Possible Alternate Theories

humblesmith
Posts: 11
Joined: 2010-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Possible Alternate Theories

Just curious what you think of this post:

http://humblesmith.xanga.com/722144462/two-possible-cracks-in-neo-darwinism/

All I ask is that you think before you respond. It would also be nice if you read what the men were saying.

 

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
A complete

A complete mis-characterization of Darwinism and the position evolutionary biologists. Darwin gave us one piece of the puzzle explaining the origins of life. As science advances more of the details become clear.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Neo-Darwinism?What does that

Neo-Darwinism?

What does that mean exactly?  There is only the Theory of Evolution.  There is no Darwinism, or Mendelsonism, or human genomism.  It is all evolution.

And, as EXC pointed out, this doesn't exactly put any holes in the theory whatsoever. 

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This line says it all.

 

 

"...And in the end, science might be better off, for perhaps the field will take off the blinders and consider some alternate theories."

 

Right back at you, chum.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
horsepucky

horsepucky


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Le Sigh

The Article wrote:

In the mid-nineteenth century Darwin assumed that all life might hail from an ultimate common ancestor in the form of a single-celled organism. From this origin all life gradually diversified into the biological world as we know it. . . . Schwabe believes that life is the result of chemical necessity. Whatever we think of this view, the point is this: the neo-Darwiniam paradigm readily assumes that life arose from nonliving chemicals but fails to realize that a purely chemical reaction yields outcomes on the molar scale (6.02 x 1023) not numerically one outcome. Schwabe admits that the number of origins is more likely in the millions than only one. The conclusion is clear; if the original chemcial environment was sufficient to produce life, it woud have produced a plethora of life not a single common ancestor

 

Er.... no.  Chemical reactions do not always produce results on the molar scale.  I've personally worked in the nano-molar scale (6.02x1014), while others have performed reactions using only a handful of molecules.

 

Also the assumption that we all have a common ancestor does not necessarily mean one individual.  It means one type of individual - big difference.  Anyone that thinks that "common ancestor" relates to one individual is, quite frankly, deluded.

 

EDIT:  I'll get back to you on McCarthy.

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Evolution does NOT assume

Evolution does NOT assume life originated in a single individual. We already know that wouldn't work, as they argue.

It would have been a progressive change in a bulk population of interacting molecules, where any molecules acquiring, through mutation, a more effective replication sequence would naturally tend to spread that sequence through the population.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The Spring 2009 issue

Quote:
The Spring 2009 issue of Christian Apologetics Journal carried an article by J. Thomas Bridges called "Intelligent Design: Its Nature, Limitations, And Future."

 

First off, if that is not the warning sign that much woo shall follow, then I don't know what is.

 

Quote:
Schwabe believes that life is the result of chemical necessity.

 

OK, does that actually mean something? There are different contexts that can be assumed and each one provides a specific view. On the molar level, yes, everything must be treated as statistical. On the molecular level, I am reminded of the line from T. H. White: Everything not forbidden is compulsory (with the modification that everything that is unstable is disfavored when one takes the statistical view).

 

Quote:
the neo-Darwiniam paradigm readily assumes that life arose from nonliving chemicals but fails to realize that a purely chemical reaction yields outcomes on the molar scale (6.02 x 1023) not numerically one outcome.

 

Again, context is all important. One can look at the molecular level and see individual molecules interacting. One may also look at the molar level and see quantities of substances interacting. As I said above, there are certain things that one could reasonably expect to observe.

 

I googled this guy and he has had a decent career, including a post doctoral position at the Harvard Medical School. So he really ought to know what is what. The only thing that I can see to explain his unique views is that he got his doctorate in 1965. So he is getting on in years. Either that, or he is working from a view similar to that of Behe and Dembski.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=