Evolution is Unscientific

Nobody refers to the science of physics as 'Newtonism'
 
Aupmanyav said:
Not a slur but ignores the later research and findings.
Click to expand...
By both sides, even armchair adherents. So many "evolutionists" who do not work in the field talk out of their nether regions. It's one thing not to know or understand, it is another to grasp tightly to erroneous teachings...and that goes BOTH ways.
 
RJM said:
Nobody refers to the science of physics as 'Newtonism'
Click to expand...
"Newtonian Physics" is so common a reference I am amazed I have to spell it out.

How about Franz Mesmer, and his contributions to animal magnetism / hypnosis? Or do you not believe in hypnosis?

Psychoanalysis is divided between Freudian and Jungian branches. Evolution has Linnean Classification, and biologists flit back and forth between Linnean and Cladistic classification.

Seriously, how many more examples to demonstrate it isn't a slur to call Darwinian evolution Darwinism?

In point of fact, there are things Darwin got wrong. Modern methodology has moved on, rendering Darwinism obsolete. That we are still arguing this well over a hundred years after the man went to meet his Maker is absurd.
 
Last edited:
juantoo3 said:
"Newtonian Physics" is so common a reference I am amazed I have to spell it out.
How about Franz Mesmer, and his contributions to animal magnetism / hypnosis? Or do you not believe in hypnosis?
In point of fact, there are things Darwin got wrong.
Click to expand...
Just like we have moved beyond 'Newtonian physics', we have also moved beyond 'Darwinism'.
Human minds are very impressionable, that is why we have religions and messengers.
Sure, even Einstein got Quantum Mechanics wrong.
 
juantoo3 said:
Religion is a map. Menus and meals. Fingers pointing, and the moon.
Click to expand...
Fingers pointing is the first step of indoctrination.
2.382 billion people believe virgin birth of Jesus, 1.907 billion believe that Allah rent the Moon and 1.161 billion people believe that Hanuman carried a mountain from Himalayas to Sri Lanka in one night.
 
Last edited:
RJM said:
Things have moved on a lot since 1859 when Darwin published On the Origin of the Species.

There are people, mostly fundamentalist creationists, who refer to the ToE as Darwinism.

It's a like referring to 21st Century astrophysics as Copernicism, lol
Click to expand...
But false parts of Darwin's writings still make it into text books and documentaries, such as the examples I provided earlier. His book and research are very important historically. But it should no longer be used for scientific reference.
 
Aupmanyav said:
Evolution by natural selection is a fact of science. How come Africans who moved out got to have fair skin?
Click to expand...
The end result of that reasoning is WWII and the holocaust.

Evolution by natural selection is a philosophy of science, a dogma of science, a meme, hardly "fact." I would think I demonstrated a good bit of that back at post 838, specifically regarding the evolution of humans. The travesty is that while all other soft sciences, and evolution is a soft science, share their updates with the population, seems the word doesn't get out regarding evolution, when PhDs tout elementary school evolutionary memes as fact.
 
Aupmanyav said:
Evolution by natural selection is a fact of science. How come Africans who moved out got to have fair skin?
Click to expand...
They didn't. That's how.

This is a misconception that has and still does plague evolutionary studies. Light skin originated from people living in equatorial Africa. The original light skinned people were already this way before leaving Africa. As with Darwin's writings, I still see professors trying to push this false belief. It's simply not true.


Natural selection is an observable science. Yet even Darwin's examples, such as the moths and birds, failed to predict.

I personally believe there is much more going on than we know. Hundreds of years from now we will look at our current knowledge of evolution and compare it to the absurdity of the Dung Beetle Theory.
 
moralorel said:
I personally believe there is much more going on than we know. Hundreds of years from now we will look at our current knowledge of evolution and compare it to the absurdity of the Dung Beetle Theory.
Click to expand...
Bingo, imo

Or like the Ptolemaic Earth centred model of the universe

The issue to me is that where science rightly rejects religious limits upon what questions it may ask, and looking for answers wherever it may take them -- 21st Century science seems to be experiencing 'mission creep' with popular media science figures like Dawkins and De Grasse Tyson soapboxing their new atheism, and writing books insisting that God is a delusion, etc

However I think the noisy fundamentalist Christian movement is responsible for the backlash, by trying to impose its literalist Biblical ideas upon 21st Century society education and politics?

The two extremist sides deserve one another, as usual, and ordinary reasonable folks are caught in the middle of the war
 
RJM said:
Bingo, imo

Or like the Ptolemaic Earth centred model of the universe

The issue to me is that where science rightly rejects religious limits upon what questions it may ask, and looking for answers wherever it may take them -- 21st Century science seems to be experiencing 'mission creep' with popular media science figures like Dawkins and De Grasse Tyson soapboxing their new atheism, and writing books insisting that God is a delusion, etc

However I think the noisy fundamentalist Christian movement is responsible for the backlash, by trying to impose its literalist Biblical ideas upon 21st Century society education and politics?

The two extremist sides deserve one another, as usual, and ordinary reasonable folks are caught in the middle of the war
Click to expand...
Bingo indeed.
 
Aupmanyav said:
Evolution by natural selection is a fact of science. How come Africans who moved out got to have fair skin?
Click to expand...
Natural selection can only work after genetic drift has introduced new traits. Starting from single cell life, 3.8 billion years ago, how did blind genetic drift introduce billions of new traits?
 
EricPH said:
Natural selection can only work after genetic drift has introduced new traits. Starting from single cell life, 3.8 billion years ago, how did blind genetic drift introduce billions of new traits?
Click to expand...
Natural Selection does not need Genetic Drift to introduce new traits, but the two processes can interact in complex ways to shape the genetic landscape of a population. For natural selection to act, there must be genetic variation within a population. This variation can arise through mutations, gene flow, or genetic drift. Genetic drift can introduce new allele frequencies in a population, but it doesn't create new traits. Genetic drift and natural selection can act on a population at the same time. Genetic drift can lead to random changes in allele frequencies, while natural selection can drive the increase or decrease of certain alleles based on their impact on fitness.
 
EricPH said:
Natural selection can only work after genetic drift has introduced new traits. Starting from single cell life, 3.8 billion years ago, how did blind genetic drift introduce billions of new traits?
Click to expand...
I still think epi-genetics plays a role. As environmental challenges impact a population, the population has to adjust. I may be FOS, but I see epi-genetics as playing a role in the process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top