Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Loads of profs and docs dissent from Darwinian "consensus"

gorski said:
Oh, yes, he would experiment on anything that moves...:rolleyes:

But he would also share your dismissive attitude to anyone who dares think differently...:hmm: No criticizm in mein shop, nein!!!:rolleyes::D
Click to expand...
Could explain how evolution doesn't happen where you have reproduction in a changing environment?
 
dilute micro said:
No. Darwinism was a simple theory. It would be better for darwinism that things remained simple. But the more people find in all the strange esoteric studies has proven to be not so easy to make it fit with strict darwinism. Lynn Margulis is a good example of a leading naturalist and theorist who has differed with darwinism. She even once called strict darwinism a "cult", iirc.
Click to expand...
Well, I sort of see what you mean, but I think there's a big difference between Margulis' stuff on endosymbiosis and Dembski say ...

The Panda's Thumb has this rather interesting comparison based on literature searches, which shows a very clear difference between controversies that are part of science, ie discussions of group selection, endosymbiosis, punctuated equilibrium etc and controversies that happen outside of science (or I guess if you wanted to be generous, on the margins of science), and which I would claim are largely manufactured around a core of pseudo-science (Dembski, Behe et. al.) by PR people, like the stuff promoted by the Discovery Institute.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/03/where_exactly_c.html

Looking back at the 'Wedge Strategy' document above, this is pretty much what you'd expect. The people talking about Dembski et al overwhelmingly aren't doing so in scientific journals (which are talking about the real scientific controversies like Margulis' ideas though), they're talking about it in op-ed columns and other places where the PR muscle of organisations plugged in to the far right front-group network can place stories about these 'controversies' much as these sort of outfits can place stories about climate change 'controversies' and the awful existential threat posed by Saddam's WMD or his involvement in 911. From the PR point of view though, this is still a success because the general public reads those sources and doesn't read science journals. So the illusion of scientific controversy has been successfully created as required for their agenda.
 
gorski said:
As if that came from a vacuum, yessss?!? And as if you're a stranger to that sort of dismissive "debating", eh

No, that's us experimenting, Crispy and co. - that's not evolution. Fact!!! By definition. But why bother with such details, eh?:rolleyes:

Or with the fact that it is "historical", which means "our own little input is essential" in all this... No such thing as "nothing to do with us, Gov"! Which means, in English, the observer can not merely observe but is also a product of developments around one and as him/herself produced not merely by the "factors without" but also, being Human, "factors within" and hence...

Oh, never mind...:rolleyes:

We have so many geniuses here one can't possibly bring in any new elements into any of this. They need not hear anything at all. There's nothing they can learn from anyone who differs. It's "either-or", nowt else is possible... Eh-hmmmm, ain't you the bad lot... Killer debaters!!!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm not the one being an arrogant, dismissive cunt on this thread, you are. :)

If you don't like being dismissed as the above, why waste so much of your time pontificating and sneering on here, rather than engaging when people question you (with the exception of phildwyer, of course, as you have a mutual appreciation thing going between you)?

People might begin to think you get some sort of perverse pleasure out of being a condescending, eye-rolling twit, if you carry on as you are. ;)
 
Crispy said:
1) So isolating things in the lab to understand them automatically means it has no relevance to the real world?

2) You're dismissing the entire scientific method here. Or at least I think you are.

3) I'm trying not to be rude, but please be a bit more clear and measured in your writing. I find it confusing and hard to tease the meaning from the emotion.
Click to expand...

1) Heh. It means this is NOT evolution. Do NOT jump the gun/leap into conclusions, please! Think carefully, slowly, step by step - not like this, it's... not good, not good!

2) I am not. I am merely pointing out the difficulties. It is not without problems and limitations. Everything can not be jumbled up together in the same bucket and think it's OK. It's not. One doesn't get very far by such "methods"...

3) OK, it's true, you're right. I did kinda give up. Earlier I did carefully write and explain a lot but to no avail [see the thread mentioned earlier in a similar thread to this one, on Darwinism, instincts and whatnot]. So, I gave up, really. Even recently, if you look up under ex-YU economy and similar threads, I still tried but...:oops:

Tired. Besides, the deadline for 5 essays is nigh... 14th August. Pray for me, please....:hmm::( And then the MA thesis by the beginning of Sept. Yayks!:eek:
 
ViolentPanda said:
I'm not the one being an arrogant, dismissive cunt on this thread, you are. :)

If you don't like being dismissed as the above, why waste so much of your time pontificating and sneering on here, rather than engaging when people question you (with the exception of phildwyer, of course, as you have a mutual appreciation thing going between you)?

People might begin to think you get some sort of perverse pleasure out of being a condescending, eye-rolling twit, if you carry on as you are. ;)
Click to expand...

You do it all the time, so kindly piss off.:D

Besides, someone has to...:hmm:

It's laughable and lamentable, all too often...:(
 
No, that's us experimenting, Crispy and co. - that's not evolution.
Click to expand...

What rot. Evolution is a process of change that happens to biological organisms in any given environment as it changes, whether that environment is a petri dish or a rain forest.

FWIW, there's a dozen cited studies in Nature's archive from the last 6 months of observed alterations in animals in the wild, but hey, don't let that put you off your usual anti-evolution rant. IS it because the idea that we are all decended from a common set of genes worries you and your 'Empire of Freedom' rubbish? I'd suggest you start with 'Your Inner Fish' by Neil Shubin, a popular science book based on 4 peer reviewed paleo-forensic studies into the development of DNA on planet earth.

Much as with phil, I think it comes down to the lack of rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty, which is where lots of philosophy lives, and it's fear for a livelihood as much as some kind of disdain for science. And all this crap about 'critical thinking' - what, because we accept that evolution happens we are unable to think critically, as opposed to being an I that is a we that wants to be an I? Perhaps applying some critical thinking to God Hegel might yield some results...
 
NO! You enlighten us how does my post have anything to do with yours?

Originally Posted by gorski
Oh, yes, he would experiment on anything that moves...:rolleyes:

But he would also share your dismissive attitude to anyone who dares think differently...:hmm: No criticizm in mein shop, nein!!!:rolleyes::D
Click to expand...

And your blah-blah to it:

Could explain how evolution doesn't happen where you have reproduction in a changing environment?
Click to expand...

:p
 
gorski said:
Crikey! Any of you have any idea about the very nature of an experiment?
Click to expand...

Yes:rolleyes:, but you don't, you patronising :rolleyes: failed :D philosophy student.:(

Where did it say in the definition of evolution that it can't occur in a controlled environment:hmm:? Hmm?
 
gorski said:
NO! You enlighten us how does my post have anything to do with yours?



And your blah-blah to it:



:p
Click to expand...
I actually quoted the wrong post - it was just a way to put a question to you without going @ gorski.

Lazy of me. I apologise for any confusion.

Now answer at least one of my straight questions please.
 
888 said:
Yes, but you don't, you patronising failed philosophy student.

Where did it say in the definition of evolution that it can't occur in a controlled experiment?
Click to expand...

Bhat Bhat Bhat, more like, for you - "dogma's r us"...:rolleyes::p:D Failed Human Being come animal...:D

You really need to learn a few things, before you embarrass yourself like this... Even Wiki knows of essential difficulties with it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-experiment/ - even in Physics!

And I'm not even gonna try with Heidegger and co. with you lot!!!:p
 
gorski said:
Bhat Bhat Bhat, more like, for you - "dogma's r us"...:rolleyes::p:D Failed Human Being come animal...:D

You really need to learn a few things, before you embarrass yourself like this... Even Wiki knows of essential difficulties with it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-experiment/ - even in Physics!

And I'm not even gonna try with Heidegger and co. with you lot!!!:p
Click to expand...

I've actually conducted scientific experiments, unlike you. I know what an experiment is. You have totally failed to explain how, for example, this is not a demonstration of evolution in a lab.
 
You twats, you really think that any intelligent person is gonna "forget" how you just jump over the somewhat "inconvenient" stuff in those articles?!?:rolleyes::p:D Poor deluded twats!:cool:
 
888 said:
I've actually conducted scientific experiments, unlike you. I know what an experiment is. You have totally failed to explain how, for example, this is not a demonstration of evolution in a lab.
Click to expand...

Crikey, what a level - New Scientist....:rolleyes::D:D:D
 
888 said:
They always choose the least-informed-about-science-in-general groups of 'scientists' to sign their documents...
Click to expand...
There will be authoritarian attitudes and cliques in science as long as scientists are human. You don't have to be a scientist to understand darwinism or evolution. It's the same for everybody whether it's you and I or the Dawkinses or Goulds. Everybody gets into it as a hobby and there is no ownership.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
Well, I sort of see what you mean, but I think there's a big difference between Margulis' stuff on endosymbiosis and Dembski say ...

The Panda's Thumb has this rather interesting comparison based on literature searches, which shows a very clear difference between controversies that are part of science, ie discussions of group selection, endosymbiosis, punctuated equilibrium etc and controversies that happen outside of science (or I guess if you wanted to be generous, on the margins of science), and which I would claim are largely manufactured around a core of pseudo-science (Dembski, Behe et. al.) by PR people, like the stuff promoted by the Discovery Institute.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/03/where_exactly_c.html

Looking back at the 'Wedge Strategy' document above, this is pretty much what you'd expect. The people talking about Dembski et al overwhelmingly aren't doing so in scientific journals (which are talking about the real scientific controversies like Margulis' ideas though), they're talking about it in op-ed columns and other places where the PR muscle of organisations plugged in to the far right front-group network can place stories about these 'controversies' much as these sort of outfits can place stories about climate change 'controversies' and the awful existential threat posed by Saddam's WMD or his involvement in 911. From the PR point of view though, this is still a success because the general public reads those sources and doesn't read science journals. So the illusion of scientific controversy has been successfully created as required for their agenda.
Click to expand...

But I'd argue differently. Some of the complaints coming from the dissenters are valid. Over the years since Darwin there's developed an 'us / them' fissure between scientists that isn't simply defined as naturalists vs supernaturalists. What exists is a dual struggle of separate ideological debates that overlie each other.

The ultimate underlying one is naturalist vs creationist. But human nature caused a religious congealing of both sides. Such to the point that, like children, the attitudes became, "we don't believe anything you say" and worse, "we believe the opposite of what you say".

This cliquing has had a more damaging effect in the group of naturalists than creationists. Where back in the old days it would be expected of creationists to stick to dogma and interpret the universe accordingly, now you have naturalists adhering to dogma as a defense against creationists. And this is the second struggle which takes place in both camps. Within the community of naturalists there has developed a static, religious devotion to the god of textbook Darwinism and when a fellow naturalist finds something that doesn't match up he or she is dealt with almost cathlolic style. To understand how this happens you have to understand the social structure of the community of naturalists. They're not all the same. The ruling class are orthodox darwinists, no different than the orangutans in Planet of the Apes. Their ideas are outdated - it doesn't matter. They are the chief defenders of 'naturalism'. This is because their main fight is against creationism in the non-scientific arena. When a 'radical' unorthodox naturalist says something they don't like you get the situation Margulis was in where it's taken as protestant language.

The very same thing exists in the creationist camp. They went from a near unison of young-earth dogmatism to separating into factions. For them the ruling class are the young-earthers who control christian academia. It is not the ruling class of creationists that are in the Wedge fight. They are actually the liberal end.

The factional landscape of thought is ignored when the public arena and academia are given a dumbed down, oversimplified version of the state of science, Darwinism, evolution, etc. The problem with dogmatic alignment and its effect in the debate of origins is that the principles of science have been ignored in the fight over "principled science". Generally speaking, both sides are guilty of non-science. And that's just the facts.
 
gorski said:
Hehe, maybe you are an animal.../...
Click to expand...

I think you are already informed about the fact that you are an animal too. At least if you want to pass for a human. Maybe you are an Alien.

We have so many geniuses here one can't possibly bring in any new elements into any of this. They need not hear anything at all. There's nothing they can learn from anyone who differs. It's "either-or", nowt else is possible... Eh-hmmmm, ain't you the bad lot... Killer debaters!!!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

:)
From this I get the clear message that you have no experience with being a genius.

gorski said:
And I'm not even gonna try with Heidegger and co. with you lot!!!:p
Click to expand...

I'm devastated.

gorski said:
You twats, you really think that any intelligent person is gonna "forget" how you just jump over the somewhat "inconvenient" stuff in those articles?!?Poor deluded twats!
Click to expand...

"somewhat inconvenient stuff"? Such high-level academic language is too much for me, really, and then I don't even touch the "poor deluded twats" footnote... You're showing off, aren't you?

salaam.
 
dilute micro said:
<snip>

The very same thing exists in the creationist camp. They went from a near unison of young-earth dogmatism to separating into factions. For them the ruling class are the young-earthers who control christian academia. It is not the ruling class of creationists that are in the Wedge fight. They are actually the liberal end.

<snip>
Click to expand...
That's an interesting perspective on it. This sort of stuff isn't too visible over here.

On the Margulis / Dembski comparison though, for me the fundamental thing is that Margulis and co are recognisably doing science and Dembski isn't. He's playing fast and loose with a fairly obscure branch of mathematics (one that I happen to understand a little bit) in order to pull the wool over people's eyes.

I concede that there might also be other criteria in play, as many scientists engaged in this area are likely to be well aware that Dembski and Behe are being used as the creationists 'Wedge' to undermine evolutionary biology for cultural reasons and don't have any reason to suspect that about the group selection guys say. They might have given Margulis, Gould or Wynn-Edwards a hard time because their ideas did challenge 'textbook darwinism', but their stuff got past peer-review (with some tribulations to be sure) and ultimately these issues ended up being argued in scientific terms. Last time I looked, at least the core of Margulis' endosymbiosis idea had *become* the orthodox view. If Dembski and co had some actual science going on, I think that they'd get at least some traction in the journals, if only because so many evolutionary biologists would jump at the chance to refute their stuff in scientific terms.

They don't though, beyond the initial reviews, because as Pauli once said:

'That's not right. It's not even wrong.'
 
This, forgive me if I misunderstood somewhat, sounds a bit like the almighty kerfuffle between the theists and atheists thinking they have everything sorted between themselves and theirs is the most sophisticated of positions...

And then there are the agnostics...;):cool:

[Alde, you really are a laugh! :D]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Spymaster
First Space Launch From UK Soil Today
2 3 4 5
Replies
131
Views
4K
T & P
T & P
Sasaferrato
Time started from the Big Bang? Why
Replies
13
Views
469
Signal 11
Signal 11
H
Carbon-neutral fuel made from sunlight and air
Replies
1
Views
270
HAL9000
H
StoneRoad
URGENT [Another] petition to protect Bees from neonictiniods / pesticides
Replies
3
Views
252
bcuster
bcuster
fishfinger
Watch a 10-Year Time Lapse of Sun From NASA’s SDO
Replies
24
Views
709
ska invita
ska invita
Back
Top Bottom