non religious scientists oppose darwi...
lol

Moulton, UK

#21 Nov 21, 2011
"Okay, given. TODAY there are no theories of evolution that are taken seriously except the modern synthesis."

no this is false, we have two non-darwinian evolution theories taken seriously today even reviewed in peer papers, one is symbiosis of lynn margulis.

The most recent book of Lynn Margulis (2002) Acquiring Genomes. A Theory of the Origins of Species attacks neo-Darwinism. Margulis is an evolutionist but rejects mutation and natural selection as the mechanism for creating new species. Instead symbiosis (the incorporation of the whole genome of one species by an unrelated species), creates new species.

Marglus has also called the modern evolutionary synthesis a religion.

"And from what university did you get that GED?"

last time i checked i was a college student. what are you again? never heard your name pop up in any science journals. u aint a scientist ur a joke dude, ur putting people down on here but ur a not a scientist urself. so stop claiming to be an authority on what and what isnt evolution and attacking other people because they believe in something different.

"Po-ta-to, Po-tat-o. If they believe in a supreme power and many on the list did (again many are dead)" you just make up complete garbage none of those scientists believed in any supreme power. and hoyle reffered to himself as an atheist. ur opinions are baseless, u keep saying most of the scientists on that list are religious but then give no evidence, stop lieing, u clearly have read none of their works!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#22 Nov 21, 2011
lol wrote:
"Okay, given. TODAY there are no theories of evolution that are taken seriously except the modern synthesis."
no this is false, we have two non-darwinian evolution theories taken seriously today even reviewed in peer papers, one is symbiosis of lynn margulis.
The most recent book of Lynn Margulis (2002) Acquiring Genomes. A Theory of the Origins of Species attacks neo-Darwinism. Margulis is an evolutionist but rejects mutation and natural selection as the mechanism for creating new species. Instead symbiosis (the incorporation of the whole genome of one species by an unrelated species), creates new species.
Marglus has also called the modern evolutionary synthesis a religion.
"And from what university did you get that GED?"
last time i checked i was a college student. what are you again? never heard your name pop up in any science journals. u aint a scientist ur a joke dude, ur putting people down on here but ur a not a scientist urself. so stop claiming to be an authority on what and what isnt evolution and attacking other people because they believe in something different.
"Po-ta-to, Po-tat-o. If they believe in a supreme power and many on the list did (again many are dead)" you just make up complete garbage none of those scientists believed in any supreme power. and hoyle reffered to himself as an atheist. ur opinions are baseless, u keep saying most of the scientists on that list are religious but then give no evidence, stop lieing, u clearly have read none of their works!

No.

My statements on the issue stand.

And I have a B.S. and M.S. in science and restart my Ph.D. program in January.
lol

Moulton, UK

#24 Nov 28, 2011
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
My statements on the issue stand.
And I have a B.S. and M.S. in science and restart my Ph.D. program in January.
no your statements dont stand. you are presented a list of non religious scientists who have opposed neodarwinism, you suddenly realise this get all embaressed then make up lies saying they are religious but without any evidence at all.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#25 Nov 28, 2011
lol wrote:
<quoted text>
no your statements dont stand. you are presented a list of non religious scientists who have opposed neodarwinism, you suddenly realise this get all embaressed then make up lies saying they are religious but without any evidence at all.

You have failed. You put forth a list of scientists that only oppose main stream modern synthesis but are all anti-creationism and opposed to devolution. They are also, borderlands science and not yet accepted parts of the modern synthesis.

You cannot handle the truth, but it is truth that sets you free. You are therefore estranged from reality.

You also seem to be suffering from Shubertian dementia which is a malady I identified that causes rapid mental decay. Like a child eating candy and rotting their teeth, Shubertian dementia is where an insecure and uninformed adult eats Eugene's claptrap and rots their own brain out. It can be cured..... but only up to a certain point. Once critical vacuum is reached there is no recovery.
The Dude

Moulton, UK

#26 Mar 4, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You have failed. You put forth a list of scientists that only oppose main stream modern synthesis but are all anti-creationism and opposed to devolution. They are also, borderlands science and not yet accepted parts of the modern synthesis.
You cannot handle the truth, but it is truth that sets you free. You are therefore estranged from reality.
You also seem to be suffering from Shubertian dementia which is a malady I identified that causes rapid mental decay. Like a child eating candy and rotting their teeth, Shubertian dementia is where an insecure and uninformed adult eats Eugene's claptrap and rots their own brain out. It can be cured..... but only up to a certain point. Once critical vacuum is reached there is no recovery.
Im a creationist.
The Dude

Sunderland, UK

#27 Mar 4, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Im a creationist.
Okay, have to admit for humour purposes alone, that was probably your most convincing imitation of *The* Dude.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#28 Mar 4, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Im a creationist.
Yes, we know your an ignorant creotard, Shadow.
Bluenose Wife

Moulton, UK

#29 Mar 4, 2012
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, we know your an ignorant creotard, Shadow.
nono shadow is nonreligious I would know I was with him last night.:o

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#30 Mar 4, 2012
Bluenose Wife wrote:
<quoted text>
nono shadow is nonreligious I would know I was with him last night.:o
OK Shadow, my mistake, you're just plain ignorant.
Shadow

Moulton, UK

#31 Mar 4, 2012
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
OK Shadow, my mistake, you're just plain ignorant.
Bluenose, I dont see how you can think you are open minded. Theres 1000s of evolutionary mechanisms and theories right? I have listed you many, yet you ignore all of them apart from Darwins.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#32 Mar 4, 2012
Shadow wrote:
<quoted text>
Bluenose, I dont see how you can think you are open minded. Theres 1000s of evolutionary mechanisms and theories right? I have listed you many, yet you ignore all of them apart from Darwins.
I ignore your proposals for the same reason I ignore the story that the universe was farted into existance by the Cosmic Purple Porcupine - lack of evidence. Come up with some evidence and you might have something to argue about. Until then you're just pissing in the wind.
Shadow

Moulton, UK

#33 Mar 4, 2012
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
I ignore your proposals for the same reason I ignore the story that the universe was farted into existance by the Cosmic Purple Porcupine - lack of evidence. Come up with some evidence and you might have something to argue about. Until then you're just pissing in the wind.
lynn margulis and her theory of symbiosis has been peer reviewed yet you reject it, also you reject molecular drive?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v299/n58...

you talk about evidence yet you provide no evidence that natural selection causes any kind of evolution.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

#34 Mar 4, 2012
Shadow wrote:
you talk about evidence yet you provide no evidence that natural selection causes any kind of evolution.
Evolution is, at the core, the change in allele frequency across a population over time.

So, here's an example:

A population exists. In that population, the are 3 genotypes A, B and C. The each represent 1/3 of the population.(we'll say there are 100 individuals and 33 of A and B, and 34 of C). They are at maximum capacity for population size based on their available food source.

Gene A results in an organism which is red in color. B results in an organism which is blue in color. C results in an organism with is red and blue stripes.

The population and the frequency has remained stable for some time. No evolution visavi these three types is occurring.

A new predator arrives in the area (having come off a boat, let's say). The new predator is blue/green color blind. As a result, it has trouble seeing blue against a green background.

For this predator, the Gene B individuals are invisible when in vegetation.

The predator hunts and kills members of the Gene A group, and occasionally gets members of the Gene C group. It eats one individual a week. Not enough to destroy the food source.

Twenty weeks go by, and the predator has killed 17 Group A members and 3 Group C members.

The population now stands at 80 individuals. 16 Group A, 33 Group B, 31 Group C.

That RIGHT THERE is already a change in allege frequency.

But let's continue:

Breeding season comes.
Since there are MORE of Group B and Group C, those groups will have MORE offspring than Group A.

Since the predator STILL exists, the members of Group A are going to still be picked off at a higher rate.

Soon, Group A consists of 1% of the population. Group C faces heavier predation since the predator still needs to eat.

That's ALSO a change in allele frequency.

In fact, in order for there to be NO evolution, then an EXACTLY proportionate number of individuals must die at EXACTLY the same time so that there is NEVER a change in allele frequency.

A disease comes? It has to kill those who are less resistant AT THE SAME RATE it kills those that are MORE resistant.

A predator attacks? It has to kill those it CAN catch at the same rate it kills those it CAN'T catch.

Drought hits? Those which can't survive without water must die at the same rate as those which CAN survive without water.

Your suggestion is ridiculous.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#35 Mar 5, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
...
Your suggestion is ridiculous.
Well, at least he's consistent, all his suggestions are ridiculous...
Shadow

Moulton, UK

#36 Mar 5, 2012
Shadow wrote:
<quoted text>
lynn margulis and her theory of symbiosis has been peer reviewed yet you reject it, also you reject molecular drive?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v299/n58...
you talk about evidence yet you provide no evidence that natural selection causes any kind of evolution.
Just ignore the evidence you don't wanna see folks.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

#37 Mar 5, 2012
Shadow wrote:
<quoted text>
Just ignore the evidence you don't wanna see folks.
Yeah, we know that's what you're doing.

The problem for you is that the rest of us can SEE what other people are writing and know how badly you are getting your ass kicked.
Shadow

Moulton, UK

#38 Mar 5, 2012
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v299/n58...

still no comment on this non-Darwinian mechanism which has been published in nature I see.
The Dude

Sunderland, UK

#39 Mar 5, 2012
Shadow wrote:
http://www.nature.com/nature/j ournal/v299/n5879/abs/299111a0 .html
still no comment on this non-Darwinian mechanism which has been published in nature I see.
Fruitloaf, we've known the various mechanisms within evolutionary theory have been debated over for a long time, and will be in the future. The debate has never been over the validity of evolution, but rather the specifics of HOW it happened. This is all perfectly normal and quite healthy for science. So you're not presenting us with a problem here.

However it does NOT support your creationists, psychics and new-age cranks.

If you'd been consistent from the beginning then maybe you'd have more of a case. But you don't.
Shadow

Moulton, UK

#40 Mar 5, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Fruitloaf, we've known the various mechanisms within evolutionary theory have been debated over for a long time, and will be in the future. The debate has never been over the validity of evolution, but rather the specifics of HOW it happened. This is all perfectly normal and quite healthy for science. So you're not presenting us with a problem here.
However it does NOT support your creationists, psychics and new-age cranks.
If you'd been consistent from the beginning then maybe you'd have more of a case. But you don't.
This is utter lies and you know it. You know very well I do not dispute evolution, my arguement is exactly how it happened, theres is still a big debate about how it happened and that is what I want to explore, yet you ignore all that and Darwin said it so you believe it, you ignore all the other non-Darwinian mechanisms, I have made it clear I accept evolution and common descent of every organism on earth. I accept that mutations and selection do occur. I do not believe anything is created. I have made it clear evolution is a fact whilst the neo-Darwinian version is just an interpretation. Yet you ignore this.

I have never supported psychics or new ages cranks, firstly becuase I am a naturalist. The only guy who by mistake may be put in that category of new age is Dr. Bruce Lipton but he isnt. I also made a mistake of putting Jeffrey Goodman on the forum but thats becuase he has an interesting book that man originated in america, I didn't know he was originally a claimed psychic. Alfred Wallace before his death claimed mediumship, angels and spiritualism was all true, does that descredit his fine naturalist work? No.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

#41 Mar 5, 2012
Shadow wrote:
I have never supported psychics or new ages cranks
LOL! Nice try. You're pulling out all the stops to try and "prove evolution wrong" in support of your ultra Christian agenda.

Lying about it is par for the course.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 14 min Aura Mytha 199,376
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 27 min ChristineM 35,017
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr ChristineM 14,939
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr ChristineM 151,326
News ID Isn't Science, But That's the Least Of Its P... 4 hr DanFromSmithville 36
Ribose can be produced in space Mon JanusBifrons 6
A Simple Simulation Mon JanusBifrons 1
More from around the web