• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The ToE and common ancestry of all life forms did not come from looking at the evidence

M

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
Tristesse said:
It's not a "dying theory" it's a theory that is being revised. Science doesn't stop! As our understanding grows, so does the process that we use. For some reason creationists have the hardest time understanding this.
Click to expand...

So you disagree with Stuart Newman, a professor of cell biology. I will make a note of that.
 
OmarKhayyam

OmarKhayyam

Well-Known Member
Man of Faith said:
I didn't skip it, I just cut and pasted the pertinant things that I wanted to show, the things that look shiney and new to me and make the creationists case. I understand that the person still believes that natural processes created everything we see, however Darwin's common descent theory is in trouble according to him.
Click to expand...

I see you are still having trouble with he concept of intellectual honesty.:(
 
Alceste

Alceste

Vagabond
Man of Faith said:
I didn't skip it, I just cut and pasted the pertinant things that I wanted to show, the things that look shiney and new to me and make the creationists case. I understand that the person still believes that natural processes created everything we see, however Darwin's common descent theory is in trouble according to him.
Click to expand...


You're lying. You didn't read the paper at all.
 
Alceste

Alceste

Vagabond
Man of Faith said:
So you disagree with Stuart Newman, a professor of cell biology. I will make a note of that.
Click to expand...

And you don't? You're saying you agree with this statement?

"The fact that organic evolution occurred, and continues to occur, is as solid as any conclusion science has yet produced. To take issue with this, considering the interconnected biological, chemical, geological, and physical facts that enter into our knowledge of evolution, is to take issue with much of modern science."
 
N

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
Man of Faith said:
So you disagree with Stuart Newman, a professor of cell biology. I will make a note of that.
Click to expand...
You never read the paper or anything by Newman. Nowhere does he deny common descent or even hint at anything similar.
Newman is at the forefront of a group of scientists that are looking at the inherent self organizational abilities of molecules as relevant factors in evolution, factors that may be as influential as natural selection and mutations. Yours is yet another creationist lie copy and pasted by those who have no knowledge of what they're actually spamming.
 
Gunfingers

Gunfingers

Happiness Incarnate
So, i read the paper. Well, most of it. I started skimming around page six.

First, i'd like to congratulate MoF on actually referencing a scientific document. It's a huge step up and you're well on your way to becoming a godless hedonistic heathen like the rest of us. Frubals to you! :)

Second, this document has nothing to do with common descent. It's actually about how a few of the mechanics of evolution may be more similar to what Lamarck and Lysenko proposed, rather than what Darwin and Mendel proposed.

Third, the paper follows a bit of a conspiracy theorist thoughtline, claiming that non-darwinian evolution is being unfairly marginalized. He also uses the term "darwinist"/"darwinism" 7 times, and no one likes that term.
 
N

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
Gunfingers said:
So, i read the paper. Well, most of it. I started skimming around page six.

First, i'd like to congratulate MoF on actually referencing a scientific document. It's a huge step up and you're well on your way to becoming a godless hedonistic heathen like the rest of us. Frubals to you! :)

Second, this document has nothing to do with common descent. It's actually about how a few of the mechanics of evolution may be more similar to what Lamarck and Lysenko proposed, rather than what Darwin and Mendel proposed.

Third, the paper follows a bit of a conspiracy theorist thoughtline, claiming that non-darwinian evolution is being unfairly marginalized. He also uses the term "darwinist"/"darwinism" 7 times, and no one likes that term.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
Newman is more along the lines of Gould's punk-eek and he's a controversial figure in that his propositions for morphological change are much faster than most accept. Regardless, he never denied common descent, evolution, natural selection, etc. He's a cell biologist proposing a controversial idea about the tempo of evolution as well as the signifigance of factors other than natural selection on change.

He's kinda kooky but interesting.
 
Alceste

Alceste

Vagabond
Nepenthe said:
Exactly.
Newman is more along the lines of Gould's punk-eek and he's a controversial figure in that his propositions for morphological change are much faster than most accept. Regardless, he never denied common descent, evolution, natural selection, etc. He's a cell biologist proposing a controversial idea about the tempo of evolution as well as the signifigance of factors other than natural selection on change.

He's kinda kooky but interesting.
Click to expand...

I've been muddling through a couple of Stuart Kauffman's books about self-organizing complexity. Newman's paper seems to be along similar lines of thought, but he doesn't do as good a job of it. The idea is perfectly defensible without having to propagate the ridiculous myth that theists are being unfairly excluded from public discourse, and there are much better examples of self-organizing complexity than segmented worms.

I'm pretty interested to see where these ideas might go in the future. It's still very early stages though, from what I understand, and has (IMO) greater implications for the study of abiogenesis than evolution.
 
N

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
Alceste said:
I've been muddling through a couple of Stuart Kauffman's books about self-organizing complexity. Newman's paper seems to be along similar lines of thought, but he doesn't do as good a job of it. The idea is perfectly defensible without having to propagate the ridiculous myth that theists are being unfairly excluded from public discourse, and there are much better examples of self-organizing complexity than segmented worms.

I'm pretty interested to see where these ideas might go in the future. It's still very early stages though, from what I understand, and has (IMO) greater implications for the study of abiogenesis than evolution.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah. Definitely. There's something a bit "ambiguous" about Newman's ideas that make him a bit frustrating particularly since it allows creationists to swoop in and latch onto any hint of ambiguity and claim that evolution is in question.
It's funny 'cause I often switch Kaufmann and Newman's names around in my head and had to correct my previous post- but Newman is no Kauffman and I think he deserves to get mentioned again. At Home in the Universe and Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution are just awesome books.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top