The Scopes Monkey Trial is 100 years old this year; surprisingly we still have evolution-deniers

[Into the Night]

The mystery is the origin of life, the genesis of DNA, but not the evolution of life. We have the broad outline of descent with modification reasonably well worked out.

Heritage is assigned, not 'discovered', Sybil. To say that something is related by evolution to something else is speculation.

We're probably in the middle of another scientific revolution

The Theory of Evolution is not science.

in biology at this point in the 21st century, because it's becoming fairly clear that the neo-Darwinian synthesis of natural selection and genetic mutation actually explains very little about living organisms at the level of systems biology.

There is no such thing as 'neo-Darwinian', Sybil. You're bullshitting again.
Natural selection is not a synthesis.
There is no such thing as 'systems biology'.

 

[Into the Night]

The idea of pure random behavior is critically wrong in understanding evolution. It isn't just throwing up the pieces of a Mazerati and getting one fully assembled. Not even close to that.

Take something like the evolution of the eye. It sure does seem pretty amazing but it can be broken down into smaller, less-developed stages that still have functionality but are not an eye.

Here's what that looks like and the animals that have it:

The key is that it doesn't all just come together in one swoop.

It does. You are completely failing several key items here:
All of the light sensitive cells have nerves, a complex structure feeding an even larger complex structure (the brain).
You completely failed to list the compound eye, which is a perfect eye for detecting movement (which could be food or a threat).
All of these creatures can take in food and digest it (a complex chemical task!).

Sure there's an element of "chance" and probability to it, but there's also a HUGE amount of time to do it in. Evolution has the advantage of working on life over the course of millions of years. Small changes add up in that time.

What "changes"??

 

[Into the Night]

Yes....I do believe religion/mysticism and science are on convergent paths.

No. Science is not religion and never will be.

 

[Into the Night]

The creation is just way too much to fathom. Anyone who says they know how we got here and how we developed and how the hundreds of thousands of different species on Earth had the impetus to develop is blowing pompous smoke out his ass.

The Theory of Creation is also a religion, just as the Theory of Abiogenesis and the Theory of Evolution are.

 

[Into the Night]

Science wouldn't be either fun nor necessary if we already knew the answer to everything.

Science is not "answers", Sybil.

We should expect that reasonable answers are hard to come by, and take monumental efforts of human intellectual toil and creativity.

Science is not "answers", Sybil.

What religious fundamentalists and secular materialists need to learn is that science and religion are asking fundamentally different questions.

Science is not a question either, Sybil. Neither is religion.

My opinion is that at the end of the day truth is ultimately unified,

Science is not religion, Sybil.

and the universe of empirical facts

Go learn what 'fact', 'universe', and 'empirical' means.

and the universe of values dovetail and cross paths in some way we do not understand.

The universe isn't 'values' or a 'dovetail' or a 'path', Sybil.
You are just bullshitting again.

 

[gmark77]

It does. You are completely failing several key items here:
All of the light sensitive cells have nerves, a complex structure feeding an even larger complex structure (the brain).
You completely failed to list the compound eye, which is a perfect eye for detecting movement (which could be food or a threat).
All of these creatures can take in food and digest it (a complex chemical task!).

What "changes"??

Wow, you are incompetent in all topics, aren't you?

 

[Into the Night]

Oh sorry your claim was universal. I didn't see any caveat.s



Darwin was wrong. Thankfully we've had almost 200 years for science to advance and it has.



SO you just opt to IGNORE the science I provided because it disagrees with what someone 200 years ago thought?

That's very poor reasoning.

You provided no theory of science.

 

[Into the Night]

Wow, you are incompetent in all topics, aren't you?

Bulverism fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

LOL.

You can't laugh your way out of your problem, Gunky.

 

[gmark77]

You can't laugh your way out of your problem, Gunky.

Yeah, yeah I can. Especially when you are the one posting the jokes.

 

[gmark77]

You provided no theory of science.

LOL. You're pathetic. All you ever post is stupidity that makes you look dumber than you probably are aiming for.

 

[Into the Night]

Sure, if one doesn't really understand science.

You deny science, Gunky.

It's easy enough to assume the really arcane discussion of what a given mathematical construct results in in reality can seem pretty "mystical", but it's not as mystical as those who would abuse that arcane language would wish.

Random words ignored.

I think it's dangerous to over-extend the link between the "mystical" and the "scientific" if only because it may not be as it appears.

There is no such link.

Science comes to mysticism when it wants to drive home the mysterious aspect to the interpretation,

Science is not religion, Gunky.

and mysticism comes to science when they want to feel like they are onto something real and need confirmation that, indeed, things can seem pretty weird in the world. Murray Gell-Man who helped set up our understanding of subatomic particles, modeled it on the 8-fold way of Buddhism because he was into Buddhism and there was an 8-fold aspect to the model. I don't necessarily think that it means that Buddhism explains quantum anymore than quantum justifies a Buddhist belief.

There is no such thing as 'quantum' in Buddhism or science, Gunky.

One works as a good "cartoon model" to explain how the system is working without going into the technical details. The other is at risk of providing a false sense of understanding of the reality of the situation.

What 'system', Gunky?? What 'reality'??

 

[Yakuda]

People get too hung up on Darwin. Darwin's theory of natural selection was never considered adequate in and of itself to explain evolution. Even in the late 19th and early 20th century, Darwin's theory of natural selection was not widely accepted as adequate to fully explain evolution.

It took the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis combining genetics and natural selection into a complete theory of descent with modification.
Darwin didn't know anything about genes, he and his contemporaries had never heard of them. The significance of genes and the importance of genetic mutation wasn't understood until 60 years after Darwin wrote Origin of Species.

Nothing fully explains "evolution". You know why? Because we are deaf dumb and blind creatures stumbling through a world we barely understand but it makes us feel less afraid if we convince ourselves we know what's going on. And what's the old saying? The more we learn the more we realize how much there is we don't know.

 

[Into the Night]

That isn't the falsifiability criterion for evolution.

There not a theory of science.

We know evolution is real because we have written record of it.

Illiteracy: Plural used as singular.
What 'written record', Gunky???

We have the fossil record to show us the change.

Fossils do not show inheritance, Gunky.

Better than having live video foootage of the process.

Wanna see it in action?

Whales:

How do you know? Your own personal assignments of heredity?

Humans:

How do you know? Your own personal assignments of heredity?

And the ABSOLUTE BEST evidence is that evolution is SO GOOD at its job in the sciences

The Theory of Evolution is not science.

that biology is 100% evolution based,

No, it isn't.

medicine is 100% biology based

No, it isn't.

and hence evolution underlies literally everything keeping you and I alive!

What evolution????

It works.

That's the best "verification" of a theory that I can imagine.

It is not possible to prove a theory True, Gunky.

 

[gmark77]

Nothing fully explains "evolution" you know why? Because we are deaf dumb and blind creatures stumbling through a world.we barely understand but it makes us feel less afraid if we convince ourselves we know what's going on. And what's the old saying? The more we learn the more we realize how much there is we don't know.

What do you mean by "nothing fully explains evolution"? That doesn't make any sense to me.

We know all the relevant processes involved and we know how they operate. Remaining questions may be around details of punctuated equilibrium vs steady-state etc, but basically it's dead simple "how" it works.

 

[Into the Night]

Now you're crab walking backwards into you comfort zone and safe space of strict physical materialism.

Illiteracy: 'physical materialism' is not a word.
Biological error: Crabs tend to walk sideways, nor forwards or backwards (although they can a little).

You evidently read a blog or two that convinced you nothing is true or real unless you can see it, observe it, or touch it.

What 'blog'?????

Fermat's Last Conjecture was finally proven in the 1990s after three centuries,

Fermat's Conjecture has nothing to do with life, biology, or the Theory of Evolution. Random strawman.

and this constitutes exactly the kind of abstract and immaterial truth you never realized exists.

Your strawman is not a proof, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

Yeah, yeah I can. Especially when you are the one posting the jokes.

I'm haven't posted any jokes in this thread, Gunky.

 

[Into the Night]

LOL. You're pathetic.

Mantra 1a. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

All you ever post is stupidity that makes you look dumber than you probably are aiming for.

Bulverism fallacy.

 

[gmark77]

Mantra 1a. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Bulverism fallacy.

And now starts the REAL bullshit posts. They'll go on and on and on with made up or incorrectly applied logic fallacies. This is DREADFULLY boring.

Do you ever bore yourself as much as you bore everyone else?

 

[Into the Night]

What do you mean by "nothing fully explains evolution"? That doesn't make any sense to me.

The Theory of Evolution is a fundamentalist style religion.

We know all the relevant processes involved and we know how they operate.

What "relevant processes"????

Remaining questions may be around details of punctuated equilibrium vs steady-state etc, but basically it's dead simple "how" it works.

There is no such thing as 'punctuated equilibrium, Gunky.