquet to name some.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cedre writes:
That was the question I asked in Message 49. That was the question you were supposed to answer.
Whether or not they reject common ancestry is a different question.... Cedre writes:
But common ancestry is what the theory of evolution is all about. I brought it up to avoid the confusion in terminology. This is not a thread on common ancestry, so lets try to keep common ancestry out! If all you're saying is that there's a controversy over what to to call the theory of evolution, you won't get much disagreement here. But if you're suggesting that real working biologists - who publish real peer-reviewed papers on biology - have major disagreements about how evolution works, you're dead wrong. Edited by ringo, : Spellin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Cedre writes:
What I asked you explicitly to do was:
ringo writes:
So from this it looks like you were in deed asking me to name critics of Neo-Darwinism not common ancestry. the theory of evolution, as it is understood and discussed by biologists today, is not questioned.quote:I also asked you to: quote:so I definitely did not want you to name critics of "Neo-Darwinism". Cedre writes:
It pretty much is. All life-forms evolve and there is no limit to how far they can evolve, so common ancestry is inevitable. Remember Darwin's book, The Origin of Species. The origin of species is other species.
Evolution may well be an explanation of common ancestry but it is not synonymous with common ancestry. Cedre writes:
A real bus driver is somebody who actually drives a bus, not just anybody with a driver's license. A real scientist is somebody who actually does science. If your examples are real scientists, we'd all be happy to see the peer-reviewed papers they've published that question the theory of evolution.
The scientists I mentioned are real scientists
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Cedre writes:
Arguably (though I've never been able to get a creationist to address the argument) a mountain is more complex than the human body. Nobody suggests that mountains need an intelligent designer.
What I am saying is I cannot accept evolution because the human body is too complex to have come about by the mechanisms of the modern synthesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cedre writes:
I keep asking you to stop using the term "Neo-Darwinism". I'm arguing that the theory of evolution and common ancestry are essentially the same thing.
Are you arguing that Neo-Darwinism and common ancestry are the same thing? Cedre writes:
That's a bizarre claim. Does a walker have to walk?
A bus driver does not have to drive a bus to be a bus driver! Cedre writes:
It's possible to be a nominal bus driver and not drive a bus; it's not possible to be an actual bus driver and not drive a bus. Your examples are nominal scientists, not actual scientists. Clearly someone can be employed as a bus driver and still not drive buses, a teacher can be a real teacher and still not teach. There used to be a commercial that said, "I'm not a real doctor but I play one on TV." That's what your examples are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Cedre writes:
As I said, because it means different things to different people. ringo writes:
Why not? I keep asking you to stop using the term "Neo-Darwinism". I personally don't like the term for several reasons. For one, it over-emphasizes the contribution of Darwin; he's been dead for more than a century and many others have contributed improvements in the meantime. For another, the "ism" suggests something like a religious dogma instead of a scientific theory. Calling the theory of evolution "Neo-Darwinism" is the equivalent of calling the space program "Neo-Wrightism".
Cedre writes:
Evolution inevitably branches out from common ancestry. There's nothing to prevent species from evolving into other species.
So answer this, is evolution possible without common ancestry? Cedre writes:
When you graduate with an education degree, you're qualified to become a teacher. When you turn eighteen, you're qualified to become a voter. You don't actually become a voter until you vote.
You do not become a real teacher the day you teach your first class, you're a real teacher when you graduate from college with a degree in education. Cedre writes:
A creationist on a website who is preaching the antithesis of science is definitely only pretending to be a scientist.
An actor pretending to be a doctor is not the same thing as someone with a medical degree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Cedre writes:
It is your own fault that you're confused about evolution, though, because you refuse to take the terminology as it is meant. Jim says, "Pink," and you say Jim is wrong because it's light red.
ringo writes:
Well that's not my fault. As I said, because it means different things to different people. Cedre writes:
Weren't you paying attention? I did. ringo writes:
Wow really? Says who? Calling the theory of evolution "Neo-Darwinism" is the equivalent of calling the space program "Neo-Wrightism". I explained that calling the theory of evolution "Darwinism" is as obsolete as calling aviation "Wrightism".
Cedre writes:
I did. Because organisms evolve, there has to be common ancestry. Eventually, the descendants of any organism will diverge into different species. That's how DNA works.
Now will you finally answer my question, is evolution possible without common ancestry? Cedre writes:
I notice that you ignored my other example: When you turn eighteen you are qaulified to vote but not every eligible voter is an actual voter. Being qualified to do something is not the same as doing it. No word games involved, just the clear meaning of words.
When you you graduate with an education degree you are not qualified to be a teacher, you are a teacher, you are qualified to teach! Cedre writes:
You have very low standards.
Someone with a degree in science doesn't have to pretend to be a scientists, he is a scientist!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes:
So you can't name a single person who knows anything about biology who's a critic of evolution? You're shooting yourself in the foot.
Like these guys you mean:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
NoNukes writes:
"Cow" is funnier because of the "k" sound. The same applies to "crocoduck", which is three times as funny.
She's wrong because the cow is not meant to be just a cow. The cow is a stand-in for dogs, rabbits, ferrets, and every other mammal or even for every other land animal depending of the period being discussed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Ed67 writes:
More like the Reality Crucible. Reality leaves evidence. If creationists had any evidence it would be treated just like any other evidence.
You mean prove to you that they've been run through the Evolutionary Crucible? lol. Ed67 writes:
To get through peer review you only have to convince a handful of peers that you have an interesting and valid point. Nobody actually has to accept your hypothesis. You're saying "I don't believe your hypothesis, and i won't consider believing it until the majority of my peers do." Publishing a paper gives your peers a chance to shoot holes in it. The problem for creationists is that their ideas are all holes.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024