Why do people deny evolution?

@farmerman,

Quote:

"Noise has alwys been the mode of the evolutionary "Bush". It does NOT invalidate common ancestry...

I certainly didn't claim that it does "invalidate" it. That wasn't the issue. I just questioned the author's claim that a common ancestor was the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation. I said that was an overstatement, and I stand by that.

1 Reply

@layman,

lateral transfer of genes is merely a way that genetic varibility is maintained. Variqbility provides the chorus of characteristics that allow for resistance. Its not the mere gene trnsfer.
The drug is a selection mechanism.

Its like weed plants becoming resistant to ROUNDUP. the varibility in weeds allows for , say, 0.01% to be initially resistant to Roundup. Over successive generations (in that field) Roundup Resistance is a favorable trait and it was provided merely by genetic variability. (Most plants (weeds) will die, but initially that one trait of resistnce will be favorable and the population expands in a standard trait expansion (like Hardy Weinberg)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

The drug is a selection mechanism

Sure, but it just acts on pre-existing variability. The selection does not "create" the variability. All I was saying is that there is debate on whether the SUBSEQUENT population is more a result of lateral transfer (amongst the survivors) or more a result of genetic inheritance, which is yet another issue, not the same one. And again, none of that has anything to do with "species creation."

1 Reply

@layman,

OF course, selection exploits the variability.Variability, (in single celled organisms is primarily LGT).
Monterey Jack was talking about complex organisms where LGT is a limited occurence xcept, like genetic drift, occuring in small and /or isolated populations.

As I said, the aspect of "Sabre toothedness" as a convergent trait can be seen to be a sustained gene that once appearing (in the Miacid (protocats and dogs) in the Paleocene, all successive species occured in separated but linear sequences (As "preached " by Dolos Law)."A trait can appear in successive genera but never twice in the same genus."

I really dont know whether Dolo's Law is really a LAw (To me, a LAW in science can be described by an equation).

I dont know whether there are any genera have "re" evolved sabretoothedness. I dont think so. BUT the genetic trait is sustained in the genomes of successive related (Daughter or niece) genera, hence the convergence of sabre toothed "possums" and cats

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
I'm all ears.

Well, even within a strictly neo-Darwinian frame work there's always this possibility, for one, eh, FBM?:

Quote:
Convergent evolution is...

This does not contradict Darwinian evolution, I think. Seems to be just a manifestation of it that Darwin himself did not see or predict.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
I'm all ears.
... perhaps you want to say all nuts.

You so funny! Did your alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps mystically teleport that "joke" to you from billions of light-years away?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

This does not contradict Darwinian evolution, I think. Seems to be just a manifestation of it that Darwin himself did not see or predict.

Actually, FBM, I think it is a possibility that he did contemplate, if not predict. That's one reason I said "Well, even within a strictly neo-Darwinian frame work...

It was some of the (now) known mechanisms that I mentioned after that which I would consider to be outside the "strictly neo-Darwinian framework."

1 Reply

@layman,

Well, herald's wingnutty alien/ILF/god-thingy is outside the strictly neo-Darwinian framework, but that doesn't make it equally plausible. I won't claim to know for sure which turns out to be the best model of evolution, but as farmerman mentioned, Darwinism is still the go-to until it gets unequivocally supplanted.

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

Darwinism is still the go-to until it gets unequivocally supplanted.

Well, I'm certainly no expert in the field, but I do read about it some. Farmer is kinda old school, I think, and he's not alone, but, that said, I think the newer generations of evolutionary scientists have pretty much completely rejected the doctrinaire "modern synthesis theory" that absolutely dominated in, say, 1950 or 1960.

I don't mean they have rejected everything discovered, or theorized at that time, but, truth be told, Neo-Darwinism was as much (probably moreso) an ideological doctrine as it was "science," and they don't share the ideological commitments.

There have been so many discoveries made since then, ones that the Neo-Darwinists initially tried to deny, suppress, and disparage, that the old doctrines just don't allow for. Someone (maybe Kuhn) said that, in science, established paradigms don't end until every prominent scientist who adheres to them, out of inertia and habit, has died.

I think you need to look at the up and coming theorists if you're trying to predict the direction in which evolutionary theory is, and will be, moving. The less "political" one amongst them can't be downright contemptuous of the hard-line, dogmatic Neo-Darwinists.

The field is turning out to be much more complex than the "truth" claimed to have been established by Neo-Darwinism theory ever thought it could be.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Here's a newpaper interview from last year that expresses the sentiments of what seems to be a growing number of evolutionary theorists:

Quote:

[Question] In recent years the modern synthesis has been declared... dead by major evolutionary thinkers, the late Lynn Margulis and Francisco Ayala among them. Ditto for the public discourse on the Internet. My understanding is that you are now calling for the modern synthesis to be replaced.

Denis Noble: I would say that it needs replacing. Yes.

The reasons I think we're talking about replacement rather than extension are several. The first is that the exclusion of any form of acquired characteristics being inherited was a central feature of the modern synthesis. In other words, to exclude any form of inheritance that was non-Mendelian, that was Lamarckian-like, was an essential part of the modern synthesis. What we are now discovering is that there are mechanisms by which some acquired characteristics can be inherited, and inherited robustly. So it's a bit odd to describe adding something like that to the synthesis ( i.e., extending the synthesis). A more honest statement is that the synthesis needs to be replaced....

The second reason is a much more conceptual issue. I think that as a gene-centric view of evolution, the modern synthesis has got causality in biology wrong. Genes, after all, if they're defined as DNA sequences, are purely passive. DNA on its own does absolutely nothing until activated by the rest of the system through transcription factors, markers of one kind or another, interactions with the proteins....

The third is an experimental reason. The experimental evidence now exists for various forms and various mechanisms by which an acquired characteristic can be transmitted....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/replace-the-modern-sythes_b_5284211.html

1 Reply

@layman,

I can't speak for anyone else, but I welcome any evidence-based change in current models. But new claims should be challenged and put through the ringer to make sure they hold up to scrutiny.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

You so funny! Did your alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps mystically teleport that "joke" to you from billions of light-years away?

Where is your list with the Gaps, BTW ... from the other forum.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
You so funny! Did your alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps mystically teleport that "joke" to you from billions of light-years away?
Where is your list with the Gaps, BTW ... from the other forum.

1. Between your ears.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Between your ears.

Why don't you confess that you don't have any list of the Gaps and your claim about any God-of-the-Gaps is sewn with lucent threads.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Wrong thread, homie. Let's not be rude to the people who are discussing evolution.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Once again, I will entreat Herald to consider convergent evolution. Its a point of discussion that Creationists can make some valid points re the shortcomings of evolutionary theory as we know it now.
Evolution , and its several theories, must always be open to consider questions and factul points that may NOT be all supportive and always proving the Darwin was onto a tight theory.

Its been brought it up a few days ago and Layman has done a good job of questioning standard evolutionary thinking by presenting some stuff by F Rana who is a skeptic and a decent writer re his points..

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Cool. Skepticism is a very useful tool, and it arguably works best when applied to one's own pet concepts. I look forward to whatever empirically based research presents in the future, no matter what currently prevailing theories are overturned.

But Herald is no garden variety creationist. Instead of a god, he's got this idea about some sort of billions-years-old intelligent, alien life form teleporting instructions (to whom? to what?) about the structure of the universe that, I presume, are somehow implemented by somebody/something/somewhere to keep the universe going. Can't be sure of the details because he refuses to elaborate or present any supporting evidence. Seems to be terrified at the prospect of dying.

He supports science when it comes to global warming, as that's a threat to his existence, but bashes it when it suggests that he may be just another mortal animal, destined to die like everyone else (evolution and modern medicine). The thin Al sheeting cranial covering is strong on this one.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Youve managed to summarize what the Hell Herald believes in . I just gave up when he started to wander away from what we generally agree is standard sense.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Its well known that thin sheets of Aluminum will foil any attempts at sending undesired microwaves into ones skull

1 Reply

@farmerman,

That explains why his thoughts are half baked, I guess...

0 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know