Over 1000 'Scientists' Sign "Dissent From Darwinism" Stateme

For chatting about non-political topics.

Hot topic: The perils of exercise, Lapidary, food, gardening, brewing & Gallipoli/Anzac Day.

Special feature: WWIi Operation Manna/Chowhound.
.

Open to guest posting.

Moderator: johnsmith

Forum rules
The rules for this board are in the Charter of Moderation. Off Topic is for fairly serious discussion of things other than politics and current affair.

Over 1000 'Scientists' Sign "Dissent From Darwinism" Stateme

Postby Miranda » 12 Feb 2019, 13:02

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Launched in 2001, the list continues to collect support from scientists from universities across America and globally. Signers have earned their Ph.D.s at institutions that include Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Cornell, Princeton, Brown, Dartmouth and the University of Pennsylvania. Others on the list earned their doctorates at Clemson, UT Austin, Ohio State, UCLA, Duke, Stanford, Emory, UNC Chapel Hill and many others universities. Still other signers are currently employed as professors across the nation.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02- ... -statement
Miranda
Feral cat
 
Posts: 217
Joined: 21 Dec 2017, 12:53
spamone: Animal


Re: Over 1000 'Scientists' Sign "Dissent From Darwinism" Sta

Postby Miranda » 12 Feb 2019, 14:33

The group points out that signing the statement does not mean these scholars endorse “alternative theories such as self-organization, structuralism, or intelligent design,” but rather simply indicates “skepticism about modern Darwinian theories central claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02- ... -statement
Miranda
Feral cat
 
Posts: 217
Joined: 21 Dec 2017, 12:53
spamone: Animal

Re: Over 1000 'Scientists' Sign "Dissent From Darwinism" Sta

Postby Bongalong » 12 Feb 2019, 14:39

Yeh, well the link I pointed to did seem to admit that Darwinian evolution could simply be a large part of the story: implying that it very possibly wasn't the whole story.

It's the same old chestnut: science can't explain everything and biology seems to have quite a few mysteries.
Free what?
Bongalong
Cheetah
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: 25 Jun 2018, 12:48
spamone: Animal

Re: Over 1000 'Scientists' Sign "Dissent From Darwinism" Sta

Postby Squire » 12 Feb 2019, 16:14

Are these scientists resigning from the human race? If so what genus of life-forms are they joining?

It's already a proven fact that chimpanzees and Bonobo monkeys share 99% of DNA with humans and gorillas 98%.

These deviant scientists are just engaging in Trumpery and joining the tribe of bogus Christians led by the orange antiChrist and his VP Mike Penis.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tiny-genetic-differences-between-humans-and-other-primates-pervade-the-genome/

... In 1871 Charles Darwin surmised that humans were evolutionarily closer to the African apes than to any other species alive. The recent sequencing of the gorilla, chimpanzee and bonobo genomes confirms that supposition and provides a clearer view of how we are connected: chimps and bonobos in particular take pride of place as our nearest living relatives, sharing approximately 99 percent of our DNA, with gorillas trailing at 98 percent.

Yet that tiny portion of unshared DNA makes a world of difference: it gives us, for instance, our bipedal stance and the ability to plan missions to Mars. Scientists do not yet know how most of the DNA that is uniquely ours affects gene function. But they can conduct whole-genome analyses—with intriguing results. For example, comparing the 33 percent of our genome that codes for proteins with our relatives' genomes reveals that although the sum total of our genetic differences is small, the individual differences pervade the genome, affecting each of our chromosomes in numerous ways. ...
User avatar
Squire
mountain lion
 
Posts: 760
Joined: 19 Aug 2016, 11:35
spamone: Animal

Re: Over 1000 'Scientists' Sign "Dissent From Darwinism" Sta

Postby Miranda » 12 Feb 2019, 23:12

Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution

The philosopher Daniel Dennett once called the theory of evolution by natural selection "the single best idea anyone has ever had." I'm inclined to agree. But Darwinism sticks in the craw of some really smart people. I don't mean intelligent-designers (aka IDiots) and other religious ignorami but knowledgeable scientists and scholars.

Take, for example, the philosopher Jerry Fodor of Rutgers University and the cognitive scientist Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini of the University of Arizona in Tucson. In What Darwin Got Wrong (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010), these self-described atheists argue that the theory of natural selection is "fatally flawed." Their book, which I reviewed for The Philadelphia Inquirer, is, well, fatally flawed. For example, they air familiar debates over how large a role contingency plays in evolution; whether natural selection operates primarily at the level of genes; why certain clusters of genes persist unchanged for eons. Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini wrap up the discussion of each debate with the same kicker: natural selection must be wrong.

But saying debates over contingency, levels of selection and gene conservation disprove evolutionary theory is like saying debates over the formation of Saturn's rings disprove heliocentrism. If you're going to shoot the king, the old saying goes, you had better kill him. Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini don't even wound Darwin. What Darwin Got Wrong nonetheless serves as a useful reminder of more coherent complaints about natural selection.

I lump Darwin's secular critics into two camps: Some, such as the left-leaning biologists Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin (who are cited by Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini), fear the political implications of Darwinian theory. If we accept evolutionary explanations of human nature, they suggest, we may come to believe that many insidious modern "-isms"—unbridled capitalism, racism, sexism and militarism—were highly probable outcomes of evolution and thus not easily subject to change. Given how genetic theories have been employed in the past, these concerns have merit.
Other critics object to Darwinism for precisely the opposite reason. They fear that evolutionary theory, even when buttressed by modern genetics and molecular biology, does not make reality probable enough. Reality seems too precarious, too much a product of blind luck. No one has worked harder to solve the improbability problem than the biologist Richard Dawkins. Ironically, Dawkins has also revealed how deep and possibly intractable the problem is.

In Climbing Mount Improbable (W. W. Norton, 1997) Dawkins emphasizes that the vast majority of variants of a given species fail to propagate; there are many more ways to be a loser in the game of life than to be a success. Surely that is true of life as a whole. Of all the imaginable possible histories of life, what is the likelihood that it would persist for billions of years, long enough to produce toads, baboons and Glenn Beck?

Dawkins also notes that "nature, unlike humans with brains, has no foresight." Each individual organism pursues its short-term interests regardless of the long-term consequences for life as a whole or even for other members of the species. Given this fact, it is all too easy to imagine scenarios in which one species—a bacterium or virus, perhaps—runs amok and destroys all life on Earth.

If our past was improbable, our future might be as well. Recognizing this implication of evolutionary theory, some scientists have proposed alternative mechanisms to make life more robust. For example, biochemists such as Ilya Prigogine and Stuart Kauffman (cited by Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini) have postulated "self-organization" forces that made the origin of life and its subsequent history highly probable.

Other theorists have proposed that natural selection may favor not just genes or individuals but populations, species, even entire ecosystems. The most extreme version of this group-selection concept is Gaia theory, which holds that all of life somehow conspires to ensure its continued survival. Self-organization and Gaia are flawed theories that have won few adherents, but that doesn't mean that the problem they address doesn't exist.

Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper (yes, cited by F and P-P) called evolution via natural selection "almost a tautology" and "not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program." Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back. But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin's theory dissatisfying. "One ought to look for alternatives!" Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table.

Is it possible that some future genius will discover an alternative that supplants Darwinism as our framework for understanding life? Will we ever look back on Darwin as brilliant but wrong?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... evolution/
Miranda
Feral cat
 
Posts: 217
Joined: 21 Dec 2017, 12:53
spamone: Animal

Re: Over 1000 'Scientists' Sign "Dissent From Darwinism" Sta

Postby HBS Guy » 14 Feb 2019, 07:28

Darwin’s theory is highly likely to be correct but it is unfalsifiable so cannot be tested.

Over 600 almillion years many adaptations can be tried, the best going forward.

Mutations generally are harmful, genetic diversity offers enough for evolution to work on. Artificial selection, man’s breeding of animals shows evolution works.
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 50653
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37

Re: Over 1000 'Scientists' Sign "Dissent From Darwinism" Sta

Postby Bongalong » 14 Feb 2019, 13:14

Why is it unfalsifiable?
Free what?
Bongalong
Cheetah
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: 25 Jun 2018, 12:48
spamone: Animal

Re: Over 1000 'Scientists' Sign "Dissent From Darwinism" Sta

Postby HBS Guy » 14 Feb 2019, 18:21

Because of the way it is stated. If the fittest survive and pass on the successful adaptation then the survivors must be the fittest. Can’t test it.
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 50653
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37

Re: Over 1000 'Scientists' Sign "Dissent From Darwinism" Sta

Postby Miranda » 14 Feb 2019, 22:04

HBS Guy wrote:Because of the way it is stated. If the fittest survive and pass on the successful adaptation then the survivors must be the fittest. Can’t test it.


I lump Darwin's secular critics into two camps: Some, such as the left-leaning biologists Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin (who are cited by Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini), fear the political implications of Darwinian theory. If we accept evolutionary explanations of human nature, they suggest, we may come to believe that many insidious modern "-isms"—unbridled capitalism, racism, sexism and militarism—were highly probable outcomes of evolution and thus not easily subject to change. Given how genetic theories have been employed in the past, these concerns have merit.


This deeply concerns me. How do we counter that?
Miranda
Feral cat
 
Posts: 217
Joined: 21 Dec 2017, 12:53
spamone: Animal

Re: Over 1000 'Scientists' Sign "Dissent From Darwinism" Sta

Postby mothra » 14 Feb 2019, 22:24

Miranda wrote:
HBS Guy wrote:Because of the way it is stated. If the fittest survive and pass on the successful adaptation then the survivors must be the fittest. Can’t test it.


I lump Darwin's secular critics into two camps: Some, such as the left-leaning biologists Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin (who are cited by Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini), fear the political implications of Darwinian theory. If we accept evolutionary explanations of human nature, they suggest, we may come to believe that many insidious modern "-isms"—unbridled capitalism, racism, sexism and militarism—were highly probable outcomes of evolution and thus not easily subject to change. Given how genetic theories have been employed in the past, these concerns have merit.


This deeply concerns me. How do we counter that?


We simply point out the logical fallacy.

Simply because a condition is evident, does not mean it is ideal. The existence of counterpoints evidences this, if nothing else.

And any argument that hinges on the mechanisms of nature would be most foolhardy to discount the detriment of behaving in ways that destroy that nature.
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5921
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Over 1000 'Scientists' Sign "Dissent From Darwinism" Sta

Postby Bongalong » 15 Feb 2019, 12:20

HBS Guy wrote:Because of the way it is stated. If the fittest survive and pass on the successful adaptation then the survivors must be the fittest. Can’t test it.
Perhaps we could breed plants with a range of traits to see which ones survive.... then again: that could get quite dangerous if the experiment escaped.... i should write a book lol

yeh, right: unfalsifiable.... :gup :scare :scare :scare :scare :scare :b :PC :b :PC :c
Free what?
Bongalong
Cheetah
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: 25 Jun 2018, 12:48
spamone: Animal

Re: Over 1000 'Scientists' Sign "Dissent From Darwinism" Sta

Postby Bongalong » 15 Feb 2019, 12:25

mothra wrote:
Miranda wrote:
HBS Guy wrote:Because of the way it is stated. If the fittest survive and pass on the successful adaptation then the survivors must be the fittest. Can’t test it.


I lump Darwin's secular critics into two camps: Some, such as the left-leaning biologists Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin (who are cited by Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini), fear the political implications of Darwinian theory. If we accept evolutionary explanations of human nature, they suggest, we may come to believe that many insidious modern "-isms"—unbridled capitalism, racism, sexism and militarism—were highly probable outcomes of evolution and thus not easily subject to change. Given how genetic theories have been employed in the past, these concerns have merit.


This deeply concerns me. How do we counter that?


We simply point out the logical fallacy.

Simply because a condition is evident, does not mean it is ideal. The existence of counterpoints evidences this, if nothing else.

And any argument that hinges on the mechanisms of nature would be most foolhardy to discount the detriment of behaving in ways that destroy that nature.

Well, your argument would then obviously be implying that nature has never destroyed itself before.......... so that extends that little rabbit hole even a bit further,...does it not?
Free what?
Bongalong
Cheetah
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: 25 Jun 2018, 12:48
spamone: Animal


Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SethBullock and 2 guests