More on how Neo-Darwinism has it wrong again...


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : More on how Neo-Darwinism has it wrong again...

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 29 · Next
Author Message
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1526628 - Posted: 11 Jun 2014, 1:10:29 UTC

More on how Neo-Darwinism gets it wrong again...
____________
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 1672
Credit: 582,605
RAC: 127
United States
Message 1526643 - Posted: 11 Jun 2014, 1:55:42 UTC

He's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack. And still can't face reality.
____________
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Profile CLYDE
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 99
Posts: 2548
Credit: 24,664,042
RAC: 8,794
United States
Message 1526697 - Posted: 11 Jun 2014, 3:49:03 UTC

After reading the entire article as a Layman:

Do not believe it debunks evolution. Just the mechanism may be more complicated than previously thought.

WELCOME BACK!!!!!!
____________

Message 1526735 - Posted: 11 Jun 2014, 6:18:08 UTC

From The Artice:

The idea that the central dogma is incomplete is really not controversial these days, with so much research showing how epigenetic mechanisms are vital for biological function.
He goes on to identify crucial sources of ontogenetic information that exists outside the DNA. Specifically, information can be stored in biological membranes that is crucial for the development of an organism -- also called ontogeny:
So biological membranes are patterned in complex ways. Those patterns serve important functions in cells, tissues and embryos. The following sections summarize the roles of plasma membrane patterns in (a) providing targets and sources for intracellular transport and signaling, (b) regulating cell-cell interactions by means of a "sugar code," and (c) generating endogenous electric fields that provide three-dimensional coordinate systems for ontogeny.


Right at the End of Article, Intelligent Design is mentioned.

Sorry Charlie. No I.D. Here. Taint No GOD Messages.

GOod 'ole Molecular Biology and Embryology at work.

da Crunchin' Troll Wannabe
____________


Profile JulieProject donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 23394
Credit: 4,068,685
RAC: 3,143
Belgium
Message 1526815 - Posted: 11 Jun 2014, 10:39:56 UTC

Actually, in my opinion, both Darwinism and Intelligent Design make sense. Both in a different area of Science, that is. (No, I won't start on Humanities again...)
____________


rOZZ

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1526967 - Posted: 11 Jun 2014, 18:39:13 UTC
Last modified: 11 Jun 2014, 18:48:36 UTC

This is a peer review paper. This is science. Do you people know what science is and is not? Please do try to grow up and understand what is and is not.

If you have no grasp of what science is please do not post here...
____________
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Profile CLYDE
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 99
Posts: 2548
Credit: 24,664,042
RAC: 8,794
United States
Message 1526977 - Posted: 11 Jun 2014, 18:57:02 UTC - in response to Message 1526967.

This is a peer review paper. This is science. Do you people know what science is and is not? Please do try to grow up and understand what is and is not.

If you have no grasp of what science is please do not post here...

OK
____________

Мишель
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 1825
Credit: 51,518
RAC: 95
Netherlands
Message 1526982 - Posted: 11 Jun 2014, 19:05:55 UTC - in response to Message 1526967.

This is a peer review paper. This is science. Do you people know what science is and is not? Please do try to grow up and understand what is and is not.

If you have no grasp of what science is please do not post here...

No, its the interpretation on a peer reviewed paper. And its conclusions are stupid.

"Oh, this can't be properly explained by this theory, therefor, that theory is wrong. But we got a much better theory, namely that everything is guided by some grand designer of which we have absolutely no further evidence. Yep thats the way to go guys."

Seems a bit early to declare Neo-Darwinian evolution dead and Intelligent Design the better theory.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1526986 - Posted: 11 Jun 2014, 19:12:25 UTC - in response to Message 1526982.

This is a peer review paper. This is science. Do you people know what science is and is not? Please do try to grow up and understand what is and is not.

If you have no grasp of what science is please do not post here...

No, its the interpretation on a peer reviewed paper. And its conclusions are stupid.

"Oh, this can't be properly explained by this theory, therefor, that theory is wrong. But we got a much better theory, namely that everything is guided by some grand designer of which we have absolutely no further evidence. Yep thats the way to go guys."

Seems a bit early to declare Neo-Darwinian evolution dead and Intelligent Design the better theory.


From the piece..."Wells (the man who wrote the peer reviewed paper, Jonathan Wells) concludes that because the neo-Darwinian model of evolution claims that variation is produced by DNA mutations, neo-Darwinism cannot account for the origin of epigenetic and ontogenetic information that exists outside of DNA."

I believe you need to reread the paper again and get a better grasp of what is and is not. Thank you for your time in this matter.
____________
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 9095
Credit: 259,333
RAC: 85
Canada
Message 1526987 - Posted: 11 Jun 2014, 19:12:33 UTC - in response to Message 1526967.

This is a peer review paper. This is science. Do you people know what science is and is not? Please do try to grow up and understand what is and is not.

If you have no grasp of what science is please do not post here...


____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile Bernie Vine
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 May 99
Posts: 7138
Credit: 28,516,265
RAC: 15,961
United Kingdom
Message 1526989 - Posted: 11 Jun 2014, 19:14:57 UTC
Last modified: 11 Jun 2014, 19:15:53 UTC

Well I know little science, but I read Jonathan Wells article and find I don't quite grasp what he is saying, so I look on-line to try and find out a little about Jonathan Wells.

I find this is typical

Wells is best known for his 2000 book Icons of Evolution, in which he discusses ten examples which he says show that many of the most commonly accepted arguments supporting evolution are invalid. The book is rejected by many members of the scientific community and has received much criticism by those opposed to his views.There have been 12 detailed reviews of Icons, from scholars familiar with the subject matter, which have come to the consensus that the book's claims are a politically motivated extreme exaggeration and misrepresentation of a scattering of minor issues. Scholars quoted in the work have accused Wells of purposely misquoting them and misleading readers.Biology Professor Jerry Coyne wrote of Icons, "Wells's book rests entirely on a flawed syllogism: ... textbooks illustrate evolution with examples; these examples are sometimes presented in incorrect or misleading ways; therefore evolution is a fiction."


So I have to decide, do I believe the link you have posted with absolutely no background information about Jonathan Wells. Or do I believe my own internet research on the man. As you obviously WANT people to do this, I believe what I have found is closer to the truth.
____________


Today is life, the only life we're sure of. Make the most of today.

Profile JulieProject donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 23394
Credit: 4,068,685
RAC: 3,143
Belgium
Message 1526990 - Posted: 11 Jun 2014, 19:20:01 UTC - in response to Message 1526977.

This is a peer review paper. This is science. Do you people know what science is and is not? Please do try to grow up and understand what is and is not.

If you have no grasp of what science is please do not post here...

OK


+1 *cough*
____________


rOZZ

Message 1527015 - Posted: 11 Jun 2014, 20:08:56 UTC

Embryonic Development is a mO fOin' mO fO. Dat DNA is not The Main Info Hiway to HuWoMan becoming HuWoMan is Known.

EvO DeVO EbryO NeO DarWOs ain't Gots All Da 'Brane on 'it'. yO? yO BroHeim.

Soza NeO NeO DarWOs is Always EvOlving. A Little I.D. Push Never Hurts yO.

' '
____________


Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1527030 - Posted: 11 Jun 2014, 20:48:12 UTC - in response to Message 1526990.
Last modified: 11 Jun 2014, 20:53:12 UTC

Really? Care to elaborate? Would you know about science? You know the differance between science and politics? It would appear that many here do not know that differance. Perhaps you would like to define both and make the contrasts.

So far all I have seen in the responces here are politics. The piece is about science.

Really, attack the messenger. Done. First thing done as a matter of fact.

Really, attack the science. Done. Second thing done as a matter of fact.

Then there is the backing by "Other's" for the above. Really this passes for science here?

Well done! I applaud you all for knowing politics! Well done!

Now if you don't mind---the article is about science.
____________
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Batter UpProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 May 99
Posts: 1946
Credit: 24,858,651
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1527050 - Posted: 11 Jun 2014, 21:18:13 UTC - in response to Message 1527030.

Would you know about science?

I know self serving blog B.S. when I smell it. You obsessed people are all alike. You quote fake "science" papers. I looked up your "published" work. Anybody with $500 can be "published" as long as they follow the "guidelines" of the publisher.

Self published, self reviewed B.S.
____________

Profile Bernie Vine
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 May 99
Posts: 7138
Credit: 28,516,265
RAC: 15,961
United Kingdom
Message 1527071 - Posted: 11 Jun 2014, 21:54:02 UTC

Well you say science but from my quote:

There have been 12 detailed reviews of Icons, from scholars familiar with the subject matter, which have come to the consensus that the book's claims are a politically motivated

The scientists say it's political, who to believe?
____________


Today is life, the only life we're sure of. Make the most of today.

Batter UpProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 May 99
Posts: 1946
Credit: 24,858,651
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1527073 - Posted: 11 Jun 2014, 21:57:45 UTC - in response to Message 1527065.

The topic here is clearly MARKED as "More on how Neo-Darwinism has it wrong again..."
So what? Garbage in, garbage out. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it is raining. Your source is B.S. I proved it.
____________

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1527075 - Posted: 11 Jun 2014, 21:58:28 UTC

All of you return to topic, thank you. That topic would be..."More on how Neo-Darwinism has it wrong again...", it's about science. I'll thank you ahead of time for not posting if you don't know the topic.
____________
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Profile betregerProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 2597
Credit: 5,392,052
RAC: 3,228
United States
Message 1527076 - Posted: 11 Jun 2014, 22:00:10 UTC - in response to Message 1527073.

The topic here is clearly MARKED as "More on how Neo-Darwinism has it wrong again..."
So what? Garbage in, garbage out. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it is raining. Your source is B.S. I proved it.

Yes you did.
____________

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1527077 - Posted: 11 Jun 2014, 22:08:08 UTC

The only thing proved is you all know politics. Please address the science, thank you.

Return to topic. ;-)
____________
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 29 · Next

Message boards : Politics : More on how Neo-Darwinism has it wrong again...

Copyright © 2014 University of California