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 Bob DeWoody
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 1360
Credit: 546,925
RAC: 341
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.

Profile CLYDE
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 99
Posts: 1369
Credit: 20,828,303
RAC: 33,677
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 Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 18398
Credit: 3,325,627
RAC: 6,242
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 CLYDE
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 99
Posts: 1369
Credit: 20,828,303
RAC: 33,677
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: 1246
Credit: 36,505
RAC: 82
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 Es99
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 8613
Credit: 244,003
RAC: 144
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: 6782
Credit: 24,426,315
RAC: 26,979
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 Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 18398
Credit: 3,325,627
RAC: 6,242
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.

' '
____________


Batter Up
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 May 99
Posts: 1725
Credit: 24,858,559
RAC: 23
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: 6782
Credit: 24,426,315
RAC: 26,979
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 Up
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 May 99
Posts: 1725
Credit: 24,858,559
RAC: 23
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 betreger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 2086
Credit: 4,362,128
RAC: 7,846
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.
____________

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 29 · Next

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

Copyright © 2014 University of California