Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why the Theory of Evolution is not only the right answer, why it is a critical answer
The earth is very old. Can we all agree with this???
It can either strengthen them or render them obsolete (as Darwinian evolution has become), or demonstrate the theory followed the wrong line of reasoning and so is replaced in its entirety by a newer, better theory.
You're almost as absolutist as a theologian...
No sir, that isn't how science works. Name a major scientific theory developed over the last 100 years that has been completely discarded. You can't, because modern scientific theories are expanded upon, not discarded. Once they get past the hypothesis stage and become a full fledged theory, that's where they stay. Very few are ever refuted. I hate to break it to you, oh dufus one, but Darwin's theory, with modifications and improvements via new discoveries, is alive and well.
Ummmm, actually it is. They're called "superceded scientific theories" and a modern example (of many) would be Hoyle, Gold, and Bondi's Steady State Theory (circa 1950) of cosmology.
As to Darwin, first it was Darwinian evolution, then it was Neo Darwin and now it is Evo -Devo, so no, Darwin is referenced for tradition, but evolutionary theory has gone way, way beyond Darwin.
I am constantly astounded by how little you actually know about science. Seeing's how you're a PhD geologist and all that
Figured out what percentage more population India has yet?
That's Ridiculous.It can either strengthen them or render them obsolete (as Darwinian evolution has become), or demonstrate the theory followed the wrong line of reasoning and so is replaced in its entirety by a newer, better theory.Has the theory of evolution changed since Darwin's time? Yes. But then, it is a scientific theory, and as we know (you do know, right?), all scientific theories are subject to change as new discoveries are made. That doesn't refute them. On the contrary, it strengthens them.
You're almost as absolutist as a theologian...
No sir, that isn't how science works. Name a major scientific theory developed over the last 100 years that has been completely discarded. You can't, because modern scientific theories are expanded upon, not discarded. Once they get past the hypothesis stage and become a full fledged theory, that's where they stay. Very few are ever refuted. I hate to break it to you, oh dufus one, but Darwin's theory, with modifications and improvements via new discoveries, is alive and well.
Ummmm, actually it is. They're called "superceded scientific theories" and a modern example (of many) would be Hoyle, Gold, and Bondi's Steady State Theory (circa 1950) of cosmology.
As to Darwin, first it was Darwinian evolution, then it was Neo Darwin and now it is Evo -Devo, so no, Darwin is referenced for tradition, but evolutionary theory has gone way, way beyond Darwin.
I am constantly astounded by how little you actually know about science. Seeing's how you're a PhD geologist and all that
Figured out what percentage more population India has yet?
There are certain sciences that are MUCH WEAKER than others as well.
As a novice -- I know that Psychiatry has DOZENS of theories that were not only wrong -- but GROSSLY wrong..
Darwinian evolution was very useful -- and actually "lucky" considering the level of knowledge that was available at the time..
That's Ridiculous.It can either strengthen them or render them obsolete (as Darwinian evolution has become), or demonstrate the theory followed the wrong line of reasoning and so is replaced in its entirety by a newer, better theory.Has the theory of evolution changed since Darwin's time? Yes. But then, it is a scientific theory, and as we know (you do know, right?), all scientific theories are subject to change as new discoveries are made. That doesn't refute them. On the contrary, it strengthens them.
You're almost as absolutist as a theologian...
Darwinian Theory is not "obsolete".
Only Mechanism Tweeks have changed.
The Principle is Solid and enduring.
What we have are Closet Creationists and Red State thugs (unable to refute evolution principle) making/trying a new, but still bogus, attack. Obsolescence.
That would include the other mod who quoted you immediately above, doing the old "Damn with Faint praise" routine. Although calling Darwins' idea/theory "lucky" is perverse.
Again what we have are TWO mods on a non-religious message board's science section, posting against Darwinian evolution in this day and age.
Quite remarkable and disturbing.
No doubt they will be right back to other Consistent conservative/partisan hack positions (Gimmee my gun, Obama sucks, other Anti-scientifica) in between their Neo-tack-attack utterances here.
`
That's No answer Clown.I suggest you do some research on the subject then. For the record I am a liberal democrat, agnostic, and a PhD geologist. A real one, not like the faux geologist orogenicman. Funny how you laud Darwin yet ignore Wallace who did more research into the process than Darwin.That's Ridiculous.It can either strengthen them or render them obsolete (as Darwinian evolution has become), or demonstrate the theory followed the wrong line of reasoning and so is replaced in its entirety by a newer, better theory.
You're almost as absolutist as a theologian...
Darwinian Theory is not "obsolete".
Only Mechanism Tweeks have changed.
The Principle is Solid and enduring.
What we have are Closet Creationists and Red State thugs (unable to refute evolution principle) making/trying a new, but still bogus, attack. Obsolescence.
That would include the other mod who quoted you immediately above, doing the old "Damn with Faint praise" routine. Although calling Darwins' idea/theory "lucky" is perverse.
Again what we have are TWO mods on a non-religious message board's science section, posting against Darwinian evolution in this day and age.
Quite remarkable and disturbing.
No doubt they will be right back to other Consistent conservative/partisan hack positions (Gimmee my gun, Obama sucks, other Anti-scientifica) in between their Neo-tack-attack utterances here.
`
You are young I feel, very young. You remind me of teenagers I've dealt with.
That's Ridiculous.It can either strengthen them or render them obsolete (as Darwinian evolution has become), or demonstrate the theory followed the wrong line of reasoning and so is replaced in its entirety by a newer, better theory.Has the theory of evolution changed since Darwin's time? Yes. But then, it is a scientific theory, and as we know (you do know, right?), all scientific theories are subject to change as new discoveries are made. That doesn't refute them. On the contrary, it strengthens them.
You're almost as absolutist as a theologian...
Darwinian Theory is not "obsolete".
Only Mechanism Tweeks have changed.
The Principle is Solid and enduring.
What we have are Closet Creationists and Red State thugs (unable to refute evolution principle) making/trying a new, but still bogus, attack. Obsolescence.
That would include the other mod who quoted you immediately above, doing the old "Damn with Faint praise" routine. Although calling Darwins' idea/theory "lucky" is perverse.
Again what we have are TWO mods on a non-religious message board's science section, posting against Darwinian evolution in this day and age.
Quite remarkable and disturbing.
No doubt they will be right back to other Consistent conservative/partisan hack positions (Gimmee my gun, Obama sucks, other Anti-scientifica) in between their Neo-tack-attack utterances here.
`
No, not banished, you're more clever than most.That's Ridiculous.It can either strengthen them or render them obsolete (as Darwinian evolution has become), or demonstrate the theory followed the wrong line of reasoning and so is replaced in its entirety by a newer, better theory.
You're almost as absolutist as a theologian...
Darwinian Theory is not "obsolete".
Only Mechanism Tweeks have changed.
The Principle is Solid and enduring.
What we have are Closet Creationists and Red State thugs (unable to refute evolution principle) making/trying a new, but still bogus, attack. Obsolescence.
That would include the other mod who quoted you immediately above, doing the old "Damn with Faint praise" routine. Although calling Darwins' idea/theory "lucky" is perverse.
Again what we have are TWO mods on a non-religious message board's science section, posting against Darwinian evolution in this day and age.
Quite remarkable and disturbing.
No doubt they will be right back to other Consistent conservative/partisan hack positions (Gimmee my gun, Obama sucks, other Anti-scientifica) in between their Neo-tack-attack utterances here.
`
Am I banished from my favorite forums? This is where I've ALWAYS lived on USMB. I didn't end up on this thread to troll.. You make the general mistake that my remarks have ANYTHING to do with religious views. This deep vendetta of yours is not my problem.
More mechanism. see the bottom of this post for Gould explaining that was Never Claimed By Darwin.flacaltenn said:Darwin was "lucky". Because to have a theory -- you have to propose a methodology and mechanism for the observation you are making. And "survival and competition" was an adequate start to the methodology. But the vague knowledge of genetics and mutations at that time could say very little about frequencies or types of mutations or the environmental causes of them. So address the issue. Do we now know that the tree of life always grows towards DENSER DNA? Meaning more "complex" life forms? How does the fossil record assess whether a species was carrying genetic POTENTIAL to be a precursor to another?
That's NOT Major, it's just more Mechanism.flacaltenn said:The major fact that Darwin missed was that MUTATION is not always immediately EXPRESSED.. It may lie dormant for Eons until some enviro trigger activates it. And the tree is subject to review because of what we've learned since Darwin.. In fact -- MOST of the genome is still unknown stuff. So if competition and survival was the only determination -- everything on the planet would have huge teeth and stealth. The real competition is more likely to be DNA flexibility and the POTENTIAL to adapt -- rather than physical features.
Gould, of course, the co-creator of Punctuated equilibrium (another tweak) and/but [STILL] a Darwinist.Gould/Darwin said:"....Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very Beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the Mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred.
Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution.
He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."..."
Until the "theory" is proven, it isn't true.
Science is not about proofs. It is about empirical evidence. The evidence in support of the theory of evolution is leading us towards more and more medical advancements, particularly in the field of disease prevention and cures to disease and genetic disorders. This is not merely an opinion. It is a demonstrable scientific fact.
Cures for disease. For instance:
Giant leaps of evolution make cancer cells deadly - health - 23 January 2014 - New Scientist
Tumour cells take big genetic jumps called macromutations to become invasive "hopeful monsters". Treatment to block that evolution could be the next step
More at the link.
No, not banished, you're more clever than most.That's Ridiculous.
Darwinian Theory is not "obsolete".
Only Mechanism Tweeks have changed.
The Principle is Solid and enduring.
What we have are Closet Creationists and Red State thugs (unable to refute evolution principle) making/trying a new, but still bogus, attack. Obsolescence.
That would include the other mod who quoted you immediately above, doing the old "Damn with Faint praise" routine. Although calling Darwins' idea/theory "lucky" is perverse.
Again what we have are TWO mods on a non-religious message board's science section, posting against Darwinian evolution in this day and age.
Quite remarkable and disturbing.
No doubt they will be right back to other Consistent conservative/partisan hack positions (Gimmee my gun, Obama sucks, other Anti-scientifica) in between their Neo-tack-attack utterances here.
`
Am I banished from my favorite forums? This is where I've ALWAYS lived on USMB. I didn't end up on this thread to troll.. You make the general mistake that my remarks have ANYTHING to do with religious views. This deep vendetta of yours is not my problem.
Just playing a transparent game. (apparent only to someone At least As clever)
More mechanism. see the bottom of this post for Gould explaining that was Never Claimed By Darwin.
That's NOT Major, it's just more Mechanism.flacaltenn said:The major fact that Darwin missed was that MUTATION is not always immediately EXPRESSED.. It may lie dormant for Eons until some enviro trigger activates it. And the tree is subject to review because of what we've learned since Darwin.. In fact -- MOST of the genome is still unknown stuff. So if competition and survival was the only determination -- everything on the planet would have huge teeth and stealth. The real competition is more likely to be DNA flexibility and the POTENTIAL to adapt -- rather than physical features.
And since you say you haunt this section I'm Sure you've seen this but Always Ducked it anyway. It was in an LONG Running OP
http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...n-jay-gould-evolution-as-fact-and-theory.html
and then posted probably another dozen dimes partially in it and elsewhere. It could not have been missed but it wasn't addressed by YOU nor Westfail:
Gould, of course, the co-creator of Punctuated equilibrium (another tweak) and/but [STILL] a Darwinist.Gould/Darwin said:"....Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very Beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the Mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred.
Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution.
He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."..."
`
No one would of course Ignore 150 Years of science Since Darwin,Abu_Afak:
You're quote above from Darwin only highlights how important science methods and principles were to Darwin.. Too bad we're not seeing that kind of humility in his present day worshippers (and too many current scientists for that matter) .. If you're all jazzed because you've thwarted the religious view of Creation with Darwinism -- Congrats. He agrees his work does that. You're done.
Personally, I want better answers and tools. So I've decided NOT to ignore the 150 years of science SINCE Darwin.. He wouldn't ignore it either..
No one would of course Ignore 150 Years of science Since Darwin,
But I have ended your and wetwall's Charade attempting Discredit/Diminish him/His Fact and theory.
It is NOT Obsolete, everything else/ALL the crap we've seen for months from 'Irradiated Fruit Flies' to your post just before you just grudgingly caved, is/Are BS. All the attempts to Diminish Darwin are spurious. MY excerpt above shows he was not only brilliant in the Fact of evolution, but Prescient that future developments would come.
NONE of which contradict him.
All the nonsense/Baffle-em-with BS mechanisms you've posted NO more makes him obsolete that SJ Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium: And Gould remained a Darwinist.
You obviously get your jollies and some popularity from the Red State Numb-Nuts in Dissing Darwin, but now we all see -- when we don't have to deal with Trolls like S.J. or LTC or PC -- who/what prevails in a debate: Darwin's Evolution: Fact and Theory.
and again...
Your attacks (mechanisms) were just a bit better than PoliticalChic's attempt to "refute" Darwin with Gould's P-E TWEAK/MECHANISM even though Gould was a Darwin fan and knew it did No such thing.
Now you are left with 'yeah, well, (swallow) Darwin would ignore the next 150 years'.. No kidding. But he is Not Obsolete.
Game Over.
Amazing revelations about DNA
As scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpectedan exquisite 'language' composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. "One of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century," says Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., "was that DNA actually stores informationthe detailed instructions for assembling proteinsin the form of a four-character digital code" (quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, p. 224).
It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!
Yet in their actual sizewhich is only two millionths of a millimeter thicka teaspoon of DNA, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written" ( Evolution: A Theory in Crisis , 1996, p. 334).
Who or what could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of 'letters' in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual? Could evolution have gradually come up with a system like this?
That's No answer Clown.I suggest you do some research on the subject then. For the record I am a liberal democrat, agnostic, and a PhD geologist. A real one, not like the faux geologist orogenicman. Funny how you laud Darwin yet ignore Wallace who did more research into the process than Darwin.That's Ridiculous.
Darwinian Theory is not "obsolete".
Only Mechanism Tweeks have changed.
The Principle is Solid and enduring.
What we have are Closet Creationists and Red State thugs (unable to refute evolution principle) making/trying a new, but still bogus, attack. Obsolescence.
That would include the other mod who quoted you immediately above, doing the old "Damn with Faint praise" routine. Although calling Darwins' idea/theory "lucky" is perverse.
Again what we have are TWO mods on a non-religious message board's science section, posting against Darwinian evolution in this day and age.
Quite remarkable and disturbing.
No doubt they will be right back to other Consistent conservative/partisan hack positions (Gimmee my gun, Obama sucks, other Anti-scientifica) in between their Neo-tack-attack utterances here.
`
You are young I feel, very young. You remind me of teenagers I've dealt with.
This board is here to post/debate/discuss evidence, not EMPTILY attempt to pull rank.
You lose.
(and I am not young, but older/smarter/wiser/more succesful than you goofy)
And I might add that similarly.... you two "whoring" (high-fiving with demeaning empty gossip about Darwin) with no meat on the bone is a Discredit to USMB.
Put some meat up and take your dump some place else.
(I feel another flacalteen tech link-dump/Reference/name-drop coming. It won't make Darwin Obsolete either, but it will try to seem like it does. Every time)
`
Abu_Afak:
You're quote above from Darwin only highlights how important science methods and principles were to Darwin.. Too bad we're not seeing that kind of humility in his present day worshippers (and too many current scientists for that matter) .. If you're all jazzed because you've thwarted the religious view of Creation with Darwinism -- Congrats. He agrees his work does that. You're done.
Personally, I want better answers and tools. So I've decided NOT to ignore the 150 years of science SINCE Darwin.. He wouldn't ignore it either..
