It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Why Creationism Should Never be Taught in Science Class

page: 20
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 07:06 AM
a reply to: Parthin96

That's fine with me and all. The people who can understand the differences between science and religion are a-ok in my book. Those are the types who aren't prone to push their religion into a science class.

posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 10:54 PM
a reply to: Ghost147
Hi Ghost:

Which new data suggests genes do not play a central role in Evolution? Again, can you source your claims?

There is plenty of data if you cared to do the research.

When we speak of inheritance we are simply talking about transfer of information. Adherents to the MES, like yourself, are emphatic that biological information, crucial to the development of phenotypic traits, is transferred only by genetic means - or IOW via traditional Mendelian channels.

You probably also think variation must have a genetic basis, and that there should always be a direct correlation between the gene(allele) and trait. This is what the MES promotes with its framework which has become the foundation of evolutionary thinking. I tend to think it is a woefully ignorant way to fully comprehend the process.

Here, start with this:
Nongenetic Inheritance and Its Evolutionary Implications

Then read this interesting study:
Epigenetics and the Evolution of Darwin's Finches

Explore more about:
Non-genetic variation in plants;
In yeast;
Check out this impressive analysis of phenotypic plasticity vs genetic adaptions

Considering this statement was said in 2007, that means there wasn't anything evidence that was thoroughly tested at that time to really change the entire theory of evolution. Which means that you must have SOMETHING to show us between 2007 and 2015 that at least suggests otherwise.

Nice of you to quote-mine Pigliucci, and not provide a proper citation.

I have collected a library of studies, but why shouldn't you do your own homework too. I am very familiar with Pigliucci and his calls for an extension to the synthesis. He is a smart man who is not alone in his thinking.

I have to ask - do you really think there hasn't been any new research or data released since 2007 (or earlier) highlighting the effects of non-genetic inheritance systems? There have been several, so I'm not sure what your posturing is all about. It's not like this is all out of thin air, you know.

Again, even if there is evidence, that time frame is still quite short in order to gather enough evidence and test it rigorously enough to change anything yet.

Says you of course. With a shift in funding and better technologies, researchers are able to conduct their studies and release their findings much much quicker. These days a lot can be done in 8 years, but certainly you must've known this already.

The Theory of Evolution constantly is being updated according to new findings, what makes one of this subject any different?

Sure, sure. Please link me to the "updated" theory of evolution. If this was the case there wouldn't be a call for extending it in the first place. It's clear from your contributions in these threads that you espouse a very rigid view of evolution. It's very much like several other members here. Quite unfortunate really.

The rate at which organisms evolve does not effect our current model surrounding evolution.

I'm not saying that it does. However the current model maintains as a central tenet that evolution proceeds in a very gradual manner, in light of evidence that shows otherwise.

Genetic Drift isn't a mechanism or a force, it is simply a description of accumulation over time.

I don't much like the metaphorical terms that permeate evolutionary discussions and definitions either. Forces, mechanisms, selection, acting.. etc etc... It can create confusion as to how to look at evolution. On the flip side, you can see what happens when we don't use these metaphors. It forces one to rely on meaningless phrases that lack any real explanatory power - such as: "accumulation over time". In what context has genetic drift ever been defined in this way?

Perhaps you meant to say random fluctuation of alleles in a population? Since that what it is.

You continue to make claims with absolutely nothing to back them up. Once again, post your sources, because opinion has no bearings on a scientific discussion.

edit on 16-7-2015 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 11:22 PM
a reply to: peter vlar

Yes, actually it has been updated.

The MES has not been updated in the last 50+ years. Unless I’ve missed something.

Typically, when this is the response I see it tends to revolve around an hypothesis like epigenetics, you can't include hypothesis within the framework of a theory.

Sure, but aren't we beyond supposition with epigenetics at this point? It's been tested and verified and is now a well substantiated, widely accepted form of gene expression.

Not really, there are certainly some adherents to the 60's model and there is some dissent in regards to lateral gene transfer and PE and how far reaching their effects can be but no... a genecentric POV is not how Anthropologists look at the world.

I tend to think the dissent amongst biologists is wider spread than people realize and covers more than just HGT and PE. At any rate, good to know anthropologists have it right about genes

What exactly makes it inadequate?

It’s undue emphasis on mutation and natural selection.
It's ill-equipped to address the missing heritability problem.
It ignores the organism in favor of population dynamics
It has nothing to say about symbiogenesis (endosymbiosis).
It has nothing to say about the microbiome's role in speciation.
What about HGT?
Non-Mendelian inheritance?
Plasticity (polyphenism)?
etc etc

Very broad statements that hinge entirely on perspective.

And sound science. Go thru the links I provided above to Ghost. I can provide more if you'd like.

Please list some people who actually work in these related fields that concur with your supposition.

Stewart Newman
James A Shapiro
Eva Jablonka
Denis Noble
Eugene Koonin
Gerd B. Müller
Massimo Pigliucci
Richard Strohman
Shi Huang
John Lieff
Kevin Laland
I could keep going...

PE is indeed a recognized mechanism behind MES.

No it isn't, this is you misplacing the metaphor.

You won't find one definition of PE that calls it a mechanism. It simply describes a form of evolution based on other mechanisms

The theory doesn't largely ignore anything that can be substantiated though. Please cite some examples and how they are ignored.

Epigenetics has absolutely been substantiated, yet is completely ignored by the theory.

We'll soon find that it plays a much larger role than we realized...

new topics
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in