The phenomenon and the explanation

[Bungle_Bear]

Founders of religions usually emerge from some epic struggle that required virtuous and noble character to survive.

Citation?

The story becomes myth, the morality of the founders is preserved and they become deified and worshipped.

We're not allowed to call Christianity "myth", so thank you for doing it for us.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well, I could show you but you say "it's just not worth the trouble to go through the many many supposed evidences."

There you go again. "Many many" to you equals "one"?

I have no idea. I do know that hoaxes constitute a vanishingly small proportion of scientific output. That's one of the reasons they attract so much attention. Which makes a better headline? "Scientists confirm one small detail about the mechanism of how a small amphibious species deals with excessively high temperatures", or "Scientists fabricate data to 'prove' hominid remains from Kenya are direct human ancestors."

Can you provide a list of the top five or ten hoaxes that you think had a marked impact upon scientific thinking? Please.

Yes, that's what I am asking you to provide, for five or ten examples. You are the one implicitly making the claim that hoaxes have had a major, misleading impact upon evolutionary theory. This is your opportunity to demonstrate it.

Like was said before concerning the Bible, one is enough. Lucy.

I doubt it. The question has as much value as "Are all pastors, ministers, priests, denominations, churches, etc. above board with all their work, above the influence of money, position and possible public shame?"

Not at all. Evolution makes no claims for itself. Further, it is only theory.

The Bible, on the other hand, claims to be the Word of God. It does not depend upon the claims of theologians and ministers. And it is no scientific theory, though there can be found many theories (by theologians and ministers concerning it). Yet even those have been cat-called on this site as 'not even theory', lacking formulation, testability and evidence, and presupposing untested claims.

Your parallel lacks merit.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, not really.

That is correct - creationists do not have counters to evolution. Why should I think you are any different? What do YOU claim to know that this PhD YEC Biochemist that has done relevant research does not know:

The truth about evolution

September 30, 2009
I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.​

Yes, because I always have doubts to those claiming such things. Add to that, what you actually wrote says it all:

"I'm not going to study all the hundreds of thousands of data points to still believe there was not much confirmation bias or other sloppy science involved in a politically advantageous (think, money) and conscience relieving (think, "I'm just another animal!")."

Seems pretty straightforward - you have a psychological need to reject evolution, and to do so, you are ready to find ways to dismiss what you see as a threat. So, regardless of your pretense.... pretty disingenuous.

Sure they are. Well, there is a little real history, but we should hope for at least some reality. But that certain places and people were real does not by any means suggest, much less demonstrate, the veracity of the miraculous claims and such.

The evidence that you pre-dismissed because you will never be convinced that there is no "confirmation bias or other sloppy science involved in a politically advantageous (think, money) and conscience relieving [something]"?
"Supposed" was a good indication, along with the whole "confirmation bias or other sloppy science involved in a politically advantageous (think, money) and conscience relieving" thing.

Yes, because bible advocates/acolytes declare it to be 100% true and error free from cover to cover. Finding one error means that this claim is false. Scientists do not make such claims. In fact, just the opposite - we declare that science is an on-going process, and that errors are bound to occur (and ultimately found out and corrected). But unlike creationists, we are not bound to dismiss any necessitated change in favor of maintaining the status quo (contrary to what the snowflakes claim).
Interesting, seeing as how you probably think that 6 24 hour days is plenty. But I forgot that creationists never have to explain things or provide evidence for their claims. Silly me.

Yes - it happened.
You will have to ask more relevant and logical questions if you want real answers - What do you mean "enough time"? Enough time for what, specifically? And what do you mean 'circular reasoning'? I sense some projection.

Oh, you mean like the Jammal Ark hoax? He actually admitted to it, but I still find conservative Christians mentioning it from time to time.
If you have something specific in mind, spit it out, son! But please do not embarrass yourself and bring up Piltdown or Nebraska man.

Again, be more reality-based. Contrary to the lies Jon Wells and others make, nobody teaches or relies on any of that stuff today, nor for more than 75 years. Same with Haeckel's embryos. I mean come on - the desperation of cr4eationists is something to behold.

So you are, as I already indicated, pre-dismissing everything due to paranoid fantasies and conspiracy nonsense. Was this your "counter to Darwinian Evolution"? Conspiracy claims and mere 'disbelief'? And by the way, there are few strict 'Darwinists' around these days - maybe try a new schtick?

I've been encountering creationists for about 25 years. I've seen every bit of nonsense they have to offer. I suspect that soon you will claim Darwin was a racist, too?

Evolution is your claim.

So you have a big job ahead of you. Convince me without prejudice.

Strange how a person can change their opinion mid-paragraph (evolution is no longer 'Darwinian'?) without losing any vehemence.

 

[Ophiolite]

There you go again. "Many many" to you equals "one"?

Let me remind you what you asked for. I quote you without modification, from post #211: "Can show me, without confirmation bias or circular reasoning, that 14 billion years is enough time to go from Big Bang to the current stage of human development?"

To do this effectively requires that you study multiple items of evidence, from a diverse range of sciences. Without that range and intensity of study the arguments might be casually, but not justly, dismissed. It astounds me that you could expect a theory that took centuries to lay the groundwork for, the lifetime's work of a genuis to intiate, and more than a century and a half of research by tens of thousands of scientists to validate and refine, that you could expect such a theory to be shown to you by addressing only "one" thing.

Such an attitude displays either an ignorance of the theory that is an order of magnitude more profound than I could have imagined, or a cynical device, consciously employed by you to excuse you from facing the evidence that you routinely shun. Frankly, I don't know whether to be amazed, or disgusted by your response. I urge you to stop these childish games and start to dicuss matters in good faith, else things will really go downhill.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution is your claim.

So you have a big job ahead of you. Convince me without prejudice.

Strange how a person can change their opinion mid-paragraph (evolution is no longer 'Darwinian'?) without losing any vehemence.

You are making an incorrect use of the burden of proof. Most creationists refuse to learn why their beliefs are wrong. No amount of evidence will convince them. That means that they are the ones with prejudice. Do you think that you can approach this topic with prejudice?

`

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, not really.

That is correct - creationists do not have counters to evolution. Why should I think you are any different? What do YOU claim to know that this PhD YEC Biochemist that has done relevant research does not know:

The truth about evolution

September 30, 2009
I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.​

Yes, because I always have doubts to those claiming such things. Add to that, what you actually wrote says it all:

"I'm not going to study all the hundreds of thousands of data points to still believe there was not much confirmation bias or other sloppy science involved in a politically advantageous (think, money) and conscience relieving (think, "I'm just another animal!")."

Seems pretty straightforward - you have a psychological need to reject evolution, and to do so, you are ready to find ways to dismiss what you see as a threat. So, regardless of your pretense.... pretty disingenuous.

Sure they are. Well, there is a little real history, but we should hope for at least some reality. But that certain places and people were real does not by any means suggest, much less demonstrate, the veracity of the miraculous claims and such.

The evidence that you pre-dismissed because you will never be convinced that there is no "confirmation bias or other sloppy science involved in a politically advantageous (think, money) and conscience relieving [something]"?
"Supposed" was a good indication, along with the whole "confirmation bias or other sloppy science involved in a politically advantageous (think, money) and conscience relieving" thing.

Yes, because bible advocates/acolytes declare it to be 100% true and error free from cover to cover. Finding one error means that this claim is false. Scientists do not make such claims. In fact, just the opposite - we declare that science is an on-going process, and that errors are bound to occur (and ultimately found out and corrected). But unlike creationists, we are not bound to dismiss any necessitated change in favor of maintaining the status quo (contrary to what the snowflakes claim).
Interesting, seeing as how you probably think that 6 24 hour days is plenty. But I forgot that creationists never have to explain things or provide evidence for their claims. Silly me.

Yes - it happened.
You will have to ask more relevant and logical questions if you want real answers - What do you mean "enough time"? Enough time for what, specifically? And what do you mean 'circular reasoning'? I sense some projection.

Oh, you mean like the Jammal Ark hoax? He actually admitted to it, but I still find conservative Christians mentioning it from time to time.
If you have something specific in mind, spit it out, son! But please do not embarrass yourself and bring up Piltdown or Nebraska man.

Again, be more reality-based. Contrary to the lies Jon Wells and others make, nobody teaches or relies on any of that stuff today, nor for more than 75 years. Same with Haeckel's embryos. I mean come on - the desperation of creationists is something to behold.

So you are, as I already indicated, pre-dismissing everything due to paranoid fantasies and conspiracy nonsense. Was this your "counter to Darwinian Evolution"? Conspiracy claims and mere 'disbelief'? And by the way, there are few strict 'Darwinists' around these days - maybe try a new schtick?

I've been encountering creationists for about 25 years. I've seen every bit of nonsense they have to offer. I suspect that soon you will claim Darwin was a racist, too?

So, convince me. After all, the evidence is all on your side, no?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Let me remind you what you asked for. I quote you without modification, from post #211: "Can show me, without confirmation bias or circular reasoning, that 14 billion years is enough time to go from Big Bang to the current stage of human development?"

To do this effectively requires that you study multiple items of evidence, from a diverse range of sciences. Without that range and intensity of study the arguments might be casually, but not justly, dismissed. It astounds me that you could expect a theory that took centuries to lay the groundwork for, the lifetime's work of a genuis to intiate, and more than a century and a half of research by tens of thousands of scientists to validate and refine, that you could expect such a theory to be shown to you by addressing only "one" thing.

Such an attitude displays either an ignorance of the theory that is an order of magnitude more profound than I could have imagined, or a cynical device, consciously employed by you to excuse you from facing the evidence that you routinely shun. Frankly, I don't know whether to be amazed, or disgusted by your response. I urge you to stop these childish games and start to dicuss matters in good faith, else things will really go downhill.

So, convince me. Show me all this evidence, without foundational unproven presuppostions.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You are making an incorrect use of the burden of proof. Most creationists refuse to learn why their beliefs are wrong. No amount of evidence will convince them. That means that they are the ones with prejudice. Do you think that you can approach this topic with prejudice?

`

I have consistently admitted to —even claimed— bias on my part, even to the point of confirmation bias in my assessing of evidences.

So you claim to be able to approach this topic without prejudice?

C'mon, give me the evidence, without unproven foundational presuppositions. For example, show me that your dating methods are without further questionable presuppositions. Show me that the logic that what is claimed to be pre-cambrian soil is always actually actually pre-cambrian in date.

Show me this whole stack of cards is not theory built upon theory built upon theory, built upon guesses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have consistently admitted to —even claimed— bias on my part, even to the point of confirmation bias in my assessing of evidences.

So you claim to be able to approach this topic without prejudice?

C'mon, give me the evidence, without unproven foundational presuppositions. For example, show me that your dating methods are without further questionable presuppositions. Show me that the logic that what is claimed to be pre-cambrian soil is always actually actually pre-cambrian in date.

Show me this whole stack of cards is not theory built upon theory built upon theory, built upon guesses.

No one is totally without bias. What depends is how well a person can support one's claims. Now you are using what appear to be bogus conditions.

What do you mean by "unproven fundamental presuppositions"? That phase alone shows that you probably do not understand the scientific method. Nor are you arguing rationally if you set up a false standard to dismiss the evidence presented to you.

 

[tas8831]

Know them by how much of a post they ignore...

Evolution is your claim.

And your claim is that it is all basically "confirmation bias or other sloppy science involved in a politically advantageous (think, money) and conscience relieving" and "circular reasoning" and "hoaxes". And you are pretending NOT to be disingenuous? You people are something else.

So you have a big job ahead of you. Convince me without prejudice.

How can I convince without that which you have gleefully or perhaps unwittingly admitted to possessing in abundance?

Strange how a person can change their opinion mid-paragraph (evolution is no longer 'Darwinian'?) without losing any vehemence.

Not as strange as the person claiming to know all about the evidence without understanding the theory.

Things ignored:

What do YOU claim to know that this PhD YEC Biochemist that has done relevant research does not know:

The truth about evolution

September 30, 2009
I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.​

The evidence that you pre-dismissed because you will never be convinced that there is no "confirmation bias or other sloppy science involved in a politically advantageous (think, money) and conscience relieving [something]"?
"Supposed" was a good indication, along with the whole "confirmation bias or other sloppy science involved in a politically advantageous (think, money) and conscience relieving" thing.

Yes, because bible advocates/acolytes declare it to be 100% true and error free from cover to cover. Finding one error means that this claim is false. Scientists do not make such claims. In fact, just the opposite - we declare that science is an on-going process, and that errors are bound to occur (and ultimately found out and corrected). But unlike creationists, we are not bound to dismiss any necessitated change in favor of maintaining the status quo (contrary to what the snowflakes claim).
Interesting, seeing as how you probably think that 6 24 hour days is plenty. But I forgot that creationists never have to explain things or provide evidence for their claims. Silly me.

Yes - it happened.
You will have to ask more relevant and logical questions if you want real answers - What do you mean "enough time"? Enough time for what, specifically? And what do you mean 'circular reasoning'? I sense some projection.

Oh, you mean like the Jammal Ark hoax? He actually admitted to it, but I still find conservative Christians mentioning it from time to time.
If you have something specific in mind, spit it out, son! But please do not embarrass yourself and bring up Piltdown or Nebraska man.

Again, be more reality-based. Contrary to the lies Jon Wells and others make, nobody teaches or relies on any of that stuff today, nor for more than 75 years. Same with Haeckel's embryos. I mean come on - the desperation of creationists is something to behold.

So you are, as I already indicated, pre-dismissing everything due to paranoid fantasies and conspiracy nonsense. Was this your "counter to Darwinian Evolution"? Conspiracy claims and mere 'disbelief'? And by the way, there are few strict 'Darwinists' around these days - maybe try a new schtick?

I've been encountering creationists for about 25 years. I've seen every bit of nonsense they have to offer. I suspect that soon you will claim Darwin was a racist, too?

 

[tas8831]

Evolution is your claim.

I've posted this about 20 times on here. Have yet to have a creationist - even the ones claiming decades of study and the like - competently or honestly address it:

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it.

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "



Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."​

 

[tas8831]

Darwinian Evolution.... Darwinism...Strange how a person can change their opinion mid-paragraph (evolution is no longer 'Darwinian'?) without losing any vehemence.

Edited for length, added emphasis in spots:


Darwinism [I know Wiki is frowned on, but this gives a nice summary]is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory, it originally included the broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, including concepts which predated Darwin's theories. English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term Darwinism in April 1860...

The term Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement, as an epithet to attack evolution as though it were an ideology (an "ism") of philosophical naturalism, or atheism.[27] For example, in 1993, UC Berkeley law professor and author Phillip E. Johnson made this accusation of atheism with reference to Charles Hodge's 1874 book What Is Darwinism?.[28] However, unlike Johnson, Hodge confined the term to exclude those like American botanist Asa Gray who combined Christian faith with support for Darwin's natural selection theory, before answering the question posed in the book's title by concluding: "It is Atheism."[29][30]

Creationists use pejoratively the term Darwinism to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief.[31] In the 2008 documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which promotes intelligent design (ID), American writer and actor Ben Stein refers to scientists as Darwinists. Reviewing the film for Scientific American, John Rennie says "The term is a curious throwback, because in modern biology almost no one relies solely on Darwin's original ideas... Yet the choice of terminology isn't random: Ben Stein wants you to stop thinking of evolution as an actual science supported by verifiable facts and logical arguments and to start thinking of it as a dogmatic, atheistic ideology akin to Marxism."[32]

However, Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is sometimes called "neo-Darwinism", from those first proposed by Darwin. Darwinism also is used neutrally by historians to differentiate his theory from other evolutionary theories current around the same period. For example, Darwinism may refer to Darwin's proposed mechanism of natural selection, in comparison to more recent mechanisms such as genetic drift and gene flow. It may also refer specifically to the role of Charles Darwin as opposed to others in the history of evolutionary thought—particularly contrasting Darwin's results with those of earlier theories such as Lamarckism or later ones such as the modern evolutionary synthesis.

In political discussions in the United States, the term is mostly used by its enemies.[33] "It's a rhetorical device to make evolution seem like a kind of faith, like 'Maoism,'" says Harvard University biologist E. O. Wilson. He adds, "Scientists don't call it 'Darwinism'."[34]

_____

I am totally confused about the differences between Neo-Darwinism , Modern Synthesis and Synthetic Theory. I need your valuable elaboration in this regard
Asked by: Rantu Kanjilal

Latest Reply:

OK, let's see how we can help clarify the differences between Neo-Darwinism, Modern Synthesis, and Synthetic Theory. The quick answer to your question is that Neo-Darwinism differs from Modern Synthesis/Synthetic Theory because of the more modern ideas they incorporate into Darwin’s framework of evolution...

As you likely have learned, Darwin’s theory of evolution asserts that all organisms are related and descend from a common ancestor. Darwin’s theory is based on three principles: 1) there is variation in the expression of numerous traits among individuals within any species, 2) variant forms of traits can be passed down (inherited) from one generation to the next, and 3) some variant traits give individuals within a species a greater chance of surviving and reproducing (i.e., natural selection or survival of the fittest). Although Darwin suggests that organisms evolve over many generations by the process of natural selection that acts on variation, he did not know the source of variation or consider other factors that contribute to evolution.

The term Neo-Darwinism was first employed by George Romanes in the late 1800s. This theory incorporates Mendelian genetics into Darwin’s theory of evolution. It suggests that evolution by natural selection involves the transmission of characteristics from parent to child through genetic transfer; Mendel had observed that organisms inherit traits via discrete units of inheritance, which we now call “genes.” Differences in these genes are responsible for differences in the traits observed among individuals in a population. However, at the time Neo-Darwinism was coined, we still lacked an understanding of genes at the molecular level.

Our most current ideas about evolution are referred to as Modern Synthesis, Synthetic Theory, and sometimes Evolutionary Synthesis. These theories incorporate our knowledge of molecular biology and population biology into Darwin’s theory of evolution. ...
Modern Synthesis/Synthetic Theory/Evolutionary Synthesis also suggests that evolution is not only due to natural selection acting on variation; other major effects — such as genetic drift — may also contribute to the evolution of organisms. ...
To learn more about Darwin’s theory of evolution please see the following links:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/know...on-is-change-in-the-inherited-traits-15164254
http://www.nature.com/scitable/know...s-are-the-raw-materials-of-evolution-17395346
Darwin's Theory Of Evolution

For an overview of Neo-Darwinism and Modern Synthesis/Synthetic Theory, please see the following links:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/speciation-the-origin-of-new-species-26230527
Evolutionary Theory
The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh3.shtml

To learn more about genetic drift, see these links:
http://www.nature.com/scitable/know...election-genetic-drift-and-gene-flow-15186648
Random Genetic Drift

Reply From: Nature Education Sep 11, 2012 02:13PM

 

[tas8831]

Like was said before concerning the Bible, one is enough. Lucy.

Can I try -

OK, here is one from the bible - pi does not equal 3.

And the creationist apologia on the subject??? Talk about hoaxes!

Look at this clown:

First of all, notice that this passage does not say “exactly ten cubits” or “exactly thirty cubits.”​

And that from an "astrophysicist". I wonder if he got away with such simplistic approximations while doing his doctoral work...

 

[tas8831]

I completely agree. Beyond that, all the Creatonist arguments are poor arguments; it's just a matter of comparing bad with worse. (Creationist are invited to provide a fresh and effective argument against evolution that is not one of the many that has been repeatedly refuted.)
And even if they were able to genuinely refute evolution, the explanation for biodiversity does not then default to that of Creation. Individuals should, by all means, accept Creation on the basis of faith, or personal revelation, if they think that is the right way to go. But they should not think that silly objections to evolutionary theory provide any support for beliefs arrived at in that way.

But he said - with no explanation or detail - "Lucy", so take that!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Then came Moses with concepts never before imagined. Truth not developed over centuries for generations but truth introduced suddenly and taught by one man.

What were the 'concepts never before imagined'?

 

[Eloy Craft]

What were the 'concepts never before imagined'?

That history repeats because of sin in man.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That history repeats because of sin in man.

Have you heard of the idea of Karma and rebirth? the idea that good deeds and bad deeds would determine how long the cycles of rebirth would continue before you are freed from the cycle? Those ideas and similar ones are recorded in texts from the 6th century BCE and are central in Vedism, Jainism, Buddhism, other Indian religions, and Chinese religions such as Taoism and Falun Gong. The concept of karma also appears in other religions, such as Shinto.

So not at all 'concepts never before imagined'.

 

[Eloy Craft]

The serpent is still biting it's tail for them. Man isn't causing karma everything is as it's supposed to be for them. Human life is cyclic for Eastern religions.

A new idea is at the end of the age (tail) the serpent will try to swallow it's tail but it a foot. A foot that crushed it's head. Breaks human life out of the endless loop of repeated history.

 

[tas8831]

I have consistently admitted to —even claimed— bias on my part, even to the point of confirmation bias in my assessing of evidences.

Then it is even more of a mystery why you would demand others do what you admit you do not.

Typical of the creationist to be a hypocrite.

 

[tas8831]

Can show me, without confirmation bias or circular reasoning

The phenomenon and the explanation