Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,231 Year: 5,488/9,624 Month: 513/323 Week: 10/143 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Criticizing neo-Darwinism
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 4 of 309 (296965)
03-20-2006 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nwr
03-20-2006 8:58 PM


I'm pretty sure that evolution hasn't technically been "Darwinist" for almost 20 years, now. What's the merit in criticizing "Darwinism"?
The modern theory of evolution encapsulates sexual selection, genetic drift, punctuated equilibrium, and a host of other things that don't fall under the heading of "Darwinism".
I just want a better formulation than that of traditional neo-Darwinism.
Perhaps it would help if you were to elucidate the ways that you find Para's account, which is marvelously simple and obviously correct, to be uncompelling to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nwr, posted 03-20-2006 8:58 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by nwr, posted 03-21-2006 1:22 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 15 of 309 (297095)
03-21-2006 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by nwr
03-21-2006 2:06 PM


Re: muddled thoughts.
But if neodarwinism were a good model, then you should not have to keep appealing to the biology to help the model over its weak points.
This is nonsense to me. What would be the basis of an evolutionary theory besides the biology of the organisms that are evolving? Evolution is a theory of biology. Why do you believe it is wrong to appeal to biology to explain evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nwr, posted 03-21-2006 2:06 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by nwr, posted 03-21-2006 4:09 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 18 of 309 (297136)
03-21-2006 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by nwr
03-21-2006 4:09 PM


Re: muddled thoughts.
It is a discussion of whether the neoDarwinian account, as quoted in Message 1 (from a post by Parasomnium) is an adequate model for ToE.
You're still not being clear, because I don't see how that answers the question.
Maybe it's best I bow out here. Apparently clear communication is not going to be possible for us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by nwr, posted 03-21-2006 4:09 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 74 of 309 (299387)
03-29-2006 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by CCXC
03-29-2006 3:03 PM


Re: might be of interest...
I'm wondering why you didn't link the link, instead of a link to a wiki article that has the link.
You know, people change wiki articles. Anybody at all can just rewrite the article. Maybe the next time you visit the article the link you tried to point us to won't even be there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by CCXC, posted 03-29-2006 3:03 PM CCXC has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 03-29-2006 5:45 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 166 of 309 (403554)
06-04-2007 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by ABO
06-03-2007 10:42 PM


Re: True Darwinism
The doctrine of common ancestry or tree isn’t visualized by just thinking, it must be imagined.
To the contrary, it's substantiated by a great weight of evidence. I've seen some of the evidence, and indeed performed some of the tests that prove it, myself.
Faith is the province of religion. Evolution is accepted by scientists because the evidence shows that it is correct. To say that it's a "matter of faith" is to fail to understand that many of us are a lot better informed than you are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by ABO, posted 06-03-2007 10:42 PM ABO has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by ABO, posted 06-11-2007 11:36 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 195 of 309 (405238)
06-11-2007 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by ABO
06-11-2007 11:36 PM


Re: Evidence
Ok, I can buy some of your story, tell me about the evidence.
Common descent of organisms is substantiated by molecular phylogenetics, which proves ancestral connections between species.
Molecular phylogenetics is substantiated by examples of detectable co-speciation between physically proximal but evolutionarily distant species, like pocket gophers and their lice. That evidence and discussion of it is in this thread:
EvC Forum: More Evidence of Evolution - Geomyidae and Geomydoecus
Since that example - and others - prove, experimentally, that molecular phylogenetic techniques return accurate information about species ancestry, we know that the general conclusion of common descent is accurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by ABO, posted 06-11-2007 11:36 PM ABO has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 296 of 309 (594046)
12-01-2010 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Bolder-dash
12-01-2010 1:24 AM


Re: Nice
Because without this critical component of random mutations, this throwing out of the word "synthesis" can't keep the crows out. What is the synthesis? No one knows. No one can define it.
It's not some kind of secret, Dash, it's just another example of the huge amount of science you've simply failed to pay any attention to.
The "synthesis" is nothing more than the synthesis of Darwin's original theory of common descent by modification and natural selection with the modern science of molecular genetics and what we know about random mutations.
That's the synthesis. It's not some secret code word, it's just the combination of Darwin's theory from the 1800's with modern discoveries about DNA.
If neo-Darwinism can't explain it, most atheists are smart enough to know that they have nowhere else to turn.
We have everywhere else to turn. We have the entire world of biology to turn to. It's creationists like you who have a one-trick pony and nothing else to ride.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-01-2010 1:24 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