Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Of course. With my experiences, people often think he was the complete frontier on evolutionary biology and natural selection. This is just not true.
That is another reason the term 'Darwinism' or 'Darwinian evolution' should never be used. Thank you for supporting my point.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is another reason the term 'Darwinism' or 'Darwinian evolution' should never be used. Thank you for supporting my point.
Good god, Shaky. I don't disagree. I don't think it should be utilized either. Unfortunately, it still is. That's why the aforementioned term and "Evolutionary Biology" go hand in hand.
It's similar to "Ironic" and "Ironical" without the circumstance. Only one is really necessary.
Originally posted by Forum NinjaThis would be the same as saying that Einstein shouldn't get credit for the Theory of Relativity because he didn't come up with Science, Math and all of that. Almost any theory that is out there and any science is based on something before it, almost nothing is completely new.
Well, it's not necessarily that. I don't think he deserves full recognition considering Erasmus assisted his theories. (His grandfather)I did not explain fully, however. It was an error on my behalf. This is what I intended when I stated people often missed that.
Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Good god, Shaky. I don't disagree. I don't think it should be utilized either. Unfortunately, it still is. That's why the aforementioned term and "Evolutionary Biology" go hand in hand.It's similar to "Ironic" and "Ironical" without the circumstance. Only one is really necessary.
Then why make the big fuss?
If you want to know why I am making the big fuss? There are a lot of fundamentalist Christians who glom onto the term 'Darwinism' as if it was an ice-cream cone in a two year old's hand. They are gleefully blinded about every flaw they can make up about the man and then apply it to evolution. I just wanted to knock the scoop off the cone.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
This would be the same as saying that Einstein shouldn't get credit for the Theory of Relativity because he didn't come up with Science, Math and all of that. Almost any theory that is out there and any science is based on something before it, almost nothing is completely new.
No, that's ridiculous and you're twisting what I'm saying.
I never said Darwin shouldn't receive credit because he didn't come up with the theory of evolution, science, etc. I merely said Erasmus deserved credit as well for largely helping Darwin.
Stick to laughing at the thread, yeah?
And James Burnett did the work that Erasmus based his principals off of. EDIT: which was (apparently) informed by Rousseau, who in turn was informed by many other enlightenment era thinkers, who based their ideas off of the rennissance which was fostered by Aquinas and a return to Aristatalian logic brought by Islamic thinkers (Ibn Sena [Avicenna], Ibn Rushd [Averroes], Al-Ghafar) to Spain and Sicily through Muslim conquest. This knowledge was originally brought to the Muslim world by Haipatia and other scholars during the sack of Greece by Rome. Greece thrived because of these ideas, coming from Aristotle, Plato, Socretes. Each of these people having clear precursors from which they developed their philosophy.
I don't get what your point is
Originally posted by Forum NinjaNo that is using your logic to where it would end, where is the cutoff line as to where credit should be given for an idea or theory? Just because one person came up with an idea doesn't always make them the founder of the concept either, you can take one persons idea and expand on it or you have the ability to explain it and put it to the test.
No, that's ridiculous and you're twisting what I'm saying.I never said Darwin shouldn't receive credit because he didn't come up with the theory of evolution, science, etc. I merely said Erasmus deserved credit as well for largely helping Darwin.
Stick to laughing at the thread, yeah?
You could also say that Steven Hawkins is not the founder of Black Holes either, he didn't come up with the theory either but he proved it so should he give credit to the person (can't remember the name) who just had the idea?
Originally posted by Da Pittman
No that is using your logic to where it would end, where is the cutoff line as to where credit should be given for an idea or theory? Just because one person came up with an idea doesn't always make them the founder of the concept either, you can take one persons idea and expand on it or you have the ability to explain it and put it to the test.You could also say that Steven Hawkins is not the founder of Black Holes either, he didn't come up with the theory either but he proved it so should he give credit to the person (can't remember the name) who just had the idea?
I think it was Einstein.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
No that is using your logic to where it would end, where is the cutoff line as to where credit should be given for an idea or theory? Just because one person came up with an idea doesn't always make them the founder of the concept either, you can take one persons idea and expand on it or you have the ability to explain it and put it to the test.
Yes, that's the point. What are you missing?
You could also say that Steven Hawkins is not the founder of Black Holes either, he didn't come up with the theory either but he proved it so should he give credit to the person (can't remember the name) who just had the idea? [/B]
A.E. are the initials. Stick to laughing at the thread again.
Originally posted by Forum NinjaNo I'm not laughing at the thread, I'm laughing at you.
Yes, that's the point. What are you missing?A.E. are the initials. Stick to laughing at the thread again.
Do you realize what you are saying? You agree with my point that contradicts your point, how does that prove your point? 😖
And 😆 at what you will say next 😛
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think it was Einstein.
Originally posted by Forum Ninja
A.E. are the initials. Stick to laughing at the thread again.
to quote Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#History
HistoryThe Newtonian conceptions of Michell and Laplace are often referred to as "dark stars" to distinguish them from the "black holes" of general relativity.
Newtonian theories
The concept of a body so massive that even light could not escape was put forward by the geologist John Michell in a letter written to Henry Cavendish in 1783 and published by the Royal Society.[5]
“If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun were to exceed that of the Sun in the proportion of 500 to 1, a body falling from an infinite height towards it would have acquired at its surface greater velocity than that of light, and consequently supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its vis inertiae, with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it by its own proper gravity. ”
This assumes that light is influenced by gravity in the same way as massive objects.
In 1796, the mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace promoted the same idea in the first and second editions of his book Exposition du système du Monde (it was removed from later editions).
The idea of black holes was largely ignored in the nineteenth century, since light was then thought to be a massless wave and therefore not influenced by gravity. Unlike a modern black hole, the object behind the horizon is assumed to be stable against collapse.
But guess what, we can reduce that all back to pre-socratic philosophy as well 🙂
Originally posted by Da Pittman
No I'm not laughing at the thread, I'm laughing at you.Do you realize what you are saying? You agree with my point that contradicts your point, how does that prove your point? 😖
And 😆 at what you will say next 😛
How can you patronize me? I agreed with you because you self-pwned.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Charles Darwin would be 200 years old this week. And after all these years, people are still arguing about the theory of evolution that he fathered.
I agree.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A primary reason: Some religious groups object to the notion that humans emerged millions of years ago from apes, or a common ancestor shared with apes, and that all life evolved over time, rather than being created as-is by God. This is the gist of it, though there are numerous variations on creationist arguments with evolution.
This is untrue. Let me explain, please.
First, the critical mass challenging evolution are not Bible Theologians and/or Theology Professors; whoever they are, whether bias, mental, ignorant or born with 3 legs is irrelevant. They merely agree with what scientists -- molecular biologists, astronomers and physicists, for example -- have brought to the table.
Second, the fossil record is void of transitions. Planet Earth is approximately 5.5 billion years old! And hundreds and hundreds upon thousands of fossils have been uncovered and documented. Ask Stephen J. Gould about the fossil record:
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2) Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, May 1977, p.14).
"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism, confirmed by the work of population genetics, and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record." (Mayr, Ernst [Emeritus Professor of Zoology, Harvard University], "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1988, pp.529-530).
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But there's another reason for the ongoing debate that may surprise you: The terms "Darwinian evolution" and "Darwinism" — used frequently by scientists and the media — are misleading.Scientists have failed to let Darwin die, even as the theory he birthed grew up, some scientists now say. Evolutionary biology has evolved greatly since Darwin first generated the controversy with the 1859 publication of On the Origin of Species, and some think it's time to divorce his name from the theory's name.
The term Darwinism "fails to convey the full panoply of modern evolutionary biology accurately, and it fosters the inaccurate perception that the field stagnated for 150 years after Darwin's day," Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education wrote last month in the journal Evolution: Education and Outreach.
Birth of evolution
In Origin, Darwin proposed that living things descended with modification from common ancestors. Within a decade or so, most scientists in Britain, at least, had accepted this basic idea of evolution, Scott and Branch explain.
This is "misleading." Organisms did not "descend," they merely took on variation. Dogs are an excellent example of this, amongst many.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Darwin's other big idea, that evolutionary change was driven by natural selection, was much slower to catch on, Scott and Branch write. It took other research, including a 20th-century rediscovery of work by Gregor Mendel — a priest and contemporary of Darwin who had unraveled the basic principles of heredity by crossbreeding peas — to give widespread credence to natural selection.
Peas? Okay....
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
To scientists nowadays, there is no debate about the solidity of the theory of evolution. Like the theory of gravity, evolution has been tested every which way, and though there remains plenty to learn about some of the details of how it works, there is no questioning the fact that it is at work, creating new species such as drug-resistant bacteria on short time scales or, in the longer term, humans, who evolved from other primates.
This is hogwash! Their are no "details" to learn. The field of Molecular Biology, over the past 40 years, has demonstrated that DNA only allows variation within any organism's genome. Again, we are back to dogs. Dogs will never, never, regardless of time and external stimulus, develop gills, for example. The DNA code makes such a feat impossible. In lieu of my example, the DNA information needed for gills, is simply not present! Sorry.
Drug-resistant bacteria remain "bacteria."
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Evolution is one of the most well-established theories in science, supported by observations in many fields, from fossil evidence to DNA work done only in recent years.
Shakyamunison, since the author of this article couldn't provide one (1) example, perhaps you can. Evidence is stronger than theory and/or blanket statements. And I'm not being arrogant.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Other kinds of evolution?Yet because scientists and the media refer to "Darwinian evolution," there's an implicit suggestion that there are other kinds, argues Carl Safina, adjunct professor at Stony Brook University, in an essay this week in The New York Times.
"We don't call astronomy Copernicism, nor gravity Newtonism," Safina points out. "Using phrases like 'Darwinian selection' or 'Darwinian evolution' implies there must be another kind of evolution at work, a process that can be described with another adjective. For instance, 'Newtonian physics' distinguishes the mechanical physics Newton explored from subatomic quantum physics. So 'Darwinian evolution' raises a question: What's the other evolution?"
There is none, of course.
How is this relevant to the topic at hand? Enough with the fancy-talk.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Scott and Branch, in their paper, delved much deeper into the confusion fueled by these terms, given that evolutionary biology has expanded to include many theories and concepts unknown in the 19th century."The term “Darwinism" is, therefore, ambiguous and misleading," they write.
"Compounding the problem of 'Darwinism' is the hijacking of the term by creationists to portray evolution as a dangerous ideology — an 'ism' — that has no place in the science classroom," Scott and Branch argue. "When scientists and teachers use 'Darwinism' as synonymous with evolutionary biology, it reinforces such a misleading portrayal and hinders efforts to present the scientific standing of evolution accurately. Accordingly, the term 'Darwinism' should be abandoned as a synonym for evolutionary biology."
Blah, blah, blah.... Get to the point already.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In short, it's time to put Charles Darwin in his place, with all due respect, and accept that his theory has evolved.
What an intelligent statement! Where do I sign?
Originally posted by ushomefree
I agree.This is untrue. Let me explain, please.
First, the critical mass challenging evolution are not Bible Theologians and/or Theology Professors; whoever they are, whether bias, mental, ignorant or born with 3 legs is irrelevant. They merely agree with what scientists -- molecular biologists, astronomers and physicists, for example -- have brought to the table.
Second, the fossil record is void of transitions. Planet Earth is approximately 5.5 billion years old! And hundreds and hundreds upon thousands of fossils have been uncovered and documented. Ask Stephen J. Gould about the fossil record:
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2) Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, May 1977, p.14).
"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism, confirmed by the work of population genetics, and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record." (Mayr, Ernst [Emeritus Professor of Zoology, Harvard University], "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1988, pp.529-530).
This is "misleading." Organisms did not "descend," they merely took on variation. Dogs are an excellent example of this, amongst many.
Peas? Okay....
This is hogwash! Their are no "details" to learn. The field of Molecular Biology, over the past 40 years, has demonstrated that DNA only allows variation within any organism's genome. Again, we are back to dogs. Dogs will never, never, regardless of time and external stimulus, develop gills, for example. The DNA code makes such a feat impossible. In lieu of my example, the DNA information needed for gills, is simply not present! Sorry.
Drug-resistant bacteria remain "bacteria."
Shakyamunison, since the author of this article couldn't provide one (1) example, perhaps you can. Evidence is stronger than theory and/or blanket statements. And I'm not being arrogant.
How is this relevant to the topic at hand? Enough with the fancy-talk.
Blah, blah, blah.... Get to the point already.
What an intelligent statement! Where do I sign?
👆
Originally posted by ushomefree
…Second, the fossil record is void of transitions…
That is a pile of garbage.
Archaeopteryx is only one out of many, many more.
Originally posted by ushomefree
…This is "misleading." Organisms did not "descend," they merely took on variation. Dogs are an excellent example of this, amongst many…
Again you are wrong. You are making a distinction that does not exist. We have only been breading dogs for only a few thousand years. Evolution takes time scales of millions of years. Also, there have been a lot of discoveries in the last 20 years, like the connection between viruses and mutations. However, if you only read out of date articles, you will never know that.
Originally posted by ushomefree
…This is hogwash! Their are no "details" to learn. The field of Molecular Biology, over the past 40 years, has demonstrated that DNA only allows variation within any organism's genome. Again, we are back to dogs…
You do not know that.
Originally posted by ushomefree
…Dogs will never, never, regardless of time and external stimulus, develop gills, for example. The DNA code makes such a feat impossible. In lieu of my example, the DNA information needed for gills, is simply not present! Sorry…
Why do you always look backwards? If dogs needed to adapt to water in order to survive, they may not grow gills. They may not even survive. But if an animal needs to survive, and finds a way, gills might be an outcome. Just look at wails. We have transitional forms that show a wail started off as a land animal. That animal did not grow gills, but it did grow fins.
Originally posted by ushomefree
…Drug-resistant bacteria remain "bacteria."…
This is a truly ignorant statement.
Originally posted by ushomefree
…Blah, blah, blah.... Get to the point already….
I am sorry that the author of this article went over your head, but that happens when you don’t know the topic…
Also, a debate over evolution is NOT the topic of this thread. The topic is rather or not Evolution should be called 'Darwinism' or 'Darwinian evolution' or 'Evolutionary Biology'. If you want to debate if Evolution is real or not, please go here: http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t418462.html
Originally posted by ushomefree😆
I agree.This is untrue. Let me explain, please.
First, the critical mass challenging evolution are not Bible Theologians and/or Theology Professors; whoever they are, whether bias, mental, ignorant or born with 3 legs is irrelevant. They merely agree with what scientists -- molecular biologists, astronomers and physicists, for example -- have brought to the table.
Second, the fossil record is void of transitions. Planet Earth is approximately 5.5 billion years old! And hundreds and hundreds upon thousands of fossils have been uncovered and documented. Ask Stephen J. Gould about the fossil record:
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2) Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, May 1977, p.14).
"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism, confirmed by the work of population genetics, and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record." (Mayr, Ernst [Emeritus Professor of Zoology, Harvard University], "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1988, pp.529-530).
This is "misleading." Organisms did not "descend," they merely took on variation. Dogs are an excellent example of this, amongst many.
Peas? Okay....
This is hogwash! Their are no "details" to learn. The field of Molecular Biology, over the past 40 years, has demonstrated that DNA only allows variation within any organism's genome. Again, we are back to dogs. Dogs will never, never, regardless of time and external stimulus, develop gills, for example. The DNA code makes such a feat impossible. In lieu of my example, the DNA information needed for gills, is simply not present! Sorry.
Drug-resistant bacteria remain "bacteria."
Shakyamunison, since the author of this article couldn't provide one (1) example, perhaps you can. Evidence is stronger than theory and/or blanket statements. And I'm not being arrogant.
How is this relevant to the topic at hand? Enough with the fancy-talk.
Blah, blah, blah.... Get to the point already.
What an intelligent statement! Where do I sign?
Originally posted by Da Pittman
What kind of drugs are you on, really I have to know because they are some real crazy ones that make you talk gibberish. 😆 😖OH please great one show me how I self pwned myself.
Sorry, my bad.
You owned yourself twice.
No that is using your logic to where it would end, where is the cutoff line as to where credit should be given for an idea or theory? Just because one person came up with an idea doesn't always make them the founder of the concept either, you can take one persons idea and expand on it or you have the ability to explain it and put it to the test.You could also say that Steven Hawkins is not the founder of Black Holes either, he didn't come up with the theory either but he proved it so should he give credit to the person (can't remember the name) who just had the idea?
One on illogical jargon and the second on ignorance.