It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is evolution, not what some think

page: 19
12
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 01:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: solomons path


Let me clarify: I believe that God may have created everything. I also believe that the current theory of Biological Evolution should still be considered valid as a theory. I also consider alternates to those two theories as just as valid as theories. I have not limited my thinking enough to discard any theory and to declare any particular one as "right/true' and all others 'wrong/false'.


Let me clarify (for the eleventy bazillionth time):

The "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" is a scientific theory. It is the synthesis (thus the name) of hundreds of hypotheses (of which Darwin's is only one, albeit a big important one).

Any "alternate" to the MES, whether 'God Did It' (which includes Intelligent Design), or anything else, is just another hypothesis. Hypotheses don't become scientific theories just because people, whether scientists or laymen, "believe" in them. They become scientific theories, or more probably part of a larger scientific theory, when and only when they are demonstrated to explain some new phenomenon, or explain some old phenomenon better than the old hypothesis, and can be shown to make successful predictions that would falsify the hypothesis if the prediction fails.

An example: for a long time, it was popularly thought that evolution happened gradually and evenly over many generations. The fact that there was not an even spread of fossil remains troubled scientists for many years. Their only explanation was that it is hard to create a fossil; the organism must die under just the right environmental conditions. That is still an excellent answer, but Stephen Jay Gould presented another hypothesis: punctuated equilibrium - evolution isn't a one speed process - sometimes a lot of evolutionary changes are crammed into just a few generations (a punctuation) before it returns to the slower gradualism (equilibrium).

Gould was pooh-poohed by some scientists and championed by others for a few years until the hypothesis had been thoroughly debated and tested. It is now part of the MES, not an alternative to MES. PE enriches the MES.

Understand this: "God did it" is a valid hypothesis. It is not, and can never be, a valid scientific theory or part of a scientific theory. It will never be promoted above the level of hypothesis. The reason for this is simple: it doesn't ask any questions or make any predictions that can be tested. It cannot be falsified. It is the end of questioning. If your only answer to the question "how do birds fly" is "because God made it so", you don't get airplanes, or race cars that can go around corners, or even skyscrapers that can withstand storm winds.

Science responds to "because God made it so" with "yeah maybe, but how?". Science responds to "if God wanted man to fly he would have given him wings" with "yeah maybe, but then again maybe he wanted man to figure out how to fly so he made an example: birds".

Perhaps if you could bring yourself to stop calling "God did it" an alternate theory, thereby revealing your stubborn ignorance of the difference between scientific precision and everyday looseness you would find that you could engage the scientific theory on a much more fulfilling basis. Recognize it as an hypothesis and it is then possible to discuss the validity or the vacuum of the consequences of that hypothesis.


edit on 9/6/2014 by rnaa because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 05:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: solomons path


Let me clarify: I believe that God may have created everything. I also believe that the current theory of Biological Evolution should still be considered valid as a theory. I also consider alternates to those two theories as just as valid as theories. I have not limited my thinking enough to discard any theory and to declare any particular one as "right/true' and all others 'wrong/false'.


Let me clarify (for the eleventy bazillionth time):

The "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" is a scientific theory. It is the synthesis (thus the name) of hundreds of hypotheses (of which Darwin's is only one, albeit a big important one).

Any "alternate" to the MES, whether 'God Did It' (which includes Intelligent Design), or anything else, is just another hypothesis. Hypotheses don't become scientific theories just because people, whether scientists or laymen, "believe" in them. They become scientific theories, or more probably part of a larger scientific theory, when and only when they are demonstrated to explain some new phenomenon, or explain some old phenomenon better than the old hypothesis, and can be shown to make successful predictions that would falsify the hypothesis if the prediction fails.

An example: for a long time, it was popularly thought that evolution happened gradually and evenly over many generations. The fact that there was not an even spread of fossil remains troubled scientists for many years. Their only explanation was that it is hard to create a fossil; the organism must die under just the right environmental conditions. That is still an excellent answer, but Stephen Jay Gould presented another hypothesis: punctuated equilibrium - evolution isn't a one speed process - sometimes a lot of evolutionary changes are crammed into just a few generations (a punctuation) before it returns to the slower gradualism (equilibrium).

Gould was pooh-poohed by some scientists and championed by others for a few years until the hypothesis had been thoroughly debated and tested. It is now part of the MES, not an alternative to MES. PE enriches the MES.

Understand this: "God did it" is a valid hypothesis. It is not, and can never be, a valid scientific theory or part of a scientific theory. It will never be promoted above the level of hypothesis. The reason for this is simple: it doesn't ask any questions or make any predictions that can be tested. It cannot be falsified. It is the end of questioning. If your only answer to the question "how do birds fly" is "because God made it so", you don't get airplanes, or race cars that can go around corners, or even skyscrapers that can withstand storm winds.

Science responds to "because God made it so" with "yeah maybe, but how?". Science responds to "if God wanted man to fly he would have given him wings" with "yeah maybe, but then again maybe he wanted man to figure out how to fly so he made an example: birds".

Perhaps if you could bring yourself to stop calling "God did it" an alternate theory, thereby revealing your stubborn ignorance of the difference between scientific precision and everyday looseness you would find that you could engage the scientific theory on a much more fulfilling basis. Recognize it as an hypothesis and it is then possible to discuss the validity or the vacuum of the consequences of that hypothesis.



At no stage have I said that "God did it" is an alternate theory to Evolution (although referring to both Creation and Evolution as a group, I did say "those two theories". Sorry, that was my mistake, perhaps "those two concepts" would be more accurate).

What seems to be eluding some is that the scientific discovery of, and proofs of, a process does not preclude, in any way, that "God did it". God could use those methods and so they cannot disprove God.

Saying "God did it" and inquiring no further is anti-progressive and anti-scientific. No reasonable person would disagree.

Similarly, and for the same reasons, saying Biological Evolutionary Theory explains it all and going no further is anti-progressive and anti-scientific.

Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is different from classical Biological Evolutionary Theory, it just is, that is why it has a different title.

To NOT look into every difficult to reach theoretical crevice, probe every shortcoming, consider even the most far-out hypothesis, is dogma, not science.


edit on 9/6/2014 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 06:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
At no stage have I said that "God did it" is an alternate theory to Evolution (although referring to both Creation and Evolution as a group, I did say "those two theories". Sorry, that was my mistake, perhaps "those two concepts" would be more accurate).

What seems to be eluding some is that the scientific discovery of, and proofs of, a process does not preclude, in any way, that "God did it". God could use those methods and so they cannot disprove God.

Saying "God did it" and inquiring no further is anti-progressive and anti-scientific. No reasonable person would disagree.

Similarly, and for the same reasons, saying Biological Evolutionary Theory explains it all and going no further is anti-progressive and anti-scientific.

Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is different from classical Biological Evolutionary Theory, it just is, that is why it has a different title.

To NOT look into every difficult to reach theoretical crevice, probe every shortcoming, consider even the most far-out hypothesis, is dogma, not science.



Actually this would be complete false. Telling 'God did it' while you can't prove or disprove a God himself is just absurd and false statement.

I have a feeling that you think that scientist have not look at possibility that 'God did it', where on contrary, some scientist did many years ago, and concluded that there is no evidence in existence of such being, nor for his work.

As for Ewert - what is there to prove, when pretty much all archeological finds are pointing for millions years of evolution and he is trying to prove that evolution could not happen with given time, while all other scientist and experiments are telling otherwise?!

As I said earlier, as long as Ewert will use Intelligent Design as start of his review/work - he will never be counted as scientist... same goes for rest of ID crew...

Please watch following video




edit on 9-6-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

Very revealing video. Shows the mindset of some of these people, and frankly it's scary.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: chr0naut



I honestly think God did do it. That's how we can be assured that there is order and method and the universe isn't random and meaningless noise.

Stop & consider for a minute:

What about the existence of variety in everything? Why didn't nature stop in the lowest energy state and all the universe consist of Hydrogen and nothing else or unbound quarks (or something similar). Why and how do we have so many elements, so many types of stars, so many of everything? This universe we observe is so incredibly unlikely!

In our observations of all of nature, from Astronomy to Zoology, variety is the rule, not the exception. Yet here it is, incredibly rich and varied.

Taken alongside our innate sense of right and wrong (some of which is not in the best interest of our "selfish genes" because it leads us to sacrifice ourselves to protect others who may not even be related) with our appreciation of art & beauty (yeah, what's that all about from an Evolutionary standpoint?).

These things speak of something beyond mechanism.

And for me, personally, these things, alongside an occasional spiritual and moral sense of that something, and having witnessed some miraculous stuff first hand, lead me to believe that there is something more. I see them as evidences of God. For me, the weight of that evidence is incontrovertible.

If you see nothing in all of this, if your heart doesn't soar with wonder, then it isn't an indication of a superior intellect, it means you are blind.


edit on 9/6/2014 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: chr0naut



I honestly think God did do it. That's how we can be assured that there is order and method and the universe isn't random and meaningless noise.

Stop & consider for a minute:

What about the existence of variety in everything? Why didn't nature stop in the lowest energy state and all the universe consist of Hydrogen and nothing else or unbound quarks (or something similar). Why and how do we have so many elements, so many types of stars, so many of everything? This universe we observe is so incredibly unlikely!


That is impossible to say since we do not know how many other universes are out there and what the odds are for a universe like ours to appear and develop. Not to mention, you really shouldn't use words like unlikely to talk about galactic and higher events. Given a large enough scale, no matter how unlikely an event is, the probability will go towards 1 (100%) as the number of chances approaches infinity. It's simple calculus there. Heck we don't even know how large our OWN universe is, let alone the unlikelyhood of our universe developing among the other universes.


In our observations of all of nature, from Astronomy to Zoology, variety is the rule, not the exception. Yet here it is, incredibly rich and varied.

Taken alongside our innate sense of right and wrong (some of which is not in the best interest of our "selfish genes" because it leads us to sacrifice ourselves to protect others who may not even be related) with our appreciation of art & beauty (yeah, what's that all about from an Evolutionary standpoint?).


Birds understand music as well. Music is an art.


These things speak of something beyond mechanism.

And for me, personally, these things, alongside an occasional spiritual and moral sense of that something, and having witnessed some miraculous stuff first hand, lead me to believe that there is something more. I see them as evidences of God. For me, the weight of that evidence is incontrovertible.

If you see nothing in all of this, if your heart doesn't soar with wonder, then it isn't an indication of a superior intellect, it means you are blind.



Blind to what? I just "saw" you describe a bunch of things that we don't have full explanations for and just substitute the answer "god" in for them and called it a day. You just said a bunch of nice feel good stuff, but you have not argued in favor of a god existing.
edit on 9-6-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Finally, this is where it all boils down to - you have some fuzzy feeling in your hart and are trying to prove to yourself that there has to be something bigger/greater at work... took some time, but finally we are where we supposed to be from beginning in this discussion. This was not about evolution whatsoever...

So in your opinion, universe we observe is 'incredibly unlikely', even we know how it happened, what is mostly made from, how did heavier element form... etc... it all boils down to scientist telling that we are made of star dust - with in my opinion is something that makes my hart full of wonder - how a star had to shine for very long time, go supernova - space dust and left overs then started colliding, making this wonderful system we call home... how billion years after forming of earth microbial life started, how it took couple more billions to get to first somewhat intelligent life... and no belief need to know that this is how it happened - this is what all data we collected so far points to....


These things speak of something beyond mechanism.


There is nothing that points to something beyond mechanism... we know how long it took life to form, we know that all life, including us survived more then 5 mass exstinction... condition in universe are harsh, yet life seems to survive... and that is wonder by itself... yet, we don't really know if we, human will survive...

From one of my favorite SF authors - little quote:


It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value.

Arthur C. Clarke


Now, as for rest of your post - you can open topic about 'miraculous stuff you experienced' and we can elaborate on that... I always wondered as kid if there is anything paranormal... but guess what... as I learned and started reading about this stuff, I came to conclusion that there is nothing like that. I even asked here, on ATS... (was asked to read the book - and after I've started reading it and investigating - came to conclusion that author used mostly widely known hoaxes....people unwilling to research and check his claims might find book interesting, but to me it was just another author who sells thin air...

And for conclusion - there is nothing wrong with your belief and warm feeling you get with your religion, but there is no need to prove bible contains any scientific work - because simply it does not. Book is strictly spiritual (In my opinion, not very positive btw), but to use it as source of moral etc... I would not suggest that... it is full of discrimination, violence etc...



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: chr0naut



I honestly think God did do it. That's how we can be assured that there is order and method and the universe isn't random and meaningless noise.

Stop & consider for a minute:

What about the existence of variety in everything? Why didn't nature stop in the lowest energy state and all the universe consist of Hydrogen and nothing else or unbound quarks (or something similar). Why and how do we have so many elements, so many types of stars, so many of everything? This universe we observe is so incredibly unlikely!


That is impossible to say since we do not know how many other universes are out there and what the odds are for a universe like ours to appear and develop. Not to mention, you really shouldn't use words like unlikely to talk about galactic and higher events. Given a large enough scale, no matter how unlikely an event is, the probability will go towards 1 (100%) as the number of chances approaches infinity. It's simple calculus there. Heck we don't even know how large our OWN universe is, let alone the unlikelyhood of our universe developing among the other universes.


In our observations of all of nature, from Astronomy to Zoology, variety is the rule, not the exception. Yet here it is, incredibly rich and varied.

Taken alongside our innate sense of right and wrong (some of which is not in the best interest of our "selfish genes" because it leads us to sacrifice ourselves to protect others who may not even be related) with our appreciation of art & beauty (yeah, what's that all about from an Evolutionary standpoint?).


Birds understand music as well. Music is an art.


These things speak of something beyond mechanism.

And for me, personally, these things, alongside an occasional spiritual and moral sense of that something, and having witnessed some miraculous stuff first hand, lead me to believe that there is something more. I see them as evidences of God. For me, the weight of that evidence is incontrovertible.

If you see nothing in all of this, if your heart doesn't soar with wonder, then it isn't an indication of a superior intellect, it means you are blind.



Blind to what? I just "saw" you describe a bunch of things that we don't have full explanations for and just substitute the answer "god" in for them and called it a day. You just said a bunch of nice feel good stuff, but you have not argued in favor of a god existing.


Einstein said "Religion without science is lame, Science without religion is blind". I was paraphrasing him because that comment resonated with me.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Einstein said "Religion without science is lame, Science without religion is blind". I was paraphrasing him because that comment resonated with me.


Einstein never said that quote, and I am sure you are aware of that...

I am sure that video with Dr. Tyson you have watched to the end. Part where he said - 'Once and for all...' It is all about Dr. Einstein, with letter to fellow scientist where he explains that those are 'all lies'.

Here is quote form wiki:


On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.[9]


At this point you are holding on thin air...
edit on 9-6-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: chr0naut



I honestly think God did do it. That's how we can be assured that there is order and method and the universe isn't random and meaningless noise.

Stop & consider for a minute:

What about the existence of variety in everything? Why didn't nature stop in the lowest energy state and all the universe consist of Hydrogen and nothing else or unbound quarks (or something similar). Why and how do we have so many elements, so many types of stars, so many of everything? This universe we observe is so incredibly unlikely!


That is impossible to say since we do not know how many other universes are out there and what the odds are for a universe like ours to appear and develop. Not to mention, you really shouldn't use words like unlikely to talk about galactic and higher events. Given a large enough scale, no matter how unlikely an event is, the probability will go towards 1 (100%) as the number of chances approaches infinity. It's simple calculus there. Heck we don't even know how large our OWN universe is, let alone the unlikelyhood of our universe developing among the other universes.


In our observations of all of nature, from Astronomy to Zoology, variety is the rule, not the exception. Yet here it is, incredibly rich and varied.

Taken alongside our innate sense of right and wrong (some of which is not in the best interest of our "selfish genes" because it leads us to sacrifice ourselves to protect others who may not even be related) with our appreciation of art & beauty (yeah, what's that all about from an Evolutionary standpoint?).


Birds understand music as well. Music is an art.


These things speak of something beyond mechanism.

And for me, personally, these things, alongside an occasional spiritual and moral sense of that something, and having witnessed some miraculous stuff first hand, lead me to believe that there is something more. I see them as evidences of God. For me, the weight of that evidence is incontrovertible.

If you see nothing in all of this, if your heart doesn't soar with wonder, then it isn't an indication of a superior intellect, it means you are blind.



Blind to what? I just "saw" you describe a bunch of things that we don't have full explanations for and just substitute the answer "god" in for them and called it a day. You just said a bunch of nice feel good stuff, but you have not argued in favor of a god existing.


Einstein said "Religion without science is lame, Science without religion is blind". I was paraphrasing him because that comment resonated with me.



It doesn't resonate with me. Besides the obvious (that Einstein never said that). Coupling science and religion together results in the scenario I mentioned above where people start filling the answer "god" in for all the questions we don't know. Science with religion is failed since religion likes to substitute its own answers in for questions. There is nothing wrong with believing in a god, but don't let religion stand in the way of scientific discoveries. Which is what YEC'ers do



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: chr0naut
Einstein never said that quote, and I am sure you are aware of that...

I'm sorry, it would appear that you are mistaken, Einstein wrote it in an article in The New York Times Magazine on November 9, 1930 pp 1-4. It's probably on-line somewhere.


I am sure that video with Dr. Tyson you have watched to the end. Part where he said - 'Once and for all...' It is all about Dr. Einstein, with letter to fellow scientist where he explains that those are 'all lies'.

Here is quote form wiki:

]On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it".[9]

You seem to have selectively edited what Einstein said to support your views. He actually explained that he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal God.


At this point you are holding on thin air...

Nope!


edit on 9/6/2014 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sorry, got it round the wrong way. The quote was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" and Einstein wrote it in an article in The New York Times Magazine on November 9, 1930 pp 1-4. It still resonates with me.

Not coupling science and religion together results in the scenario where people start filling the answer "Evolution" in for all the questions we don't know.

There is nothing wrong with believing in science, but don't let it stand in the way of personal truth.

I mean, why put your heart and soul into something that you know will be revealed as incorrect and supplanted by something new any day now? Why not just "play it cool" and wait to see what transpires?

I suppose that's what I'm advocating. Don't get hung up on what you think you know. Be open minded and accept that it is all probably wrong.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog


It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value.

Arthur C. Clarke

If Sykes is right, and the amount of genetic damage on the male Y chromosome is likely to render it inviable in about 125,000 years, then intelligence is probably the only thing that will save the human species. If we wait for Evolutionary processes to happen, were gone.

(For the record, chromosomal genetic degradation leading to sterility is another thing affecting biodiversity, that is not explicitly covered by Biological Evolutionary Theory).


edit on 9/6/2014 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sorry, got it round the wrong way. The quote was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" and Einstein wrote it in an article in The New York Times Magazine on November 9, 1930 pp 1-4. It still resonates with me.

Not coupling science and religion together results in the scenario where people start filling the answer "Evolution" in for all the questions we don't know.


No one does that and if they did, they'd be laughed at. Science is about finding evidence first then answering the questions with the evidence. Not assuming an answer then finding evidence to support it like religion does. It's not even comparable. If someone assumed "evolution" as an answer to a question we don't know then that wouldn't be using science.


There is nothing wrong with believing in science, but don't let it stand in the way of personal truth.


What is personal truth?


I mean, why put your heart and soul into something that you know will be revealed as incorrect and supplanted by something new any day now? Why not just "play it cool" and wait to see what transpires?


You make it sound like large swaths of theories are going to be overturned and we will end up believing something completely different in a few years. While that MAY happen, it is unlikely. Usually what happens is that new evidence appears and we update our knowledge and theories to account for it. The likelihood that new evidence will overturn a theory is very slim.


I suppose that's what I'm advocating. Don't get hung up on what you think you know. Be open minded and accept that it is all probably wrong.


I do... I'm an agnostic. Agnosticism is exactly what you just described. In fact, it is the belief that is closest to what you just said. Atheism and theism both believe definitively in something that cannot be 100% confirmed or denied for a fact. So I really don't need a lecture on absolute truths.
edit on 9-6-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
I'm sorry, it would appear that you are mistaken, Einstein wrote it in an article in The New York Times Magazine on November 9, 1930 pp 1-4. It's probably on-line somewhere.


LOL

Here is Dr. Einstein's original article where he explains 'evolution' of religion from primitive humans to organized religion (almost was to write 'criminal', wonder how off that would be
) of today and fact at the time he wrote that many of scientist indeed were religious, but had to drop their belief to be able to ask question and look for answers.

Now, the same article was reprinted in 49 and 54 (hint, hint) and prompted question and answers from Einstein, that I have already posted earlier. Can you find reprinted version and compare it to original from 30's? Guess what quote you will find there...

Also just wonder if you know what language Einstein himself wrote original article back in 30s.






originally posted by: chr0naut
You seem to have selectively edited what Einstein said to support your views. He actually explained that he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal God.

Care to point at what exactly I have 'edited'?!




originally posted by: chr0naut
Nope!

Yes, you are my friend....



originally posted by: chr0naut
If Sykes is right, and the amount of genetic damage on the male Y chromosome is likely to render it inviable in about 125,000 years, then intelligence is probably the only thing that will save the human species. If we wait for Evolutionary processes to happen, were gone.

(For the record, chromosomal genetic degradation leading to sterility is another thing affecting biodiversity, that is not explicitly covered by Biological Evolutionary Theory).

I am pretty sure that Clarke had different meaning in his quote, more like - if we managed not to kill ourselves or avoid one of extinction event that earth is prone to do from time to time... (be it impact from huge asteroid or green house effect that would turn Earth into real Venus sister... - something we might avoid, but choose not to)
edit on 9-6-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is different from classical Biological Evolutionary Theory, it just is, that is why it has a different title.


'"classical Biological Evolutionary Theory"???

If you mean a Biological Evolutionary Theory that predated and was replaced by the MES, there is simply no such thing.

Before the MES there was Darwin, Lamark, orthogenesis, saltationism. Darwin convinced most biologists that evolution was a fact, an idea that was far from unique to Darwin, but not how it worked. Darwin's idea of natural selection was just one of many with supporters and researchers all working hard to gain acceptance for their ideas. As each hypothesis was dismissed one by one, only Darwin's stood the test of time.

There was no agreement on whether natural selection was 'good enough'. There was no clear understanding of how heredity worked (Mendel wasn't 'rediscovered' until 1900) , or its mechanism. Biologists were working on separate ideas, in isolated groups, not influencing each other. Naturalists worked in the field, population geneticists worked in the lab. There was no "classical Biological Evolutionary Theory" - just a lot of disconnected hypotheses.



(the following paragraph is a paraphrase from Wikipedia)
The first step towards the synthesis was the development of population genetics beginning around 1918. R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewall Wright provided critical contributions. In 1918, Fisher produced the paper "The Correlation Between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance" and In this and subsequent papers culminating in his 1930 book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, Fisher was able to show how Mendelian genetics was, contrary to the thinking of many early geneticists, completely consistent with the idea of evolution driven by natural selection. Haldane established that natural selection could work in the real world at a faster rate than even Fisher had assumed. Sewall Wright focused on combinations of genes that interacted as complexes, and the effects of inbreeding on small relatively isolated populations, which could exhibit genetic drift. In a 1932 paper he introduced the concept of an adaptive landscape in which phenomena such as cross breeding and genetic drift in small populations could push them away from adaptive peaks, which would in turn allow natural selection to push them towards new adaptive peaks. This work founded the discipline of Population Genetics. This is the precursor of the modern synthesis, which is an even broader coalition of ideas.


Population genetics is the key to understanding evolution. Population evolve, not individuals. Until you understand that, you will not understand Evolution. Period. Population genetics was not even dreamed of by Darwin.

There is not, and never has been, 'Darwinism' except in the popular press. Darwin was never thought of by Scientists as having produced 'THE' Theory of Evolution - as noted above there were at least 3 other alternative hypotheses for how evolution worked. Darwin's hypothesis about natural selection were incorporated into the MES which was basically put together between WW1 and WW2. And there was no "Theory of Evolution before MES was put together.

Of course, MES is not the last word, no theory ever is. DNA was discovered the 1860s but nobody knew what it was for. The first hint that it was the mechanism for heredity was noted in 1927, but not proved until 1943. Of course, Crick and Watson showed that it was a double helix in 1953. DNA has revolutionized biology, but it has served to confirm and correct the MES, not replace it.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

Outstanding post. I never understood why evolution deniers even bring up Darwin in 2014, as if he is the final say on the matter. Darwinism is simply a buzz word like Darwinist or evolutionist. They aren't applicable words in today's world. It's like calling gravity, Newtonism. Darwinism is a term that stopped having meaning after the various versions of evolution were sorted out, but now it's just that hot media buzz word for creationists. It's funny how they always go into the distant past when talking about science, but won't address a single part of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.
edit on 9-6-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Indeed.. it's pare for the course for those who insist on living in the past. Creationism cannot possibly compete with Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, this is why they insist on making it a public policy issue. In this way they can continue to deceive and woo the flock, while avoiding any real scientific inquiry.



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




Saying "God did it" and inquiring no further is anti-progressive and anti-scientific. No reasonable person would disagree.


Precisely. You have just defined every "Bible literalist" and "Intelligent Designer' as unreasonable. Congratulations.



Similarly, and for the same reasons, saying Biological Evolutionary Theory explains it all and going no further is anti-progressive and anti-scientific.


Again precisely. This time you have defined the null-set as well as getting the name of the theory wrong. Congratulations, again.



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: SuperFrog

Cool video btw cheers...now where is the person using the Platypus as an argument against Toe?
Yup all of them.
You know Iam very anti theist and I consider it abuse to make kids follow a religion, they should be able to make up their own minds given all the facts about every religion and any other choices.
Having kids go to church is nothing like abuse. I think you might just be joking, but I'm not sure.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join