|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
Possible Alternate Theories
Posted on: February 19, 2010 - 10:45pm
 Offline
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.
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
|
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.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
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."
"...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
horsepucky
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
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
First off, if that is not the warning sign that much woo shall follow, then I don't know what is.
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).
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.
=