|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biology teacher resource help | |||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Randman, You've been around enough to know how to take care of long urls.
type:
[url=http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Biology teacher resource help -->http://EvC Forum: Biology teacher resource help -->EvC Forum: Biology teacher resource help< !--UE-->]this message has a link that is too long[/url] and it becomes: this message has a link that is too long Long urls force the page to be wider than the screen, and thus make reading each of the posts difficult. Please edit the one you have in Message 60 so we can read the page.
Those all accept some sort of evolution but strongly reject Darwinism. By calling it something else? By defining evolution and Darwinism to suit their argument instead of how the terms are used in science? Are you answering fishboy's question -- or what you WANT his question to be? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : thinking by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2670 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Fish, be advised. John Davison is a class A loony. I don't mean I disagree with his gobbledygook. I mean the man is crazy. Even the creos kicked him off their sties. Google him if you doubt me.
Pierre Grasse died 23 years ago. I wouldn't accept a paper at face value if it was 23 years old. (There are exceptions, of course. Einstein's 1905 paper on Brownian motion, for example.) Much less the opinions of a a "biologist" that said:
No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. http://www.conservapedia.com/Pierre_Grasse I have no idea who "Goldschmidt" and "Broom" are. Pretty tough to google too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I have no idea who "Goldschmidt" and "Broom" are. Pretty tough to google too. Professor Robert Broom (November 30, 1866, Paisley - April 6, 1951) -- also see biography Richard Benedict Goldschmidt (April 12, 1878 - April 24, 1958) -- also see Comments on Goldschmidt Both before the modern "neo-darwinian" unification of genetics with darwinism. Both are also commonly misrepresented by creationists (quotemined?). Nuff said? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added info by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Just giving him some references to check out some reading material. I am sure he's capable of making up his own mind about what they have to say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3076 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Fish, be advised. John Davison is a class A loony. I don't mean I disagree with his gobbledygook. I mean the man is crazy. Even the creos kicked him off their sties. Google him if you doubt me. John Davison is Professor of Biology. He opposes evolution based on scientific facts. Of course these objective facts (Professor of Biology/opposes evolution based on evidence) is not seen in the above rant. When we remember that the person who wrote the blue box comment is an Atheist evolutionist the misrepresentation and omission of facts is instantly explained. You need to ask yourself, Fishboy: "Why do evolutionists misrepresent those who oppose evolution in the manner seen above?" The only logical answer is anger caused by the inability to refute. Ray Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
A cursory review of the Modern Synthesis can be found here. Note: wikipedia is not always accurate but can nevertheless be useful.
This synthesis was produced over a period of about a decade (1936-1947) and was closely connected with the development from 1918 to 1932 of the discipline of population genetics, which integrated the theory of natural selection with Mendelian genetics. Modern synthesis - Wikipedia Grasse's comments, an evolutionist that agreed with many criticisms of NeoDarwinism that some IDers and creationist make, come from a book published in 1978, well after the origin of the modern synthesis. Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.31 - Google Search Wiki makes this comment about him.
Pierre-Paul Grassé (1895-1985) was a French zoologist. He was one-time president of the Academie des Sciences and author of the influential 35-volume Traite de Zoologie. In 1959 Grassé introduced the concept of stigmergy to describe the indirect communication among individuals in social insect societies. This he derived from observing the actions of termites when building nests. Grassé was an opponent of Darwinian evolution, because he believed it to be in conflict with numerous experimental findings. He disagreed with Darwin's central tenet of evolution regarding the combined effect of mutation and natural selection. Grassé proposed an evolutionary theory in which living matter contains an undiscovered "internal factor" that compels life to evolve along predetermined lines. However, he did not believe these unknown factors to be of a mystical nature, as in the case of 19th-century vitalism. Pierre-Paul Grass - Wikipedia Goldschmidt, another evolutionist that disagreed with NeoDarwinian mechanisms, disagreed the Modern Synthesis on scientific grounds. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Besides Goldschmidt, Grasse, Broom and Davison (the latter mainly worth reading because he synthesizes some of their earlier thoughts), you may want to read some of Leo Berg.
They all disagree with NeoDarwinism on factual grounds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
My understanding is that JAD fully accepts the mainstream thoughts of the Earth's 4.5 billion year age.
He also accepts that biological evolution has happened in the context of that time frame. But, as I understand it, he thinks that evolutions pathways were pre-programed to end up where we currently are. He also thinks that evolution is no longer happening. I keep meaning to ask him when evolution ceased. But all this is (shame on me) pretty off-topic. I suggest you track down JAD somewhere and ask him about positions. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Grasse's comments, ... 1978, well after the origin of the modern synthesis. I was not talking about Grasse.
Goldschmidt, another evolutionist that disagreed with NeoDarwinian mechanisms ... Goldschmidt is the (1940) author of the phrase "hopeful monster" and thus his major work predates the synthesis. His hypothesis is interesting - see Gould's comments (it doesn't necessarily violate any basic element of evolution) - it comes down to a question of what you define as big change:
quote: What is "rapid change" - and how does it occur - are the real questions eh? Don't you have any modern references? Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
You must have missed the DI link for "modern" references and Davison. It's a silly request anyway because the basic set of facts haven't really changed that much in this regard except some are taking hopeful monsters more sriously, as one of the science writers of the NYTs points out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... except some are taking hopeful monsters more sriously, as one of the science writers of the NYTs points out. Well gosh, randman, that sounds like what I was asking about. Where are those references? Where's the modern work that builds on the stuff that is 50 years old?
You must have missed the DI link for "modern" references ... I liked "A Mathematician’s View of Evolution," - published in a magazine that states: "Authors need not feel confined to non-fiction: we will consider humor, poetry, fiction, and art forms not yet invented." There's some real journal cred. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : journals not equal by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I think within the ID camp is where I would look, and I provided some references. FB wants to learn more so reading those guys, reading guys like Behe who echoes arguments made by Grasse, and comparing that with what Darwinists say ought to get him off to a good start understanding the issues being debated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Hi Randman,
I don't understand why you're posting in this way here. I made a typo in my previous post where I said, "You can even start the thread and post what you would like to say here, then post here to refer Fishboy over there," but it's obvious what I meant from context. You were supposed to stop obstructing the presentation of the accepted understanding of evolution in this thread. I'm suspending you for 48 hours this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3076 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
My understanding is that JAD fully accepts the mainstream thoughts of the Earth's 4.5 billion year age. Agreed.
He also accepts that biological evolution has happened in the context of that time frame. But, as I understand it, he thinks that evolutions pathways were pre-programed to end up where we currently are. Yes, Davison advocates a "perscribed" evolutionary hypothesis, which means a theory totally foreign to Darwinian evolution.
He also thinks that evolution is no longer happening. Yes. He says all we see today is extinction with no replacements. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
He says all we see today is extinction with no replacements. This reminds me of a theory that I've had for some time. We're running out of famous people. Famous people die every week, sometimes several in a week. But who's the last famous person that was born? I can't recall any, although I certainly admit I might have missed one or two along the way. I'd venture to guess that for any given month, the number of famous people who died outnumbered those who were born by perhaps a factor of as much as ten. At that rate, we're bound to run out of famous people sooner or later. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024