Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,227 Year: 5,484/9,624 Month: 509/323 Week: 6/143 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Criticizing neo-Darwinism
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 135 of 309 (394867)
04-13-2007 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by MartinV
04-13-2007 3:00 PM


Re: Why are they so afraid of orthogenesis theory?
Why are darwinists so afraid of theory of orthogenesis (Eimer) or Nomogenesis (Berg) that they have more sympathy to protestant fundamentalist as to those proponents of theories of governed evolution?
The reason it appears to you that "darwinists" have attitudes consistent with your self-important fantasies is that you make up their attitudes in your head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by MartinV, posted 04-13-2007 3:00 PM MartinV has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 141 of 309 (399336)
05-05-2007 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by MartinV
05-04-2007 5:45 PM


Re: Fridriech Nietzsche on darwinism
I don't see why you appreciate more biological opininion of gratuated theologist from mid 19 century more than opinion of prominent linguist and philosopher from the same period.
(1) Darwin spent his life studying biology and was recognised by his peers as the greatest naturalist of his age.
Frierich Nietzsche knew nothing of biology, wrote a lot of crazy stuff, went mad, and spent the latter half of his life staring at the wall while his sister displayed him to tourists.
Which of them knew more about biology?
(2) We are not taking Darwin's word for anything. The theory of evolution does not rest on his opinion, but on the facts.
However, if you are going to invoke the Argument from Authority, here are some scientists with scientific qualifications.
Chew on these.
"Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin."
--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Académie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by MartinV, posted 05-04-2007 5:45 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by MartinV, posted 05-05-2007 3:55 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 148 of 309 (402387)
05-26-2007 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by MartinV
05-25-2007 5:05 PM


Re: G.B.Shaw on darwinism
I quoted Friedrich Nietzsche and Nabokov who dismissed darwinism. Maybe these poets - to be ironic - did not underestand complicated dialectical "science" of neodarwinism with it's theories of sexaul selection, neutral drift or even that of neutral draft etc. But G.B.Shaw opinion of darwinism and especially of Natural selection seems to be of the same sort.
You mean, devoid of factual content?
Here's Shaw on smallpox vaccination, by the way:
quote:
For years past the strain of countenancing such a proceeding, so gross, reckless, dirty, and dangerous as vaccination from the calf, has been growing unbearable to bacteriological experts. . . . Nothing but the natural ignorance of the public, countenanced by the inoculated erroneousness of the ordinary general medical practitioners, makes such a barbarism as vaccination possible. . . Recent developments have shown that an inoculation made in the usual general practitioner's light-hearted way, without previous highly skilled examination of the state of the patient's blood, is just as likely to be a simple manslaughter as a cure or preventive. But vaccination is nothing short of attempted murder. A skilled bacteriologist would just as soon think of cutting his child's arm and rubbing the contents of the dustpan into the wound, as vaccinating it in the same.
Yes, that's smallpox, the disease we wiped from the face of the earth by vaccination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by MartinV, posted 05-25-2007 5:05 PM MartinV has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 149 of 309 (402388)
05-26-2007 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by MartinV
05-05-2007 3:55 AM


Re: Fridriech Nietzsche on darwinism
I don't see problem with this extract.
You've become an evolutionist? Hurrah.
Might be atheist Nietzsche would agree too if he head been alive. You see - the quotation do not mentioned darwinism as explanation of evolution.
They do not use the obsolote term "darwinism". They do however, say that: "Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision."
Now, these "ways" would be descent with modification and natural selection, yes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by MartinV, posted 05-05-2007 3:55 AM MartinV has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 151 of 309 (403168)
06-01-2007 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by MartinV
05-31-2007 3:31 PM


Re: "Empty niche" explanation is probably wrong
Good grief.
Clearly if a species exists there is in fact a niche for it.
Is there anything else totally obvious that you're having trouble understanding?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by MartinV, posted 05-31-2007 3:31 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by MartinV, posted 06-01-2007 1:05 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 216 of 309 (434576)
11-16-2007 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Elmer
11-16-2007 11:55 AM


As for personal incredulity ...
As for personal incredulity, it isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.
Skepticism requires analysis of the evidence, not sitting around saying "It doesn't sound right to me so it's not true".
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Elmer, posted 11-16-2007 11:55 AM Elmer has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 280 of 309 (593915)
11-30-2010 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Bolder-dash
11-30-2010 11:37 AM


Re: Nice
I just want to say (before Percy finds another bullshit excuse for suspending me again) ...
Bullshit excuse? You mean like you posting an OP devoted chiefly to personal attacks on him, in which you call him "sleazy", "unethical", and a "fucking pussy"?
... that this is one of the best posts I have ever read here from a evolutionist or anyone for that matter.
Yeah, nwr may be an evolutionist, but at least he's wrong about something.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-30-2010 11:37 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 285 of 309 (593993)
12-01-2010 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Bolder-dash
12-01-2010 1:24 AM


Hidden snark
{Snark one-liner hidden. 6 hour suspension handed out. - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide snark, add note including mention of 6 hour suspension because of snark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-01-2010 1:24 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 287 of 309 (593995)
12-01-2010 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by nwr
11-30-2010 1:25 PM


Re: Nice
Given the general quality of your arguments, I should perhaps consider your post as damning with faint praise.
Loud praise would have been more damning still.
---
I haven't responded to your OP because after all you wrote it in 2006, and I should be wasting my time picking up on inaccuracies which you may have noted yourself in the course of the past four years.
Are there any points in it you'd like to discuss?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by nwr, posted 11-30-2010 1:25 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 298 of 309 (594067)
12-01-2010 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Bolder-dash
12-01-2010 2:25 AM


Re: Nice
Its all well and good to say random mutations happen, and they are an important part. How important of a part are they? 20% of all the development of life as we see it? ... If it can't account for all, what accounts for the rest? Synthesis? Genetic drift? ... If its not the selfish gene what is it?
Your sheer biological illiteracy is staggering.
It's like asking "How important is petrol to the running of a car? 20% of the motive force? If it can't account for it, what accounts for the rest? The blueprint of the engine? The exhaust pipe? If it is not combustion what is it?"
Reading creationists trying to talk about biology is often like listening to someone pretending to be knowledgable about sports by saying: "And then the referee did an endrun around the shortstop, so of course the quarterback awarded a slam-dunk". You've taken some words with meaning in biology and apparently just dumped them in a random pile.
And of course if you really wanted to know about biology you could always acquire a textbook and find out the meaning of the words you're employing and the way in which the various concepts relate to one another. As it is you give the curious impression of being obsessed with biology without being remotely interested in it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-01-2010 2:25 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 301 of 309 (594331)
12-03-2010 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 12:39 AM


Re: A Statement from the Atheist Front
Oh, so this is what intellectualism looks like?
Hmm...I'll take a pass then.
Surely to say that you will take a pass on something should properly imply that you have it as an option.
As it is, you're like a quadriplegic person announcing that he'll "take a pass" on dancing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 12:39 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 1:47 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 304 of 309 (594342)
12-03-2010 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 1:47 AM


Re: A Statement from the Atheist Front
This post has been edited out of consideration for Adminnemooseus. I shall have other opportunities to mock Bolder-dash.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 1:47 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024