Originally posted by ivanhoeIt's old...viz. Haeckel & his influence on psycho-analysis, Rudolf Steiner, Piaget...Interestingly Haeckel (whose science was flawed) had a great follower in Adolf Hitler. So, yes, 'evolutionism' (as opposed to any kind of honest evolutionary science, conscious of its own lacunae) was a very influential 20th century way of thinking...Dawkins shows every sign of becoming yet another science-messiah, using a respectable scientific career as spring-board for the most dubious egomaniacal undertakings (Freud was an illustrious example)...His insistence on talking about his theoretical 'memes' as though their existence were a proven fact supports this view.
What do you think ? Is "Evolutionism" still a "normal" scientific theory or has it become a new ideology, a new "way of thinking" ?
Originally posted by PinkFloydYou seem to be in need of a biology 101 passing grade. You're describing abiogenesis.
Okay--I'm waiting. How? What size lab will I need to test whether or not a bunch of amino acids, lightning, water, and phosphates can mix into a soup and a living being will appear? And I don't have all eon--I'm late for lunch already!😀
Originally posted by PinkFloydDid you watch the video?
I still don't see it. There may indeed be some tests I might try yo run, to confirm or debunk evolution, but I still haven't been presented with one. If evolution generates testable predictions, I'm game; where do we start? The platypus perhaps? 😀
Maybe you've heard of MRSA? Or cladistics?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt's old...viz. Haeckel & his influence on psycho-analysis, Rudolf Steiner, Piaget...Interestingly Haeckel (whose science was flawed) had a great follower in Adolf Hitler. So, yes, 'evolutionism' (as opposed to any kind of honest evolutionary science, conscious of its own lacunae) was a very influential 20th century way of thinking...
It's old...viz. Haeckel & his influence on psycho-analysis, Rudolf Steiner, Piaget...Interestingly Haeckel (whose science was flawed) had a great follower in Adolf Hitler. So, yes, 'evolutionism' (as opposed to any kind of honest evolutionary science, conscious of its own lacunae) was a very influential 20th century way of thinking...Dawkins shows ever ...[text shortened]... ut his theoretical 'memes' as though their existence were a proven fact supports this view.
Actually, I believe that was "National Socialism".
Dawkins shows every sign of becoming yet another science-messiah, using a respectable scientific career as spring-board for the most dubious egomaniacal undertakings (Freud was an illustrious example)...
Perhaps scientists aren't allowed to have or express opinions outside their field? maybe I just missed that memo. Tell me, when I post here, am I using my scientific career as a springboard for my opinions?
His insistence on talking about his theoretical 'memes' as though their existence were a proven fact supports this view.
Are ideas not real in your world?
Originally posted by PinkFloydThe scientific process oscillates between forming and testing hypotheses. Some hypotheses can be tested in a lab (e.g. cold fusion). Others are observational (e.g. whether smoking causes cancer) and can only be tested by other observations.
I still don't see it. There may indeed be some tests I might try yo run, to confirm or debunk evolution, but I still haven't been presented with one. If evolution generates testable predictions, I'm game; where do we start? The platypus perhaps? 😀
A theory is a general explanation of things. A hypothesis is what you test to decide whether or not the theory needs modification.
So the theory of God might say, "A supernatural Being exists who loves me and protects me from physical harm." But a hypothesis about God might be, "Since God loves me, he will hold me up in the air when I walk off this cliff."
Similarly for evolution: "Evolution means that new species come into existence through modifications to existing ones." And a hypothesis might be, "If horses with single hooves evolved from creatures with 5 toes, we should find fossil evidence of pre-horses with 2, 3, and 4 toes in strata of increasing age."
So to debunk evolution, you need to frame a hypothesis where one of the alternatives is clearly inconsistent with the theory, and then offer proof that that alternative is correct. Easy enough -- right?
But I didn't quite get your example -- "If platypuses exist, then..." Is there something about the platypus that is inconsistent with evolution in your view?
Originally posted by spruce112358I'd rec this if I could. This is by far the best explanation of the difference between hypothesis and theory wrt the TOEv that I can remember ever seeing.
The scientific process oscillates between forming and testing hypotheses. Some hypotheses can be tested in a lab (e.g. cold fusion). Others are observational (e.g. whether smoking causes cancer) and can only be tested by other observations.
A theory is a general explanation of things. A hypothesis is what you test to decide whether or not the theory ...[text shortened]... there something about the platypus that is inconsistent with evolution in your view?
Originally posted by ivanhoeOnly in a religion dominated society like the US can you have a debate about whether or not science is science.🙄
Usually, scientific theories are being discussed in the realm of the sciences .......... but it seems to me that in the present American ideological landscape "Evolutionism" ( ... with a capital "E" !) is more and more seen and treated as a new overall ideology, both by its advocates and its opponents. An ideology, not just capable of explaining how species ...[text shortened]... ientific theory or has it become a new ideology, a new "way of thinking" ?
Originally posted by PinkFloydMRSA is an ideal example of evolution in action. An example of a bacteria's genetic code changing in response to selective pressure.
MRSA, yes. Never heard of cladistics.
Cladistics is a form of statistical analysis for exploring relationships between species. If evolution were false, and creationism true, there is no reason why cladistics should work. It is a good test of evolution though, since evolution would predict similarities in DNA between similar species, and that all species can be grouped, and are related genetically. If cladistics was not able to do that, evolution would be in trouble as a theory.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzCladistics is assumed to work. You just declare certain traits to have independently arisen if you run into problems.
MRSA is an ideal example of evolution in action. An example of a bacteria's genetic code changing in response to selective pressure.
Cladistics is a form of statistical analysis for exploring relationships between species. If evolution were false, and creationism true, there is no reason why cladistics should work. It is a good test of evolution t ...[text shortened]... genetically. If cladistics was not able to do that, evolution would be in trouble as a theory.
What does it mean that cladistics "works"?
Cladistics is the discipline of making cladograms right? Or am I clueless?
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI fear it is risky to say that genetic code changes in response to selective pressure as you suggest. I understood that random mutations arise periodically, (hence in response to nothing whatever) some of which enhance and others hinder the ability to survive and reproduce. What is key here is not that change happens but that some random change survives to reproduce. The direction of causation / sequence of events is important. Change does not arise "in order to" but "because of." Bacteria happen to display frequent random variations which result in their ability to evolve new strains quickly.
MRSA is an ideal example of evolution in action. An example of a bacteria's genetic code changing in response to selective pressure.
Cladistics is a form of statistical analysis for exploring relationships between species. If evolution were false, and creationism true, there is no reason why cladistics should work. It is a good test of evolution t ...[text shortened]... genetically. If cladistics was not able to do that, evolution would be in trouble as a theory.
But why are we looking for new and current experiments to test evolution when Darwin put his life into that work? Essentially he was confronted by the theory of Intelligent Design (nothing new there) and the alternative possibility that evolution (not his idea) arises through random, chance events. He showed that the second (chance) was perfectly viable to account for the data from detailed investigation. The first (intelligent design) was far less credible owing not only to the cack handed and often faulty way much of biology is constructed but also because of such evidence as the retention of redundant strcutures and sometimes their finding of a new, different function. Such structures as the eye actually are more readily explained as the product of successive changes through time than as the product of design for a purpose.
It was essential to his theory to also accept the immense evidence in work by Lyall and others showing the age of the planet to be measured in hundred of millions of years and allowing enough time for evolution to work. Again, based on evidence and research.
So evolution as a theory can be tested and Darwin did the tests which he reported in a beautifully readable text, the theory of evolution THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION. That is, IF we are to have a theory of evolution we need to describe how it works. Darwin thought the evidence is best accounted for if evolution works through random events and natural selection. He was reluctant to accept his own theory because he saw himself as Christian and the theory as potentially atheistic and so tested it over and over again in the hope of being wrong. Experiment, research, evidence and the blindingly obvious drove him at last to publish because, as we might expect of such a good model, others were beginning to arrive at the same conclusions based on similar evidence which surrounds us when we know how to look.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI can talk about National Socialism without using inverted commas, but when I talk about 'evolutionism' it's with kid gloves on, as it were, because I know full well it isn't an accepted term, although it alludes to a certain tendency worth examining. None of which detracts from Haeckel's mendacity and influence. Here's an example culled from the Web... http://darwinianfundamentalism.blogspot.com/2007/06/abscheulich-atrocious-stephen-jay-gould.html
Actually, I believe that was "National Socialism".///
Perhaps scientists aren't allowed to have or express opinions outside their field? maybe I just missed that memo. Tell me, when I post here, am I using my scientific career as a springboard for my opinions? ///
[b]His insistence on talking about his theoretical 'memes' as though their existence were a proven fact supports this view.
Are ideas not real in your world?[/b]
Point two: You're not the topic of the conversation!
Point three: Are...ideas...real...Has the Flying Spaghetti Monster come to call? Welcome, Noodly One...I know that you are real...
