New theory of evolution needed

The demise of Neo-Darwinism

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

New theory of evolution needed

#1  Postby Wortfish » Jul 26, 2022 11:46 pm

A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul. Their opponents have dismissed them as misguided careerists – and the conflict may determine the future of biology

https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... -evolution
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1006

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: New theory of evolution needed

#2  Postby Thommo » Jul 27, 2022 12:59 am

Headline in The Guardian wrote wrote:Do we need a new theory of evolution?


Betteridge's Law of Headlines
Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27343

Print view this post

Re: New theory of evolution needed

#3  Postby romansh » Jul 27, 2022 1:36 am

A knowledgeable rebuttal here and here
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2968

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: New theory of evolution needed

#4  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 27, 2022 6:06 am

Wortfish wrote:
A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul. Their opponents have dismissed them as misguided careerists – and the conflict may determine the future of biology

https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... -evolution



The 'news' with respect to this thread is:

Evolutionary biologists, like all scientists in all fields, are working to improve their understanding of the world by refining their models.

Creationists, lending blind allegiance to an ancient story that was long ago shown by evidence to be belief not fact, mis-read the normal process of scientific progress as if it were in some way an aid to the abjectly failed Creationist hypothesis not realizing STILL that the only thing that's going to help their cause is evidence that supports their claim.

Even where evolutionary biology to be shown flawed beyond redemption, all that would do is put it in the same category as Creationism: a failed belief. It wouldn't elevate Creationism.

But of course, that's not at all what's happening here in the article, despite bad faith readings. What the article says is that these scientists are making observations of aspects of evolution not currently accounted for, and are thus proposing scientific hypotheses that ADD to the theory of evolution, not contradict it as per the lazy wave at the title you tried to use rather than submitting any substance.

Creationism does something bad to the brain. I doubt you, Wortfish, are an incorrigible liar, rather, I expect that you consider truth, honesty, and integrity to be important, not just to you personally, but also as part of your religious belief. However, the Creationism element - amped up by propaganda outlets feeding you bullshit - has caused you to engage in all manner of deceptive misinformation. This thread is such an example.

What we still can say with absolute certainty, despite such shenanigans, is that any advancement in our knowledge of biology and biological systems is going to come via scientific method, not prayer or faith or reading the Bible. Evolution is not a failed paradigm like Creationism.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 32143
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: New theory of evolution needed

#5  Postby felltoearth » Jul 27, 2022 2:16 pm

IOW, *IF* evolution by natural selection were shown to be completely false (something that hasn’t happened, to be clear) it doesn’t make Creationism true. Creationism has to stand on its own evidence, of which there isn’t any.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 14718
Age: 55

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: New theory of evolution needed

#6  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 29, 2022 6:11 am

I didn't even notice the hilarious sub-title.

The demise of Neo-Darwinism


What year is it again? 1922?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 32143
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: New theory of evolution needed

#7  Postby Rumraket » Jul 29, 2022 9:35 pm

Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13241
Age: 42

Print view this post

Re: New theory of evolution needed

#8  Postby Wortfish » Dec 03, 2022 2:32 am

We’re not here to explain the elephant’s trunk, or the camel’s hump. If such explanations could even be possible,” Brian Charlesworth told me. Instead, he said, evolutionary theory should be universal, focusing on the small number of factors that apply to how every living thing develops. “It’s easy to get hung up on ‘you haven’t explained why a particular system works the way it does’. But we don’t need to know,” Deborah told me. It’s not that the exceptions are uninteresting; it’s just that they aren’t all that important.
:shock: :shock: :shock: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty:

I think explaining how distinct complex traits emerge is central to the credibility of evolutionary theory.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1006

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: New theory of evolution needed

#9  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 03, 2022 2:58 am

Wortfish wrote:
We’re not here to explain the elephant’s trunk, or the camel’s hump. If such explanations could even be possible,” Brian Charlesworth told me. Instead, he said, evolutionary theory should be universal, focusing on the small number of factors that apply to how every living thing develops. “It’s easy to get hung up on ‘you haven’t explained why a particular system works the way it does’. But we don’t need to know,” Deborah told me. It’s not that the exceptions are uninteresting; it’s just that they aren’t all that important.
:shock: :shock: :shock: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty:

I think explaining how distinct complex traits emerge is central to the credibility of evolutionary theory.



Just-so

1) used to express agreement

Oh no.

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

Science should act like religion in order to be satisfyingly credible to you.

Meanwhile, science has and never will have any interest in anything you've got to say because you're not involved in doing science. That's the thing about science - you can sit there incomprehendingly shaking your fist at it all you like, and it achieves bugger all. Science just continues on, unaware of the self-important gnat.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 32143
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: New theory of evolution needed

#10  Postby Fenrir » Dec 03, 2022 10:35 am

Wortfish wrote:
We’re not here to explain the elephant’s trunk, or the camel’s hump. If such explanations could even be possible,” Brian Charlesworth told me. Instead, he said, evolutionary theory should be universal, focusing on the small number of factors that apply to how every living thing develops. “It’s easy to get hung up on ‘you haven’t explained why a particular system works the way it does’. But we don’t need to know,” Deborah told me. It’s not that the exceptions are uninteresting; it’s just that they aren’t all that important.
:shock: :shock: :shock: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty:

I think explaining how distinct complex traits emerge is central to the credibility of evolutionary theory.


Do you lot ever come up with anything new or interesting?

Ever?


Dawkins wrote:"The following is hypothetical but entirely typical. A creationist speaking: 'The elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog is irreducibly complex. No part of it would do any good at all until the whole was assembled. Bet you can't think of a way in which the weasel frog's elbow could have evolved by slow gradual degrees.' If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, the creationist draws a default conclusion: 'Right then, the alternative theory, "intelligent design," wins by default.'"
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3815
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Re: New theory of evolution needed

#11  Postby Wortfish » Dec 03, 2022 11:59 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Meanwhile, science has and never will have any interest in anything you've got to say because you're not involved in doing science. That's the thing about science - you can sit there incomprehendingly shaking your fist at it all you like, and it achieves bugger all. Science just continues on, unaware of the self-important gnat.


EVO-DEVO tries to explain the diversity of biological form: https://www.sdbonline.org/sites/fly/lew ... uzzleq.htm

Evo-devo seeks to decipher how genomic tinkering has resulted in anatomical alterations via developmental reprogramming.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1006

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: New theory of evolution needed

#12  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 03, 2022 1:16 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Meanwhile, science has and never will have any interest in anything you've got to say because you're not involved in doing science. That's the thing about science - you can sit there incomprehendingly shaking your fist at it all you like, and it achieves bugger all. Science just continues on, unaware of the self-important gnat.


EVO-DEVO tries to explain the diversity of biological form: https://www.sdbonline.org/sites/fly/lew ... uzzleq.htm

Evo-devo seeks to decipher how genomic tinkering has resulted in anatomical alterations via developmental reprogramming.



Which shows you didn't read the post, else you would've seen me refer to just-so stories, you would've clicked the link I provided about them, and you wouldn't have felt the need to 'tell me' what was already written in the link you were supposedly replying to.




The Link I Cited And You Ignored wrote:In science and philosophy, a just-so story is an untestable narrative explanation for a cultural practice, a biological trait, or behavior of humans or other animals. The pejorative[1] nature of the expression is an implicit criticism that reminds the listener of the essentially fictional and unprovable nature of such an explanation. Such tales are common in folklore genres like mythology (where they are known as etiological myths – see etiology).

...

It has been used to criticize evolutionary explanations of traits that have been proposed to be adaptations, particularly in the evolution–creation debates[4] and in debates regarding research methods in sociobiology[2] and evolutionary psychology.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 32143
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: New theory of evolution needed

#13  Postby THWOTH » Dec 04, 2022 12:28 pm

I respect the rights of creationists to believe whatever they want. It is regrettable that they generally do not extend that simple courtesy to people who believe they're misguided, misinformed, or just factually incorrect.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Posts: 37217
Age: 57

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: New theory of evolution needed

#14  Postby Wortfish » Dec 04, 2022 1:39 pm

THWOTH wrote:I respect the rights of creationists to believe whatever they want. It is regrettable that they generally do not extend that simple courtesy to people who believe they're misguided, misinformed, or just factually incorrect.


Unless evolutionists can demonstrate how the ancestors of elephants evolved trunks, and camels their humps, or cetaceans evolved flukes, then their theory becomes limited to the study of small biological changes that creationists do not dispute.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1006

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: New theory of evolution needed

#15  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 04, 2022 1:49 pm

Wortfish wrote:
THWOTH wrote:I respect the rights of creationists to believe whatever they want. It is regrettable that they generally do not extend that simple courtesy to people who believe they're misguided, misinformed, or just factually incorrect.


Unless evolutionists can demonstrate how the ancestors of elephants evolved trunks, and camels their humps, or cetaceans evolved flukes, then their theory becomes limited to the study of small biological changes that creationists do not dispute.


Elephants wiggled their noses and grew trunks.

Camels shook their backs and grew humps.

Whales accidentally swallowed some ugh salty sea-water so they migrated their blow...


Yeah, it's another iteration of Creationists making absolutely fucking stupid demands, and the stakes are their acceptance of science.

As if science gives two hoots whether you want to disbelieve it on stupid grounds or not.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 32143
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: New theory of evolution needed

#16  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 04, 2022 1:50 pm

Time to make like a whale's blowhole and migrate this nonsense to a proper place.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 32143
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: New theory of evolution needed

#17  Postby Fenrir » Dec 04, 2022 2:03 pm

Wortfish wrote:
THWOTH wrote:I respect the rights of creationists to believe whatever they want. It is regrettable that they generally do not extend that simple courtesy to people who believe they're misguided, misinformed, or just factually incorrect.


Unless evolutionists can demonstrate how the ancestors of elephants evolved trunks, and camels their humps, or cetaceans evolved flukes, then their theory becomes limited to the study of small biological changes that creationists do not dispute.


there is an extensive literature on each of these topics.

that doesn't suit your agenda though does it.

would you like your "demonstration" in real time or would objective data from numerous different disciplines which all converge on the same mechanism do? don't answer that, rhetorical question.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3815
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Re: New theory of evolution needed

#18  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 04, 2022 2:10 pm

Spearthrower wrote:That's the thing about science - you can sit there uncomprehendingly shaking your fist at it all you like, and it achieves bugger all. Science just continues on, unaware of the self-important gnat.


Process it Wortfish.

Even were you somehow to convince some people somewhere that your Creationist lies are true, you'd still have achieved nothing at all with respect to science.

What's true or not in science isn't decided by democratic vote or gulling fools into believing bullshit - at the end of the day, it's always going to come back to what the evidence shows.

The evidence shows in spades that all life on this planet evolved from common ancestors over hundreds of millions, and billions of years.

That's the thing about facts: you don't have to like them (do you think those of us who aren't in denial of empirical reality are enamored with the absolutely wasteful and uncaring process that causes the diversification of life?), it's not obligatory to like it - but pretending facts aren't real just leads to self-inflicted ignorance, and harms no one else but you.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 32143
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: New theory of evolution needed

#19  Postby THWOTH » Dec 05, 2022 11:46 am

Wortfish wrote:
THWOTH wrote:I respect the rights of creationists to believe whatever they want. It is regrettable that they generally do not extend that simple courtesy to people who believe they're misguided, misinformed, or just factually incorrect.


Unless evolutionists can demonstrate how the ancestors of elephants evolved trunks, and camels their humps, or cetaceans evolved flukes, then their theory becomes limited to the study of small biological changes that creationists do not dispute.


That's right: Evolution is "the study of small biological (and behavioural) changes" of populations in response to the environmental conditions in which those populations reside. So that has been demonstrated. Evolution fully accounts for elephants' trunks, giraffes' necks, or why the life cycle of a particular wasp relies on laying it's eggs in the eye of a mammal. Just not to the satisfaction of creationists.

Your comment did not address the point of the post you quoted btw.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Posts: 37217
Age: 57

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: New theory of evolution needed

#20  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 05, 2022 2:01 pm

What he really wants, and is an entirely typical Creationist deceit, is to set up a system in which he can pretend that he's the arbiter as he set tasks for people to run around satisfying, but which have no end ever until every single one of his demands for a narrative chronology, of every trait he can conceive of, is satisfied to his expectations. And those expectations are driven solely by ideology uncritically hostility to any product of science which can't be corralled into his entirely unevidenced religious persuasions.

You may have stolen the concept, Wortfish, but you don't get to use it.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... pt-Fallacy

Description: Requiring the truth of the something that you are simultaneously trying to disprove.

Person 1 is attempting to disprove X.
X is required to disprove X.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 32143
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post


Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests