Viewing 13 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #16823
      possibilitymagazine
      Participant

      DARWINIAN (and Neo-Darwinian) EVOLUTION –

      For those who still believe in Darwinian evolution… a few pertinent questions:

      1. Why do you believe it?

      2. What is the EVIDENCE proving Darwinian Evolution to be correct that you are aware of?

    • #112316
      biohazard
      Participant

      1. It is supported by overwhelming evidence.

      2. Dogs.

    • #112318
      possibilitymagazine
      Participant

      Actually, I would like to know of at least a few examples of this ‘overwhelming’ evidence… the fossil records do not prove it, the DNA mutation explanation is replete with problems…

      So… some examples of this evidence?

    • #112319
      possibilitymagazine
      Participant

      Btw, dogs don’t prove NDT evolution. If you insist that it does, please explain how specifically they prove it?

    • #112322
      wbla3335
      Participant
      quote possibilitymagazine:

      the fossil records do not prove it, the DNA mutation explanation is replete with problems…

      Great, another denier. If you’ve already discounted the fossil and molecular evidence, then why would we want to bash our heads against your wall?

    • #112326
      possibilitymagazine
      Participant

      Hi, actually I am quite rational with discussing the logic behind ideas…

      Besides, you do know that a critical aspect of good science is to be willing to falsify a theory right?

      Infact, that is why I am even asking these questions, in the spirit of falsification. I genuinely want to know if you have any logical explanations, experiments, proofs, for this, and intend to very honestly consider it.

      So, even perhaps in the interest of falsification, let us engage. 🙂

    • #112327
      possibilitymagazine
      Participant

      Also – "denial" has nothing to do with any scientific process.

      A person can deny it all they want when someone says the world is spherical, not flat…
      A person can deny it all they want when someone says Einstein is more accurate than Newton…

      But what does denial have to do with science? Denial is just about a personal vested interest.

      If a person disagrees with a theory, he needs to present some cohesive evidence for his disagreement.

      Mere, "I don’t agree" does nothing. This is science, not a debate on what flavor of ice cream we like…

      So, no, this is not about denial – on either side.

      This is about considering the evidence, and the theories that support the evidence – with an even and critical eye.

      I seek to have this discussion in this spirit.

    • #112370
      billevans
      Participant

      what evidence do you have that doesn’t support evolution?

    • #112378
      Rap
      Participant

      I don’t "believe" in evolution, but rather, I think it is correct. There is a difference – I won’t defend evolution in the face of strong evidence against it. A believer will defend it despite the strong evidence. "Strong evidence against it" does not mean pointing out the inability of the theory of evolution to explain every aspect of life down to the last detail. It means pointing out hard scientific facts that the theory of evolution predicts absolutely cannot occur. I agree with billevans – lets get to the point quickly. Do you know of any hard scientific facts that the theory of evolution predicts cannot occur? If not, then its value is based on its predictive ability, which is great, but not perfect. Pointing out its imperfections is a non-starter, unless you have a theory with greater explanatory power and predictive ability. Do you?

      The fossil record is not inconsistent with evolution. It does not yield an airtight case in favor of evolution. The fact that it does not yield an airtight case in favor of evolution is not proof that evolution is wrong.

      The "DNA mutation" explanation is not inconsistent with evolution. It does not yield an airtight case in favor of evolution. The fact that it does not yield an airtight case in favor of evolution is not proof that evolution is wrong.

      I think evolution is correct because it provides a mechanism, a scientific explanation of so many things, far beyond any alternative. I don’t know of any competing theory that comes close to the explanatory power of evolution, do you?

    • #112457
      Raemaj
      Participant

      I think its very logical the way the theory explains things and further more it is convincing, what with the evidences of natural selection and all that

    • #112460
      JackBean
      Participant
      quote possibilitymagazine:

      Besides, you do know that a critical aspect of good science is to be willing to falsify a theory right?

      Infact, that is why I am even asking these questions, in the spirit of falsification. I genuinely want to know if you have any logical explanations, experiments, proofs, for this, and intend to very honestly consider it.

      And yet you immediately refuse the fossils and DNA with no discussion or explanation whatsoever. Then don’t be surprised that you’re considered a priori as an denier/IDer.

    • #112525
      wildfunguy
      Participant
      quote possibilitymagazine:

      2. What is the EVIDENCE proving [Neo-Darwinian] Evolution to be correct that you are aware of?

      What exactly isn’t supported by the evidence? Neo-Darwinism encompasses multiple claims, and many people here could spend a long time explaining the evidence for each claim.

      I’ll try to make a good list of the claims, but I can’t garuntee its accuracy.
      1) DNA is the mechanism of inheritance.
      2) Mutation is the source of genetic variation.
      3) Traits that aid reproduction (often by promoting survival) tend to increase in frequency.
      4) Traits that inhibit reproduction (often by preventing survival) tend to decrease in frequency.
      NOTE: The trait can aid/inhibit the net reproduction of the individuals possessing the trait (e.g. Kin Selection)
      5) The finch is a natural aphrodisiac.
      6) Over time, a species can diverge into multiple species.

    • #112536
      Rap
      Participant

      I take issue with 2. For sexually reproducing species, mutation is low on the list as a source of genetic variation. Even for asexually reproducing species, I am not sure that it is at the top of the list, although it’s a more serious contender. Mutation is probably a more important long-term source of genetic variation, but less so on the short term. Genetic engineering by humans will become an increasingly important (ultimately dominant?) source of genetic variation (or at least change) in humans and other organisms that are or can be made useful to humans.

    • #113182
      thoffnagle
      Participant

      possibilitymagazine posts a question, says that she wants to have a discussion but then never responds to answers. This is the kind of drive-by crap that we see at Yahoo – people trying to make themselves sound reasonable when everyone knows that they aren’t.

Viewing 13 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.