Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Scientific American answers 15 common dumbasseries


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#16 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,393 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 01:07 PM

why the constant mention of Darwin when discussing evolution? it has grown exponentially since him as we have expanded our understanding.

people don't constantly mention Newton and call it Newtonism when talking about gravity, do they?

#17 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,078 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 01:09 PM

why the constant mention of Darwin when discussing evolution? it has grown exponentially since him as we have expanded our understanding.

people don't constantly mention Newton and call it Newtonism when talking about gravity, do they?



Excellent observation, I've noticed that happens a lot when talking about evolution. :cheers2:

Maybe cause it makes it sound like one mans theory from ages ago.

#18 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,393 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 01:11 PM

exactly. that way it's one old man and his 'followers' against god, and not science/truth.

#19 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,078 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 01:16 PM

exactly. that way it's one old man and his 'followers' against god, and not science/truth.


Also I noticed creationist like to replace the word evolution with Darwinism

Edited by Cat, 21 May 2009 - 02:01 PM.


#20 Epistaxis

Epistaxis

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,182 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 01:37 PM

Just because someone wrote a book doesn't make them all knowing...Mankind is relatively stupid with a few very nice achievements along the way. Nobody knows everything, but there are some that think they do. The fact is that even if evolution (as Darwin hypothisized) turns out to be completely on the mark, it doesn't disprove an existence of God at all. The complexity of life is amazing. The complexity of a cell is amazing. I'm not one to buy into the "well, random accident" line of thinking.


Complexity is a direct result of Natural Selection and Evolution.

It is ANYTHING BUT random, and the furthest thing from accidental.

You cite two of the most common fundamental misunderstandings of Biology.

7. Is evolution a random process?

Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment.
http://www.pbs.org/w.../faq/cat01.html

Darwinism is widely misunderstood as a theory of pure chance. Mustn't it have done something to provoke this canard? Well, yes, there is something behind the misunderstood rumour, a feeble basis to the distortion. one stage in the Darwinian process is indeed a chance process -- mutation. Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection and it is usually described as random. But Darwinians make the fuss they do about the 'randomness' of mutation only in order to contrast it to the non-randomness of selection. It is not necessary that mutation should be random for natural selection to work. Selection can still do its work whether mutation is directed or not. Emphasizing that mutation can be random is our way of calling attention to the crucial fact that, by contrast, selection is sublimely and quintessentially non-random. It is ironic that this emphasis on the contrast between mutation and the non-randomness of selection has led people to think that the whole theory is a theory of chance.

Even mutations are, as a matter of fact, non-random in various senses, although these senses aren't relevant to our discussion because they don't contribute constructively to the improbable perfection of organisms. For example, mutations have well-understood physical causes, and to this extent they are non-random. ... the great majority of mutations, however caused, are random with respect to quality, and that means they are usually bad because there are more ways of getting worse than of getting better. [Dawkins 1996:70-71]

http://www.talkorigi...nce/chance.html

People don't get that last part, like EVER.
Bad mutations outnumber good beneficial mutations. But they get selected out. So what you SEE is the "perfection of God's creations". But what you didn't see was the crappy stuff that got left behind. And the imperfections (conveniently ignored by those that espouse God, wait, He didn't in fact make everything perfect? :)) are either good enough to get by for the animal, or the next step is so expensive in energy requirements that it hasn't happened. Many other reasons exist, I'm oversimplifying for the sake of bandwidth.

Please. Read The Blind Watchmaker. Ignore the title The God Delusion. Read it.

Challenge yourself.
Think.

#21 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,078 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 01:57 PM

I love PBS.

Has anyone watched any of the videos on PBS Nova?

Htar if you are interested in looking more into evolution, i really recommend watching some of there videos over there. they are excellent.

Edited by Cat, 21 May 2009 - 02:00 PM.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.