Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Not a slur but ignores the later research and findings. More than just natural selection is involved in the process.No big deal in my eyes. It isn't a slur.
Not a slur but ignores the later research and findings. More than just natural selection is involved in the process.No big deal in my eyes. It isn't a slur.
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.Not a slur but ignores the later research and findings.
"Newtonian Physics" is so common a reference I am amazed I have to spell it out.Nobody refers to the science of physics as 'Newtonism'
Just like we have moved beyond 'Newtonian physics', we have also moved beyond 'Darwinism'."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.
Fingers pointing is the first step of indoctrination.Religion is a map. Menus and meals. Fingers pointing, and the moon.
Exactly my point.Fingers pointing is the first step of indoctrination.
Some people haven't.Just like we have moved beyond 'Newtonian physics', we have also moved beyond 'Darwinism'.
Most people haven't. Too consumed with digging trenches and defending turf.Some people haven't.
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.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
Evolution by natural selection is a fact of science. How come Africans who moved out got to have fair skin?But it should no longer be used for scientific reference.
The end result of that reasoning is WWII and the holocaust.Evolution by natural selection is a fact of science. How come Africans who moved out got to have fair skin?
They didn't. That's how.Evolution by natural selection is a fact of science. How come Africans who moved out got to have fair skin?
Bingo, imoI 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.
Bingo indeed.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
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?Evolution by natural selection is a fact of science. How come Africans who moved out got to have fair skin?
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.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?
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.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?