Why do people deny evolution?

@farmerman,

Quote:

Gould wasnt commenting on PE when he did the "Bookkeeping" statement. He was using it in discussion of the fact that he(and many others) believed that genes were not causal, but consequential.

Yeah, you're probably right about this. I took a minute to glance at it and the over-riding context seemed to be to challenge Dawkins and his gene-centric (ne0-darwinistic) interpretation of selection and/or evolution in general.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

That sounds about as Lamarckian as you can get, to me. No well-trained neo-darwinist could fail to snicker at the mere mention of Lamarcks name,

Youve just joined this discussion arena but wed gone through that entire area of "places we may need to rethink" as evidence re Epigenetics and generational fixing of "acquired" characteristics.
I think that your belief in such dogmatic "HANGING ON TO MAYR by our cold dead fingers is quite incorrect.
In my area of work, geology, Ive seen a generational revolution on thinking and evidence (brought on by better magnetic equipment). There were a very few geocientsist who could not accept the new data and the conclusions of continental drift. Those guys quickly retired . MAny f the "old guard" stayed and learned the new and went on to reinterpret some of thor earlier work in lite of global dynamics. Many many did this. Whole new lines of code were rewritten nd less than 50 years on, most people say "What Revolution?", yet Creationists are still "Mining" quotes from the 1970's that make it sound like geociences are in diarray.
The reason, therefore, I may sound to be a little short is that your argument is prinipally Creationist , asserting that there is a whole spirit of disarray among the scientific communities involved. Nothing is farther from the truth. Darwin keeps getting his core theory reinforced daily. "Neo Darwinian thought" is being modified as we learn more about the genome and its car parts. cf, epigentic inheritance is but a few years old as a serious investigation. Also, epigenetic transfer is not strictly Lmarkian, (it could be LGT, or exaptation)

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

The reason, therefore, I may sound to be a little short is that your argument is prinipally Creationist , asserting that there is a whole spirit of disarray among the scientific communities involved.

I think you're misreading it. However, I do tend to agree with Noble (for the very reasons he stated) that it is "dishonest" to pretend that Neo-Darwinism is merely being "extended" or "revised," when a "replacement" is called for. The modern synthesis had some basic, fundamental, axiomatic propositions that have simply not held up over time.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Insofar as I'm aware of the dynamics within the scientific community, my experience coincides with yours. New ideas are challenged, as they should be, but when some among the old guard refuse to accept the verifiable data, they become fossils themselves. Einstein met his limit with quantum dynamics and "spooky action at a distance." It's reasonable to expect some of the current leaders in their fields to go down that same path. This does not point to a conspiracy or a dogmatic hegemony. It's just the evolution of knowledge vis a vis personal bias and traditionalism, as far as I can tell.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Einstein met his limit with quantum dynamics and "spooky action at a distance."

As a recent poll indicated (which I made a post on in the string theory thread), there is NO scientific consensus about the realism vs instumentalism debate that Al took a large part in. There are still many (I just posted an example in the "gravity" thread) who adhere to the realist view, and who have shown that it is one which is theoretically and experimentally quite viable (with some definite advantages over the copehagen interpretation).

So, I'm not sure what you mean when you say Al "met his limit." If you mean what I think, then I think you're mistaken.

The whole positivistic, probablisitic, subjectivistic approach to physics is, like neo-Darwinian theory, undergoing a critical re-examination by many modern physicists.

0 Replies

@layman,

Margulis, and maybe Noble, had issued calls for a return to stricter Darwinian (as oppeosed to neoDarwinian). All because of what genetic has shown us.
A FBM stated , and it deserved repea as a praphrase t" if we dont keep up to date, we become fossils ourselves" .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

fossils???? ha ha ha ha ha that is a good one! like it like it!

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I may sound to be a little short is that your argument is prinipally Creationist

I don't want to overblow the point, Farmer, but to me the expression of such sentiments is part of the problem. It just kinda reinforces the claim, made by some, that Neo-Darwinism is a metaphysical ideology more than a science. It becomes part of a "culture war," with an "us vs. them" flavor to it, when you start worrying about "whose side" the "science" may support.

I have seen more than one evolutionary scientist get rebuked by his colleagues for referring to research that they're all aware of, and don't really dispute, but which might "give support to the creationists." That shouldn't be a criterion for deciding what can and what can't, or what should and what shouldn't, be discussed, and/or what experiments should be undertaken, etc.

Dawkins, for example, truly believes that Neo-Darwinism lends great credence to one of his personal values: atheism. And, the thing is, "creationism" doesn't even have in icicle's chance in hell of prevailing. It's not a legitimate threat by any means in any scientific sense. But some see it as a 'social" threat, and want to tailor science to combat that perceived threat. That's politics, not science.

1 Reply

@layman,

Dawkins is his own worst enemy. His views (mostly those in paleontology and phylogenetic evidence) can be backed up by good evidence but he does take no prisoners when it comes to anything but pure science with a naturalistic flavor.

Many evolution scientists are religious folks whose gods are more transcendent and not imminent. Ken Miller, stands out in that schools. To which , most other scientists say "so what"
The point is that there really is no major schism thatseparates the many views of Paleo, Genetics, evo/devo, and molecular bio. And Darwinian evolution is not in a "crisis". The folks who say otherwise or are quote mined to sound otherwise are being manipulated by a very , "below the radar" organization that only spends time in critiquing evidence but never seems to get around doing any of their own.
The mary SChweitzer find oof Trex and Hadrosaur "soft tissue" has been assertively exploited to sound like evolutionary sciences are collapsing in a cloud of counter evience hen nothing farther from the truth has been found.
However, the argument that scientist positions are easily "mined" cannot give the ID crowd an automatic PASS by fraud and deception.
The problem with A2K is that noone really knows anyone else and for all I know, Im talking with a Baptist minister from Liberty U .
Ive been involved in the "culture wars" in Pa for several decades and Id been on the policy board that developed bio science units for public high schools. Pa was chosen to be a test plot for ID, not because a little town decided to teach Creationism , but because it was one of the first states with edu policies n the sciences. It became a test plot in the same fashion that Dayton Tennessee became the test plot for the Butler Laws.

Im not being overly touchy, just cautious.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

And I don't want to waste my time on the rants of a madman.

You are not at such a level to put such diagnoses online for you will at first have to prove and guarantee that there isn't any man in the middle attack in publishing that typos and that the keyboard of the computer is not skipping symbols, etc. You will have to eliminate everything else before assigning the typos to the person directly.

izzythepush wrote:

You're not someone people bother debating with, mocking and ridiculing perhaps, but never debating.

If you really think that I am mad ... and you are mocking at that from the bottom of my hear I would like to wish you that destiny.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Argumentum ad ignorantiam used to shift the burned of proof.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/eusa_naughty.gif

And it doesn't take a degree in psychology to recognize when someone's batshit

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/ewacky.gif

I mean, wtf, dood. Do you even listen to yourself? Invisible beings teleporting instructions for the structure of the universe from billions of years ago? Does that sound sane to you?

Well, of course, it does to you. You're the one who's off his twig.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/consoling2.gif

2 Replies

Quote:

And Darwinian evolution is not in a "crisis".

LOL

Keep telling that yourself , mate!

The problem is , the WHOLE of 'science' is in a deep crisis!
So, that includes the extremely stupid evolution hoax and all that shite!

And rightly so! Most is bollocks , shite and gobbledegook.

The ONLY thing it does is making money for people in those jobs and NOTHING MORE.

0 Replies

All your rants are bollocks and shite, quahog. Totally evidence-free. Why do you even bother? You have made no converts. You will make no converts. Your conspircacy theories are all ludicrous. You're a laughingstock, much like David Icke without his flair for generating publicity for his lunacy.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

All your rants are bollocks and shite, quahog. Totally evidence-free. Why do you even bother? You have made no converts. You will make no converts. Your conspircacy theories are all ludicrous. You're a laughingstock, much like David Icke without his flair for generating publicity for his lunacy.

anything of substance to add? or only your personal attacks?

They don't bother me , mate.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Itw interesting how the vast majorty of folks unerstnd that quahog is an idiot who's not about to onvince anyone. Yet he still soldiers on.
I wonder why he didnt pick someone waay more erudite, and surrounded by some facts .

I hd to read his post just because you quoted it. Otherwise he would have remained just one of the three "ignored" doodii that Ive decided are not worth my time. .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Itw interesting how the vast majorty of folks unerstnd that quahog is an idiot who's not about to onvince anyone. Yet he still soldiers on.
I wonder why he didnt pick someone waay more erudite, and surrounded by some facts .

I hd to read his post just because you quoted it. Otherwise he would have remained just one of the three "ignored" doodii that Ive decided are not worth my time. .

There ya go.......the same Ad Homimens as ever. Talking about a lack of creativity!

Ah well, it proofs my point without a doubt.......education (read: indoctrination) leads to lack of creativity! QED

Ah well..

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Darwinian evolution is not in a "crisis". The folks who say otherwise or are quote mined to sound otherwise are being manipulated...

No one here said it was said it was "in crisis," that I recall. I don't know who you think is "manipulating" who, but here is a rather extensive list of scientists who subscribe to the following proposition:

Quote:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ (click on "download list")

It seems that this petition has been circulated by the "Discovery Institute," which, I think, advocates "intelligent design." But note that the petition being signed says NOTHING about adopting intelligent design as a paradigm. I would think few, if any, of the signatories subscribe to that way of thinking, and I would doubt that people of this caliber have somehow been "manipulated" by the Discovery Institute (or anyone else).

From what I have seen, I also think that there are a great many scientists who would agree with the proposition, but who have NOT signed this particular petition, and who would not sign it, even if asked to.

1 Reply

@layman,

More about this particular petition:

Quote:

The statement was drafted and circulated by Discovery Institute in 2001 in response to widespread claims that no credible scientists existed who doubted Neo-Darwinism...Since 2001 the signatories of the statement have grown to over 800 scientists, both in the United States and around the world.

Signatories of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine...signatories [are not] endorsing alternative theories such as self-organization, structuralism, or intelligent design...Signing the statement does not indicate agreement or disagreement with any other scientific theory.

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/faq.php

1 Reply

@layman,

If you would spend some more time and look further youd find that this is a very old project by the Discovery Institute. It is often based upon quote mining and then claiming that such is a "dissent from Darwin"
Its not.

The comments by many of the listed scientists (it almost 1000 today) hve been made as assertions without evidence and factual support. (Relying upon voices from "authority" is just bogus argument. Its something that gungasnake is famous for. Several universities hqve been trcking many of the "Skeptics" nd find a number of avowed Creationists who practice as dentists, veterinarians, physicians, engineers, etc (In other words there are many who hve relatively novice knowledge re genomics, evolution, paleo etc (relavent disciplines)

Still, the number of "skeptics" i less than 1% of the workers in the relavent fields.

In 2007, when the number was around 800 "Scientists", one of my students did a seminar project re "Untangling the skeptics" and she ran a document or speech or communication search for key words spoken or published by about 100 of the skeptics (It was a neat job of slicing and dicing.
She ws able to parse many "key words in Context" (similar to the old KWIK index we used to use in doing reverse citations of relevant reserch). In other words she dumped in such words as "Flood geology, Trnsitional fossils, Design, etc and rn the program. It foshed out those words and they were all over the map rom these "Skeptics" SO, before we go and accept the story as valid or even important, we must see who these people are and what they actually said.

Quote Mining is a cheap trick.

PS most of the rl scientsist who were skeptics were many of thsoe who denied the relevance of NEO DARWINIQN bases (Something I hqve used a a straw man argument with Herald)
In other words, neo Darwinins say that rqndom mutations are then enacted with naturl selection to drive evolution.
Darwinian merely says that the weather got cold before the mammoth grew long hair.

"Genes are the bookkeeping of evolution" is getting to be more and more popular (Dont know if its right but I sorta lean that way because ALL of my evidence (in oil explortion) lways showed that the environmental conditions seemed to preceed evolutionary changes, while extinctions usually preceeded the geologic record of a catastrophy.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

... extinctions usually preceeded the geologic record of a catastrophy.

I reading you mean "succeeded" here, rather than"preceded."

Quote:

"Genes are the bookkeeping of evolution" is getting to be more and more popular..

Yeah, that's all I'm really saying too, if I understand you correctly.

Quote:

PS most of the rl scientsist who were skeptics were many of thsoe who denied the relevance of NEO DARWINIQN bases

Yeah, and the petition refers to "random mutation combined with natural selection" which is the NEO-Darwinian proposition, so...

I really don't see why all the talk about "quote-mining" even arises here. Any scientist who signed this obviously knew what it meant. By signing it, he "said" what he said. Hard to deny that.

Quote:

Still, the number of "skeptics" i less than 1% of the workers in the relavent fields

And you know this---how?

0 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know