It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by kamebard
Evolution stopped being a Theory some time ago. Ask any one who works in the field of Genetic Manipulation.
Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by kamebard
Evolution is no longer a theory ...
Darwin's theory of evolution offers a sweeping explanation of the history of life, from the earliest microscopic organisms billions of years ago to all the plants and animals around us today. Much of the evidence that might have established the theory on an unshakable empirical foundation, however, remains lost in the distant past. For instance, Darwin hoped we would discover transitional precursors to the animal forms that appear abruptly in the Cambrian strata. Since then we have found many ancient fossils – even exquisitely preserved soft-bodied creatures – but none are credible ancestors to the Cambrian animals.
Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000.1 "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."
I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.
When I recently suggested this disconnect publicly, I was vigorously challenged. One person recalled my use of Wilkins and charged me with quote mining. The proof, supposedly, was in Wilkins's subsequent paragraph:
"Yet, the marginality of evolutionary biology may be changing. More and more issues in biology, from diverse questions about human nature to the vulnerability of ecosystems, are increasingly seen as reflecting evolutionary events. A spate of popular books on evolution testifies to the development. If we are to fully understand these matters, however, we need to understand the processes of evolution that, ultimately, underlie them."
In reality, however, this passage illustrates my point. The efforts mentioned there are not experimental biology; they are attempts to explain already authenticated phenomena in Darwinian terms, things like human nature. Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.
Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs.
Originally posted by alfa1
Originally posted by iSHRED
I'd rather just discuss the content of what he said.
Dowloaded and scanned through the first one to get an idea of what he had to say.
His argument was a very long winded way of putting forward two tired old chestnuts...
- The "watchmaker" argument, first proposed by William Paley in 1802.
- The "its all too improbable to have happened by chance alone", therefore : God.
Bit of which sound lovely but dont stand up to any scrutiny at all.
Originally posted by kamebard
Evolution is not a FACT but a theory. It is no more a FACT than the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, or thermodynamics. It is a proven theory, but a theory none the less. Although we see what appears to be an evolutionary process in the laboratory and we can describe the facts of the experiments, we do not say we have a FACT of evolution, but a theory (tested over and over again) that this is the explanation for such a process. Just as newton's laws of motion were replaced by relativity to be replaced by quantum mechanics, evolution will follow the same scientific evolutionary process from one theory to the next.
This is becoming more and more of a problem today. Science is becoming more and more dogmatic and a "religion" in its own right. As a society we have severely deviated from our ability to question as we have in the past.
What is interesting, however, that most of the "scientists" up until around the turn of the 20th century were scientists, but also philosophers. The whole tradition of the PhD (Doctor or Philosophy) is still around to this day. Only recently did we invent the BS degree (Bachelors of science), up to that point it was simply a Bachelors degree, as a stepping stone to higher degrees (occultism anyone?) culminating in a doctor of "philosophy" - with the aim of being able to "free-think" about the objects of their studies.
Unfortunately, somewhere around the 1940's there was this radical shift and science and philosophy started radically diverging to the point where today's PhDs are but a shadow of the spirit of the PhDs in the past.
Dogmatism made its way into the realm of science (partially because of the violent attacks from the religious), and unfortunately this has pushed a lot of the questioning out of the discipline. Supporters shouting FACTS and LAWS rather than observations and theories.
All in all wholly unhealthy on both ends of the spectrum. The speculation of science in the past has been replaced by pillars of dogma (something the early scientists were trying to rebel against coming out of the church).
Originally posted by Barcs
See this I don't understand. Dogmatism has absolutely NOT made it's way into science. Dogma is a religious doctrine. Science is based on experiments and tests. They are not even close to related. Don't get people on ATS debating things confused with actual science. There is no dogma involved.
Sorry, but I'm going to put the burden of proof on you here. Please give me examples of dogma in science. I really dislike that term being thrown around in a science discussion, because by definition, dogma is faith based while science is evidence based.
That nature is mechanical.
That matter is unconscious.
The laws of nature are fixed.
The totally amount of matter and energy are always the same.
That nature is purposeless.
Biological inheritance is material.
That memories are stored as material traces.
The mind is in the brain.
Telepathy and other psychic phenomena are illusory.
Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.
Originally posted by SubAce
So just one simple look at a very complex design in the body reveals that to believe in Chance, well, you have to have more blind faith than believing that was the product of intelligent design. All of these components need to exist for the cell to live. At the exact same time. So you tell me, what chance for your Chan
Originally posted by SubAce
So just one simple look at a very complex design in the body reveals that to believe in Chance, well, you have to have more blind faith than believing that was the product of intelligent design.
just because there are huge odds against things doesn't mean they don't happen. if a girl rejects your pleas for a date 10 billion times and then on the next try says yes, she still has said yes.
Still no evidence of any gods doing it though so I remain equally unconvinced by the faith based inteligent design idea.