- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A Scientific dissent from Darwin
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:49 pm to ShortyRob
Posted on 2/11/19 at 11:49 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Well, that's because before life, you have to have conditions favorable for life, even if it isn't life like us.
life that isn't like us wouldn't necessarily require the conditions that we require, be more open.
0
Posted on 2/12/19 at 12:24 am to LSUbest
quote:
You are right, it's called punctuated equilibrium, and it is statistically impossible.
I'm gonna need you to show your work.
As impossible as you think it is, it makes perfect sense and I've not seen a reason why it couldn't have happened. Mutations can accumulate quickly or slowly. Or, perhaps evolution moves along at roughly the same pace, and when a particular configuration is stumbled upon the population explodes until the selective pressures change. Either theory can explain why we only find fossils of different species in relatively large steps rather than gradual changes. It's a numbers game. Fossilization is exceedingly rare, on the order of one in a million to one in trillions. The larger the population of a given species, the more likely that one or more specimens were actually fossilized. And the smaller the population, the more likely an advantageous mutation is to become dominant in a short time.
So if you think we should be able to find fossils in very gradual steps, something that may only happen once in billions of chances would have had to happen in a population of perhaps only thousands. In other words, we would have to get very lucky. And then we would have to get lucky again, and again, and again, through however many generations a population may have remained small.
*That* is statistically impossible.
Posted on 2/12/19 at 1:04 am to mattloc
Posted on 2/12/19 at 1:08 am to Korkstand
In birds?
After reading all your comments in the thread, I don't think it is reasonable to debate with you. Sorry.
quote:
Come on, bro
After reading all your comments in the thread, I don't think it is reasonable to debate with you. Sorry.
Posted on 2/12/19 at 1:36 am to LSUbest
quote:
In birds?
What the frick are you talking about? Your post was clearly a reply to a post about abiogenesis. At least try having an honest discussion. Or did you not understand what you were replying to at all?
quote:That's probably for the best. I'm sure it's pretty hard for you to argue against facts and sound logic.
After reading all your comments in the thread, I don't think it is reasonable to debate with you. Sorry.
Posted on 2/12/19 at 1:53 am to Korkstand
The facts and sound logic proves that there isn't one missing link found or any species. None. They have found intact bone marrow in dinosaur bones. Fact, a soft tissue is suppose to have preserved for millions of years. The human LUCY was found spread at the bottom of a mountain scattered in hundreds of pcs. which were conveniently put together by someone who wanted to find what he built. Humans have no missing link.
Posted on 2/12/19 at 1:55 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
and getting to the point of the thread, nothing presented by the joke group linked in op is going to result in the modification of evolutionary theory
Surely this was a uttered by some flat earther back in the day.
Just a theory.
This post was edited on 2/12/19 at 1:56 am
Posted on 2/12/19 at 2:31 am to CivilTiger83
quote:
Is this your shining example to support macro evolution? Cats having a common ancestor? Show me someone who doesn't think cats likely had a common ancestor. I believe that to be true.
Sorry I missed this jewel earlier.
Well CivilTiger, I was trying to demonstrate to you examples of obvious evolution amongst today's fauna. I thought the fact of variations of species divergence within Felidae would bring the point home.
Perhaps comparisons of cats and civets would do?
Dogs and cats?
How about Dogs and Bears?
Are Dogs and Bears the "same" in your mind?
Were I to show you a common ancestor, a "dogbear", would that tip the scale for you?
We use to have to speculate on this stuff strictly through taxonomic phylogeny. Now we have genetics to test long-held anatomic hypotheses. With remarkable consistency, genetics has confirmed most early taxonomic classifications.
Occasionally genetic results have surprised us though, as in the relationship between hyraxes, elephants, and manatees. If you are focused on how relatively small genetic evolution can yield wildly dissimilar results, look no further than descendants of Paenungulata.
At some point though this becomes a pure form of silliness. A mouse and a beaver, can come from a common mammalian source, yet somehow in your mind not represent "macro"evolution? Am I getting that right?
How about a mouse and a shrew?
Posted on 2/12/19 at 4:01 am to CivilTiger83
quote:
Micro evolution vs macro evolution
Posted on 2/12/19 at 6:07 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
Looking over the paper Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary, I don’t think you’re representing it correctly.
He appears to be arguing that the current theory does not adequately explain HOW and WHY some of it happens, not that these limitations mean they didn’t happen.
In other words, I see nothing to suggest that he’s questioning species evolving into new species (as you call it “macro” evolution). Instead he’s arguing that the theory doesn’t explain exactly how and why this occurs and needs to incorporate additional variables and mechanisms.
This type of scientific limitation is present in all fields and all areas of study. For example, we don’t know exactly how a number of medications actually cause a particular response, and there is debate in the exact mechanisms (the how and why). But neither side of that debate disagrees that the medication causes the response.
That’s a big difference from what you’ve been arguing.
I am not arguing that the head of Evolutionary Biology at the University of Vienna is making the case for intelligent design. But he is pointing out significant flaws. Yes as you point out science is always changing... and the science could point to the deep flaws of current evolutionary theory.
From his paper that you linked to...
quote:
A century ago, it was noted in the domain of physics that ‘concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus, they come to be stamped as “necessities of thought”, “a priori givens”, etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors.’ [1]. Evolutionary biology finds itself in a similar situation today. A well-established paradigm that has its roots in a major theoretical integration that took place approximately eight decades ago, traditionally labelled the modern synthesis (MS) or Synthetic Theory, still dominates evolutionary thought today.
So the author is stating that there are fundamental dogmas in evolutionary biology widely taught that are simply wrong and keeping the science from advancing.
quote:
But in the past decade, without much notice by general audiences, a more wide-ranging debate has arisen from different areas of biology as well as from history and philosophy of science, about whether and in which ways evolutionary theory is affected, challenged or changed by the advances in biology and other fields. As usual in such cases, more conservative perspectives and more progressive ones are in conflict with each other, with differences ranging from minor to intense. A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution [2–14], indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike.
A replacement of the standard theory of evolution based on new data... is this science?
quote:
Darwin saw slight, incremental and accumulating variation as the essential prerequisite without which ‘my theory would absolutely break down.’ [38] a position already characterized by Huxley in 1901 [39] as an ‘unnecessary difficulty.’
So Darwin says gradual variation is a requirement for his theory to be correct...
quote:
Natural selection, the cornerstone of the MS theory so intimately linked to both gradualism and adaptationism, has itself been the subject of a fair share of critical debate. In this case, it is not so much the principle itself that is contested, but the uniqueness of the causal agency that has been ascribed to it. Are all features of biological organisms necessarily the result of natural selection, and is it the only factor in the evolutionary process that provides directionality to organismal change? Numerous authors have challenged the pervasiveness of natural selection as a unique ‘force’ of evolution, whereas others have questioned whether the individual is the sole and appropriate ‘target’ of selection or whether other levels of selection at supra- and infra-individual levels also need to be included in selectionist scenarios [42–44]. Again we are confronted with a classical criticism that stood at the centre of multiple debates in the past [42], but the issue is as unresolved as ever.
quote:
Indeed, the MS theory lacks a theory of organization that can account for the characteristic features of phenotypic evolution, such as novelty, modularity, homology, homoplasy or the origin of lineage-defining body plans
So based on the word of one of the experts on evolutionary biology at the Royal Society admits to the problems with modern evolutionary theory and then posits his solution to solve it in the rest of the paper.
Again he is not arguing for intelligent design, but if you would like to continue to mock my simpleton views while your own group of scientists point out deep fundamental flaws in the theory, then by all means mock away.
Posted on 2/12/19 at 6:13 am to CivilTiger83
quote:Yet you accept that exact premise of gradualism and adaptationism in responding to posts here.
Natural selection, the cornerstone of the MS theory so intimately linked to both gradualism and adaptationism, has itself been the subject of a fair share of critical debate
Posted on 2/12/19 at 6:26 am to TigerBait1971
quote:
I'm not religious.
I am amused however how by the amount of faith out into something that is demonstrably fallable.
You don't stop using the single greatest tool ever invented because it's fallable
Posted on 2/12/19 at 6:27 am to bmy
Did I say stop?
I'm saying don't blindly follow even when presented with "evidence".
I'm saying don't blindly follow even when presented with "evidence".
Posted on 2/12/19 at 6:28 am to LSUbest
I say your book is nonsense. You quote your nonsense book...
Posted on 2/12/19 at 6:30 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Yet you accept that exact premise of gradualism and adaptationism in responding to posts here.
Not following you... Please explain.
Posted on 2/12/19 at 6:31 am to mattloc
The issue is some have to take one side or the other. Intelligent design could put evolution into motion, they don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Posted on 2/12/19 at 6:37 am to TigerBait1971
quote:
I'm saying don't blindly follow even when presented with "evidence".
This isn't a problem at all. Researchers trying to make a name for themselves are often unbelievably contrarian
Posted on 2/12/19 at 6:39 am to CivilTiger83
quote:How did we get from a common ancestor to lions and house cats?
Not following you... Please explain.
How did we get from a common ancestor to dogs and bears?
How did we get from a common ancestor to kangaroo mice and beavers?
Posted on 2/12/19 at 6:47 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
How did we get from a common ancestor to lions and house cats?
How did we get from a common ancestor to dogs and bears?
How did we get from a common ancestor to kangaroo mice and beavers?
Minor adaptations.
The paper I linked to stated that minor adaptations doesn't get you phenotypic evolution.
Posted on 2/12/19 at 6:52 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
How did we get from a common ancestor to lions and house cats?
How did we get from a common ancestor to dogs and bears?
How did we get from a common ancestor to kangaroo mice and beavers?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it had something to do with DNA
Page 18 of 29
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News