Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Don't kid yourself.Then your beliefs are irrelevant.
of course not:I'm not aware of a single evolutionary biologist that states that. Certainly none of the biologists you've quoted or linked to has said that.
now, in order to argue against this, you must accept the environment affects the genome (epigenetics), something you expressly deny.The concept of natural selection as the foundation of evolutionary change has been largely superseded, mostly through the work of Motoo Kimura, Tomoko Ohta, and others, who have shown both theoretically and empirically that natural selection has little or no effect on the vast majority of the genomes of most living organisms.
No.AV, have you actually read any of her books?
So she's still a YEC then?Artemis said:What you've written, and what she wrote, are in conflict with one another.
Here's a quote from your link:Artemis said:You are fabricating to make her narrative fit what you want it to be instead of the truth of it as described by her.
Notice what it doesn't say?Using as an illustration her own spiritual journey from certainty, through doubt, to faith,
of course not:
now, in order to argue against this, you must accept the environment affects the genome (epigenetics), something you expressly deny.
But I'm not arguing against what you quoted. Almost every evolutionary biologist agrees that the great majority of change to the human genome -- the great majority of human evolution -- is not the product of natural selection. That's not what you wrote, however. You claimed that they're saying that "natural selection is no longer valid as a driving force of evolutionary change." That statement is false. Natural selection is still considered by every biologist to be a driving force of evolutionary change. In particular, it is the primary driving force for all adaptive evolutionary change, and adaptive evolution is really, really important.of course not:
now, in order to argue against this, you must accept the environment affects the genome (epigenetics), something you expressly deny.
I am quite surprised by your statement:I'm not aware of a single evolutionary biologist that states that. Certainly none of the biologists you've quoted or linked to has said that.
yes sfs, i admit you can get 3 when rolling 3 dice.But I'm not arguing against what you quoted. Almost every evolutionary biologist agrees that the great majority of change to the human genome -- the great majority of human evolution -- is not the product of natural selection. That's not what you wrote, however. You claimed that they're saying that "natural selection is no longer valid as a driving force of evolutionary change." That statement is false. Natural selection is still considered by every biologist to be a driving force of evolutionary change. In particular, it is the primary driving force for all adaptive evolutionary change, and adaptive evolution is really, really important.
You've really got to stop getting this basic point confused.
Right, and I just posted an article that says that if Scientists are not allowed to question anything in the theory it becomes dogma.i've noticed this too.
there are a number of scientists that outright state that natural selection is no longer valid as a driving force of evolutionary change.
yes sfs, i admit you can get 3 when rolling 3 dice.
the fact is, natural selection IS NOT the driving force of evolution.
example:
Besides, many a neo Darwinist like Scott and others have made a lot of money on speaking engagements preaching neo Darwinism for a long time. And they are not about to give up that gravy train any time soon. And they're certainly not going to admit they were wrong, and say oh by the way, here is the new and improved theory.
This thread is exactly the kind of hand waiving Stewart Newman spoke of, and he believes this is why their is so much distrust on the side of the general public. Lets just admit we were wrong, and then maybe we could move ahead. And I include the now debunked junk DNA paradigm, gene centrism and biologies central dogma as well.
evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/11/modern-synthesis-is-dead-long-live.html
I don't know if that is true. I think like the link in my post above, that there are two camps in the field and many do in fact believe that NS is not the driving force behind evolution.But I'm not arguing against what you quoted. Almost every evolutionary biologist agrees that the great majority of change to the human genome -- the great majority of human evolution -- is not the product of natural selection. That's not what you wrote, however. You claimed that they're saying that "natural selection is no longer valid as a driving force of evolutionary change." That statement is false. Natural selection is still considered by every biologist to be a driving force of evolutionary change. In particular, it is the primary driving force for all adaptive evolutionary change, and adaptive evolution is really, really important.
You've really got to stop getting this basic point confused.
also:
As for the neutral theory being fully integrated (and directly derived from!) the Modern Synthesis (or, for that matter, the idea that punctuated equilibrium or developmental plasticity or exaptation or any of the other major tenets of the "evolving synthesis"), I've been around long enough to remember how acrimonious the fights were between evolutionary biologists committed to the Modern Synthesis and those willing to entertain these emerging ideas. Motoo Kimura and Steve Gould were excoriated by "mainstream" evolutionary biologists, just as Mary Jane West-Eberhard still often is.
and this:
We should be equally clear that, in arguing for the necessity of this intellectual transformation, we do not think that those who based their research on the Modern Synthesis were "bad scientists" and those who now abandon it are "good scientists." We are simply offering an overview of how a large number of us have changed our thinking, our biological Weltanschauung.
-The new biology beyond the Modern Synthesis.htm
i think there is a more subtle reason.Right, and I just posted an article that says that if Scientists are not allowed to question anything in the theory it becomes dogma.
i think there is a more subtle reason.
smashing the modern synthesis destroys almost every argument evolutionist have against ID and other similar "theories".
clinging to outdated theories does absolutely nothing for the advancement of evolution, and we will never find the answers by doing so.
what i can't understand, is why certain people are absolutely adamant that there be no room for such things.
Exactly. I agree completely. Science is to move forward and some would like it to stay static rather than discover something that might cast doubt on evolution.i think there is a more subtle reason.
smashing the modern synthesis destroys almost every argument evolutionist have against ID and other similar "theories".
clinging to outdated theories does absolutely nothing for the advancement of evolution, and we will never find the answers by doing so.
what i can't understand, is why certain people are absolutely adamant that there be no room for such things.
it's like they are scared that the "other side might win" instead of "let's honestly pursue the truth".
one thing is for sure, we now have the tools and techniques to conclusively prove "atoms to man".Exactly. I agree completely. Science is to move forward and some would like it to stay static rather than discover something that might cast doubt on evolution.
Nah, that is just God of the gaps.one thing is for sure, we now have the tools and techniques to conclusively prove "atoms to man".
so far, this proof has not been forthcoming.
science is at a complete loss to explain even "atoms to bacteria" much less "atoms to man".
and it isn't because of lack of research or brainpower, it's the utter impossibility of the problem.
one thing is for sure, we now have the tools and techniques to conclusively prove "atoms to man".
science is at a complete loss to explain even "atoms to bacteria" much less "atoms to man".
and it isn't because of lack of research or brainpower, it's the utter impossibility of the problem.
so i've heard.Nah, that is just God of the gaps.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?