Evolution has been rejected by the scientific community - what next?

1. 58

   W Vidalposted 11 years ago

   The theory of evolution is in an immense danger to be discarded by everyone, whether doing science or not. What is the next paradigm to solve the mystery of the origin of man?
   
   http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho18.htm

   replyreport
   1. 0

      huckelburyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think evoloution is in any danger, simply because the creationist arguments are so absurd on their face and lack any rational basis in science. As long as men and women can think, creation myths like the ones in Genesis will continue to attract only fringe adherents.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Well, evolution has been already rejected, not by creationists, but by professional scientists.
         
         http://www.azinet.com/aging/Evolution_Theory.html
         
         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

         replyreport
         1. 61

            twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Did you notice the date on that review you posted the link for? 1997. Michael Behe is, in all fairness, a hack and a charlatan. He ignores his own science. Evolution is in no danger, except from idiocy. Apparently you haven't checked your own links. Behe is a part of the Discovery Institute, which is behind the intelligent design movement. ID is rejected by 99.999 percent of biologists.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Michael Behe is what? If that is you personal opinion, keep it. Don't advertise it as an objective observation which all can agree with.
               
               Well bigots do mess up with time and dates. Those links bear the tag 2005.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  This one was 1997: http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho18.htm
                  
                  Behe was discredited years ago. Old news. Yes, he has a degree, but does that make him immune from self-deception?

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     "26 Oct 1997 (updated: 29 July 2005)"
                     
                     Discredited? Who or what is the authority to discredit a professional scientist? If personal opinions can discredit merited research, then little interest there.
                     
                     Anyway, self-deception? Think both sides.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        He is self-deceptive in that as a biochemist, he ignores the evidence for evolution that he sees with his own eyes because it contradicts the myths he prefers to believe. It's akin to a medical researcher believing thalidomide isn't harmful, despite babies being born with severe birth defects.
                        
                        Behe's big thing is "irreducible complexity," with his most common argument being "what good is half an eye?" Yes, half an eye is useless, but that's now how the eye evolved. Light-sensitive cells are more useful than cells which are not light-sensitive. Being able to see vague shapes is better than just having light-sensitive cells (as my legally-blind niece can testify). Seeing in limited color, like dogs, is better than seeing vague shapes. Rather than going through all this, I will direct you to the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
                        
                        But getting back to your original premise: evolution has not been rejected by the scientific community. It would be akin to rejecting heliocentrism. Rejecting evolution would also require rejecting much of microbiology, genetics, anthropology, comparitive anatomy, geology, etc.

                        replyreport
                        1. 58

                           W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Where is the evidence for evolution?
                           
                           
                           "Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection was successful because it represented “progress” to a culture that was eager to see it everywhere is exactly backwards. It is no doubt true (Gould agrees) that much of Darwin’s success in convincing the British establishment that evolution occurred was, indeed, due to the Victorian’s infatuation with the notion of progress[ESD 3, IHL 18]."
                           
                           "Ever Since Darwin"
                           By Stephen Jay Gould
                           
                           http://www.questia.com/library/98845769 … al-history

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Ironic that you quoted one of the best champions of evolution. Anyway, here's some of your evidence. Hope you have some free time, because you're gonna need it:
                              http://cpl.bibliocommons.com/search?t=s … formats=BK
                              
                              If you don't have the time to read over 8000 titles, I would recommend Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth: The evidence for evolution.

                              replyreport
                              1. 58

                                 W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Seems like you have no evidence to point out.
                                 
                                 Did you mention Richard Dawkins? It's instructive to note that you don't see any self-deception in Dawkins.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 61

                                    twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    His outspoken atheism is quite separate from his work in evolution. If you'd like me to do your homework for you and post evidence for evolution, just say so.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 58

                                       W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       You don't have to go elsewhere. You haven't done your homework here. I hate to repeat, but it seems the only option against bigots.
                                       
                                       "And what about "selfish genes", the concept introduced by the Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins to describe how some genes promote their own proliferation, even at the expense of the host organism? The concept has been hugely influential but has tended to promote a reductionist gene-centric view of biology. This viewpoint has been fiercely criticised by many biologists, such as the late Stephen Jay Gould, who argued that the unit of biology is the individual not her genes. Systems biology is reasserting the primacy of the whole organism - the system - rather than the selfish behaviour of any of its components.
                                       
                                       Systems biology courses are infiltrating curricula in campuses across the globe and systems biology centres are popping up in cities from London to Seattle. The British biological research funding body, the BBSRC, has just announced the creation of three systems biology centres in the UK. These centres are very different from traditional biology departments as
                                       they tend to be staffed by physicists, mathematicians and engineers, alongside biologists. Rather like the systems they study, systems biology centres are designed to promote interactivity and networking."
                                       
                                       http://www3.surrey.ac.uk/qe/articles/Th … ay2005.htm

                                       report
                                 2. 61

                                    twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    For some reason I couldn't respond to your latest post. Again, the irony that you are citing the work of the world's two pre-eminent evolutionary biologists is mind-boggling. (well, Gould was pre-eminent until his death)
                                    
                                    You'll notice that Gould and Dawkins are disagreeing about some of the mechanisms of evolution, rather than the fact that evolution occurred. Gould was the leading proponent of punctuated equilibrium, where specieatin occurs comparitively frequently (on the order of hundreds of generations) wheras Dawkins favours gradualism, where speciation takes place over thousands or tens of thousands of generations. There is evidence for both, but the general consensus is in Dawkins' camp. The Lenski experiment, wherein 50,000+ generations of e-coli bacteria were raised, found multiple evolutionary adaptations in all 12 strains they raised.
                                    http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       ytbot1xposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       They no longer take evolution as a scientific theory. It was a dogma that some who practice science created. It's an established fact that we haven't evolved from any other species. We don't know what exactly happened. But, thankfully, unbiased and open-minded scientists like Gould and Johnjoe McFadden are searching that answer for us.
                                       
                                       http://www3.surrey.ac.uk/qe/articles/Th … ay2005.htm

                                       report
                                       1. 59

                                          A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          Sorry, but McFadden is well out of his field when he attempts to invoke quantum mechanics into his theories, which have been shown to seriously flawed by scientists whose field is quantum mechanics.

                                          report
                                    2. 61

                                       twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       Who are "they?" How is it "established fact" that we haven't evolved? Let me ask the professor of biophysics sitting about 10 feet from me...
                                       
                                       He says "Huh?" He elaborates, saying that systems biology is a newer way at looking at the details of evolution, rather than a replacement for evolutionary theory. His exact quote "We'd probably have to close the med school if they tossed out evolution!" He goes on to say that part of what makes evolution such a robust theory is that  we can examine the details without calling into question the theory as a whole.

                                       report
               2. 59

                  A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  A charlatan and a fraud.
                  
                  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     The same could be said about many biologists, both from past and present.

                     replyreport
         2. 64

            Sapperposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Calling him a "professional scientist" is a huge stretch. Don't ask me how he got a PhD when he doesn't even know how aging works. It's not a genetic trait that can be weeded out with breeding. Didn't even get to scroll down before I realized he's just another creationist using big words to try and sound smart.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               ytbot1xposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Too bad an attempt to label Theodore C. Goldsmith a creationist. Don't advertise your ignorance. Just search his curriculum vitae, it might cure your delusion.

               replyreport
   2. 59

      A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      LOL! Denton is one of those so-called "scientists" at the Discovery Institute, a Creationist organization. He is a proponent of Intelligent Design.
      
      Old news.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         There are 3 links, and you have seemingly read none of them properly.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I just read the other 2. Goldsmith attempts to poke holes in evolution by claiming we age by design. Behe is another one of those clowns from the Discovery Institute.
            
            Essentially, this thread is about creationism.
            
            As well, using the word "paradigm shift" is a classic woo-woo tactic. It's number 11 on the hit list...
            
            http://www.insolitology.com/tests/credo.htm

            replyreport
            1. 58

               W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Goldsmith is talking something very different than what you have skimmed on that page. Read again. It states how recent findings in the Darwinian direction are contradicting the orthodox ideas proposed by the founder.
               
               And Mr Behe is an established biochemist. Quit calling people clowns. You have no ground for insulting reputed scientists.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh, I think he has plenty of ground:
                  http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ … ng-lately/

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Here is what one finds at the bottom of the page of that website-
                     
                     Copyright © Pharyngula - Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
                     70 queries in 0.354 seconds.
                     
                     It were better if they had a 'Terms of Use' instead.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        And your point is?
                        
                        PZ Myers, the author of that blog, is a biologist and professor at the U. of Minnesota, Morris.

                        replyreport
                        1. 58

                           W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           The point is that he used a very scientific language there.

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Perhaps this is more to your liking:
                              http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ … he-things/

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 ytbot1xposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 It still says "Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal", at the bottom of the page. Too refined to be scientific, lol!

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 61

                                    twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    So what?!?! That's the subtitle of his blog! It could say "Mumbo dogface in the banana patch" if he wanted it to, and it wouldn't change anything. Do you think he needs to have something more scientific to be taken seriously? Perhaps you should try reading it.

                                    replyreport
                           2. 59

                              A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              There are several people who have received their credentials in science, yet they have taken on to be proponents of non-scientific theories and can sound very scientific to the gullible.

                              replyreport
               2. 60

                  Paul Wingertposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Any clown can call themselves a scientist. Evolution is far from rejection. Creationism is the one in danger. The discovery of the Higgs Boson is helping to seal the coffin.

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     You're far away from the recent trends in biology. They are integrating quantum physic with biology to establish the physical reality of life (biological). There is almost a new movement. Evolution is the theory of the benighted past. As always, the masses do not keep track of these latest findings.

                     replyreport
                     1. 79

                        psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        You are just wrong.  Look at the high impact journals, the textbooks, the curricula, talk to working scientists.  Evolution is the foundation theory of life sciences at every major school, research institute and NGO that has life science as its primary activity.

                        replyreport
                        1. 58

                           W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           It takes time for these these latest findings to enter textbooks. This has been the case, always.

                           replyreport
                           1. 79

                              psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              So you concede the other examples are valid and undermine your claim? The questions you don't answer are informative: like how you can know what is happening to the cultures of the science professions--without being part of any of them. That's like saying a religion is s preaching new doctrine, but not going to church.
                              
                              Also, electronic publishing has vastly increased the cycle of updates to 2-5 years depending on subject.  If the paradigm was even beginning to change, the content would be creeping in by now

                              replyreport
                              1. 58

                                 W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 The content is everywhere. Of course, one needs to be open minded and genuinely curious to know all these.
                                 
                                 Anyway, your rational faculties are getting jerks, visibly.
                                 
                                 "That's like saying a religion is s preaching new doctrine, but not going to church."

                                 replyreport
                     2. 61

                        twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        "Recent trends" in biology?!?! That book came out in 1986! In fairness, though, there was a second edition from 1996, though Amazon lists the third edition as coming out in 1986.
                        
                        So, logically, one would assume that if evolution was in danger of being dicarded in 1986 for good reasons, that in the last 26 years it would have since been discarded, no?
                        
                        I work in a medical school, and as far as I can tell, evolution is still going strong. Granted, I work with medical education and not research, but when lecturers talk specifically about how certain systems in the body have evolved, it would tend to make one suspect that evolution is still an accepted theory.
                        
                        Just sayin'.

                        replyreport
                        1. 58

                           W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Which book are you talking about?

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              The first book you cited: Evolution: A theory in crisis

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 ytbot1xposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 That book was heavily edited and updated for the 1996 edition. And it has been updated with all the revolutionary facts for its 2005 edition. It's one of the best testimonies of this new movement in science. Evolution is a benighted paradigm of the past. Of course, it takes time for people to discard their long-cherished dogmas. Medical schools are good examples of that obstinacy.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 61

                                    twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    The reviews on Amazon seem to differ with you, one even entitled "No new text since 1986 edition" and this is from someone who seems to agree with Denton. (Though the review itself is a bit old)
                                    Reviews: http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-A-Theor … ewpoints=0
                                    
                                    Library Journal has something interesting to say, too:
                                    Denton pursues his avowed purpose, to critique the Darwinian model of evolution, in a manner alternately fascinating and tiresome. He details legitimate questions, some as old as Darwin's theory, some as new as molecular biology, but he also distorts or misrepresents other ``problems.'' For example, he falls into the classic typological trap: organisms with the same name are all the same. He has Euparkeria as the closest possible ancestor of Archaeopteryx, thus displaying either ignorance or disregard for discoveries over the past two decades. He misunderstands or willfully misrepresents the nature of a cladogram as opposed to a phylogeny. Much of the book reads like creationist prattle, but there are also some interesting points. For informed readers. Walter P. Coombs, Jr., Biology Dept., Western New England Coll., Springfield, Mass. (c) Copyright 2010. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc.
                                    
                                    Of course, Amazon reviews aren't necessarily authoritative, and the LJ reviewer might be considered biased, but the question remains: Does one book, written by one who might be considered biased himseld, change 100+ years of accepted, proven scientific theory? Nope.

                                    replyreport
               3. 59

                  A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  He did not show that. Sorry.
                  
                  
                  
                  Sorry, but reputable scientists don't make theories based on invisible gods, nor do they attempt to discredit well accepted theories with the same bs.

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Well, Behe does have issues. But many others have them too who work in biology. His like for a theory should be separated from his work in biology.
                     
                     http://www.counterbalance.org/bio/behe-frame.html

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        It obviously is separated, considering he has a job in the scientific community. His theories are fallacious and his reasoning has been refuted time and again, despite the fact he keeps repeating them while ignoring criticisms. He is a crank as a result.

                        replyreport
               4. 86

                  Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  There will always be some scientists who disagree from the mainstream.  Sometimes they're the lone voices, pointing out what everyone else is missing.  Sometimes they're just crackpots. 
                  
                  These two scientists are a perfect example of that:  they are NOT reflective of how the scientific community is thinking right now, in any way, shape or form.  You like to think they're the lone voices - I think they're crackpots.  There's really nothing else to debate.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     ytbot1xposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     If that (your theory) is the case, then one of the first crackpots would be Charles Darwin - one who proposed an idea that bacteria became human beings.

                     replyreport
   3. 0

      jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Physics has abandoned reason and logic long ago, so why not biology?

      replyreport
      1. 59

         A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, physics abandoned its reason and logic so long ago, it was able to put a rover on Mars.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            As if explanation is the same as trial and error or description.

            replyreport
   4. 84

      aa liteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I think a far more accurate title would be "evolution theory discredited by A scientist" rather than scientific community.  I assure that the vast majority of scientific community doesn't feel evolution is discredited at all. 
      
      I bet you I could find many more people who discredit religion than scientists who discredit evolution.  Finding a few people who have their own ideas doesn't really show anything. 
      
      My 4 year old nephew is convinced that Santa Clause brings visits his house on Christmas bringing gifts.  Shall i start a major forum post about the reality of the existence of Santa Clause?

      replyreport
      1. 58

         W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Much can be said. But this one should be enough for a bigot-
         
         "Systems biology courses are infiltrating curricula in campuses across the globe and systems biology centres are popping up in cities from London to Seattle. The British biological research funding body, the BBSRC, has just announced the creation of three systems biology centres in the UK. These centres are very different from traditional biology departments as they tend to be staffed by physicists, mathematicians and engineers, alongside biologists. Rather like the systems they study, systems biology centres are designed to promote interactivity and networking."
         
         http://www3.surrey.ac.uk/qe/articles/Th … ay2005.htm

         replyreport
   5. 81

      Don Wposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So evolution is in danger of being discarded by everyone? Not a few, not some, not even many, but everyone. All people "whether doing science or not" are on the verge of discarding this specific scientific theory.
      
      And not just bits of it. Not only new developments - scientific theories develop over time. They evolve if you will - but all of it. So there is a real danger that everyone is about to discard everything about the theory of evolution, assuming they haven't already. Thank you. I'm certainly better informed. This is exactly the kind of insightful information that keeps me coming back to the Hubpages forum again and again.
      
      So will this discarding of the theory of evolution take place simultaneously? Is there a date and time we should be looking out for? At 00:01 on 1st January 2013 will everyone suddenly say "how did I get here?" (I've asked that question many times at 00:01 on New Year's, but mainly for non-scientific reasons). Also will there be a single mass discarding, or will there be scattered outbreaks over the course of a day? Perhaps localised pockets of discarding in certain areas. I'd like to be prepared if I can.
      
      And will this mass shedding of a scientific theory by everyone precipitate the discarding of other scientific theories by everyone? Will we see international discard scientific theory days? I've always disliked quantum theory to be honest. It always seemed just so uncertain to me. Can I nominate it for the next international discard a scientific theory day? What's the process for making nominations?
      
      And can we complement this with an international accept a scientific theory day, on which we all accept a scientific theory. I always liked the theory that the earth rests on a giant pile of crap. Not scientific you say? Let's not get bogged down in details. But I can sense you're clever. So will no doubt be asking what's supporting the crap in the first place. Simple. More crap, and more after that. It's crap all the way down!
      
      Now I think of it, let's discard scientific theories altogether and adopt my crap theory instead. We'll establish an annual conference, Crap Talk™, where leaders in the field of crap theory gather to talk crap. On the basis of your opening post, which demonstrates an almost incomparable level of scientific understanding, the likes of which I am certain only comes along once every few generations, I would like to formally invite you to be the first speaker.

      replyreport
   6. 60

      Dan Smithposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Both abiogensis (origins of life versus evolution) and creationism require a degree of faith.  Neither can be be conclusively proven. 
      
      http://www.squidoo.com/faith-definition

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         How funny. Evolution has been proven. What does that have to do with abiogenesis exactly? I realize it is hard for you faith believers to grasp that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, but - life either originated spontaneously or one of an infinite number of possible gods dunnit.
         
         Simple mathematics suggests that spontaneous life is infinitely more likely that a goddunnit.
         
         Spontaneous life v Goddunit.
         
         1 : infinity.
         
         See?
         
         Never seen a 3 year member with such a low hubber score - what did you do wrong?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Dan Smithposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I don't know why my hub score is so low.  Hubpages doesn't seem to like me very much.  Maybe it is because none of my hubs get much traffic. 
            
            For the record, I do believe in evolution.  Hard to refute evidence like the peppered moth.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
            
            The point I'm making is both science a religion require faith.  I don't take textbooks as truth texts any more than the Bible. 
            
            Look at the Global Warming Debate for example.  There seem to be scientists arguing with an agenda.  In simple terms, Democrat = Global Warming, Republican = no Global Warming.  I'm not about to accept any paper on the topic as fact when there seems to be so much "marketing" involved.   In other words, I don't have much "faith".

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               You seem to be contradicting yourself. Do you have irrefutable evidence of evolution, or do you just have faith?
               
               I don't think the score has much to do with traffic.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Dan Smithposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Putting me on the spot then.  Is there irrefutable evidence of evolution.  No.  Evolution theory is not 100% complete.  But, yes I have "faith" that it is right.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     And you make no distinction between this and "faith" in creationism?

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Dan Smithposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        What would the distinction be?  How much faith? 
                        
                        Off the top of my head, no I don't much of a distinction.  But I suppose I would need to consider if there is ad difference.

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Interesting. So - almost irrefutable proof and absolutely zero evidence are the same as far as you are concerned?
                           
                           How do you decide not to take the quickest way out of a building and not jump out the window?

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              Dan Smithposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Ok, your argument seems to be that the difference is how much faith.  I agree that evolution has almost irrefutable evidence.  I also agree that creationism has no evidence. 
                              
                              I'm still thinking of my definition of distinction between faiths.  Again, consider the global warming debate.    Which case do you believe is right?  Is there or is there not global warming?  What is the distinction between the faith of one side in that argument versus the other?

                              replyreport
                              1. 59

                                 Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 I don't think the global warming debate is a fair comparison. But - I think there is climate change. I think there has been in the past and I am not 100% certain that we have had anything to do with current conditions, but - burning this much fossil fuel and expecting zero impact is somewhat irrational.
                                 
                                 Let's say I believe we are having an impact and I reduce my carbon footprint and I am wrong - nothing will happen.
                                 
                                 But - let's say I think it is garbage and increase my carbon footprint and I am wrong - Oops.
                                 
                                 Sort of like a realistic Pascal's wager with actual consequences.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 60

                                    Dan Smithposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    By that argument, why not believe in God?  Just on the off chance he exists?
                                    
                                    
                                    Off topic....
                                    Reducing carbon footprints is probably a good idea, regardless of how effective carbon dioxide is as a greenhouse gas or if warming is due to increased solar activity.  I wonder why Al Gore prattles on about global warming when he could simply have said "give a hoot, don't pollute".  It would be hard to argue for pollution.

                                    replyreport
                  2. 59

                     A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     LOL! There are mountains of evidence for evolution.
                     
                      
                     
                     Then, what percentage is incomplete?
                     
                     
                     
                     But, no actual understanding of evolution,  just "faith" that it's right?

                     replyreport
            2. 59

               A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               For someone who has only faith but no understanding, that is mostly true. However, for the rest of us who do understand, faith in science is silly, at best.
               
               
               
               Somehow, I don't really think you believe that to be true. You have an internet connection and a computer and there are textbooks explaining in great detail how science made those possible for you to enjoy.
               
               What can you say the Bible has offered?

               replyreport
            3. 59

               A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I'm sure Hubpages doesn't like me either, I have no hubs, yet my current score is higher than yours. Go figure.

               replyreport
            4. 60

               ytbot1xposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Where did you see evidence that proves evolution? Quit your delusions. You look ridiculous.

               replyreport
2. 68

   aka-djposted 11 years ago

   This thread should be very interesting to follow.
   
   I am VERY curious who will bite, and what they write.

   replyreport
3. 79

   psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

   Anyone actually in the scientific community knows evolutions is doing just fine as an organizing theory of the life sciences. And it will remain just find until/unless we come up with a better approach.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      http://www.azinet.com/aging/Evolution_Theory.html .Besides, there are already better theories available. The scientific community is facing a paradigm shift these days.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I don't know about you but I am a working scientist, in the life sciences, and I assure you--no paradigm shift is imminent in this area.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            What is your specialization?

            replyreport
            1. 79

               psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Currently anti-social behavior.  That's why I like these forums

               replyreport
               1. 58

                  W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  How does that relate to biology?

                  replyreport
                  1. 79

                     psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     I said life sciences.  The brain and so behavior are also products of evolution for all animals, including humans. It is an encompassing theory that includes much more than biology.  You might want to learn more about it before declaring it obsolete.

                     replyreport
                     1. 58

                        W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Do people call you an anti-social scientist?
                        
                        Those are part of the old paradigm, brains resulting from evolution and so on. The new paradigm is entirely different.
                        
                        http://www.brucelipton.com/
                        
                        http://www.brucelipton.com/spontaneous- … -overview/

                        replyreport
                        1. 79

                           psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Um, it's a science and it has an evolutionary basis. Both the biological basis and by analogy the way we learn (also a form of natural selection). When I send my evolutionary psychology papers out to high impact peer reviewed journals, they publish them.
                           
                           IMHO I don't tell people whether or not their prayers are Muslim, Christian or whatever--that is not my expertise.  So please don't go tell me my scientific research is not science until you develop some expertise there.

                           replyreport
                           1. 58

                              W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              You still couldn't name your discipline properly. That's quite enough for now to assess your expertise.

                              replyreport
                              1. 79

                                 psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 You didn't ask for my discipline, You asked for my specialty (that is, my subject area or sub-discipline).  I am a behavioral psychologist. Right back at you.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 58

                                    W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    Is that science?

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 79

                                       psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       I create falsifiable hypotheses, carry out experiments, evaluate data, subject the result to peer review and publish it in scientific journals. If that isn't science, very little is.
                                       
                                       But given that you are such an expert on the state of modern science, clearly you work in this area too.  Right?  You wouldn't hold such form beliefs just based on looking at some websites.

                                       report
                                    2. 58

                                       W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       Did you say you create theories?

                                       report
                                       1. 79

                                          psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          This is a forum--you can scroll back and see what I wrote.

                                          report
                                    3. 58

                                       W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       You create theories, but do you prove them? Do you have scientific laws in psychology? I think I am wasting my time over an ignorant who claims itself to be a psychologist. My waste of time.

                                       report
                                       1. 79

                                          psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          What? I answered that question.
                                          
                                          This is like trying to have a conversation with my cat. 
                                          
                                          Break time, over--I'm going back to work.

                                          report
                                    4. 58

                                       W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       You don't even know how to back out gracefully, alleged psychologist.

                                       report
                        2. 59

                           A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Once again, only woo-woos use the term paradigm shift.

                           replyreport
                           1. 58

                              W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              What you are doing is behaving like a kid. And that is visible.

                              replyreport
4. 79

   psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

   A few scientists is not a paradigm shift.  There are a few scientists whose religion trumps all.  That's their personal choice.  Mostly they don't go into life sciences so it doesn't matter.  Fundamentalists tend to gravitate to inorganic subjects to avoid evolution issues.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It's obvious that you didn't read the links. Besides, the number of scientists involved in this movement is overwhelming.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         huckelburyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         How many Nobel laureates are in that group?

         replyreport
         1. 58

            W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            What does a Nobel Prize winner has to do with a paradigm shift? Anyway, incidentally, Francis Crick contributed significantly to the movement. He received his prize for his work on DNA.

            replyreport
5. 97

   PaulGoodman67posted 11 years ago

   The evidence for evolution just gets stronger and stronger and it was already pretty sound.  With the advances in genetics, we now have a better understanding of the mechanisms by which it works.
   
   'Nuff said.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You have no idea what's going on in that field. http://www.azinet.com/aging/Evolution_Theory.html
      
      The whole structure of evolution has collapsed with the new movement. This will be all reflected in the years to come. A new paradigm is on it's way. It's the fusion of physics and biology. Science is looking for the truth of life and the actual process of its development.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Sorry, but that is entirely false and is just woo woo talk.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Don't advertise your lack of comprehension skills.

            replyreport
6. 79

   psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

   On also has to be in culture that is allegedly changing to know if it is changing. Everything else is just hearsay.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      As much hearsay as the claim, that someone can be depended with the news of advancements in areas that he/she have not even loose associations with. And when all these speculations depend on an interaction over an internet forum.

      replyreport
      1. 97

         PaulGoodman67posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         That link you posted refers to the Denton book published in  the mid-1980s, which was universally criticised by the science community at the time (although a few religious creationists liked it). 
         
         Denton himself, contradicted his evolution book in 'Nature's Destiny', which he wrote later.
         
         Needless to say, the evidence for Darwin's evolution theory has, if anything, got stronger, rather than weaker since Denton was writing 30 years ago.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I posted 3 links, the first time. And you have already singled out the one that you liked. Odd, but instructive.
            
            That Denton link was given to get a brief idea on the concept of paradigm shift in science. The rest are for getting factual information. Biological science has been, in a sense, revolutionized in the last few years. Evolution would be remembered as a benighted era. It had no ground in reality. And now, with the recent findings, it has been stamped out completely.

            replyreport
            1. 97

               PaulGoodman67posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               There is no paradigm shift in science regarding evolution - I've got no idea where that idea comes from?  It sounds like you've been misled, unfortunately.

               replyreport
               1. 58

                  W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  You have no idea where biology has reached these days. Be happy. Stick to your benighted ideas. Your choice.

                  replyreport
                  1. 97

                     PaulGoodman67posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Well, thanks to you, we all know where Michael Denton believed biology was back in 1986!
                     
                     Try reading a more authoritative explanation of Darwin's theory, it may help you to understand why it is held in such strong regard and make you less gullible when it comes to shoddier theories.

                     replyreport
                     1. 58

                        W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        I hate to repeat, but this is the option left. Update yourself, or feel free to remain in the benighted past. The movement is already in motion. Only a bigot will still deny that isn't happening-
                        
                        "And what about "selfish genes", the concept introduced by the Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins to describe how some genes promote their own proliferation, even at the expense of the host organism? The concept has been hugely influential but has tended to promote a reductionist gene-centric view of biology. This viewpoint has been fiercely criticised by many biologists, such as the late Stephen Jay Gould, who argued that the unit of biology is the individual not her genes. Systems biology is reasserting the primacy of the whole organism - the system - rather than the selfish behaviour of any of its components.
                        
                        Systems biology courses are infiltrating curricula in campuses across the globe and systems biology centres are popping up in cities from London to Seattle. The British biological research funding body, the BBSRC, has just announced the creation of three systems biology centres in the UK. These centres are very different from traditional biology departments as
                        they tend to be staffed by physicists, mathematicians and engineers, alongside biologists. Rather like the systems they study, systems biology centres are designed to promote interactivity and networking."

                        replyreport
                  2. 79

                     psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Um, you have given no evidence at all of your assertion, and the burden of proof falls on the one making the assertion not rebutting it.
                     
                     As I said before, you would need to understand science to be able to accurately describe what is happening to it.

                     replyreport
                     1. 58

                        W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        It requires some ability for comprehension to understand and grasp the evidence that has been already presented.
                        
                        http://www3.surrey.ac.uk/qe/articles/Th … ay2005.htm

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           That article is 8 years old. Unfortunately, McFadden does not have any evidence to support his theory and only focuses on molecular processes, which does not explain other observations in evolution such as protein formation rates and action at a distance between proteins and DNA.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              ytbot1xposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              You're deluded at your best, junior. The evidence is mind boggling for that theory. I found over half a million results. You can start here.
                              
                              http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10 … Code=psych

                              replyreport
7. 60

   Toni_Romanposted 11 years ago

   "Evolution has been rejected by the scientific community - what next?"
   
   This must come as a real surprise to evolutionary biologists and other real scientists.  Only non-scientists would think evolution has been rejected by the scientific community.  Until there is a headline on the cover of Science magazine or Scientific American to state that evolution has been rejected by actual scientists, then it is just self-delusional creationists preaching "intelligent design".  Why do people who flunked science in school insist on peddling this nonsense?
   
   I am a Christian.  A Fundamentalist.  A born-again.  And I have also done science in a laboratory as a grad student.  I have never had a a problem with evolution.  Why should I?  To recognize that God created the cosmos and then turn around and deny that God uses laws is blasphemy !!!   God uses the laws of mathematics, the laws of physics, the laws that Moses the Lawgiver was given on the mountain that formed the basis of our criminal & civil laws, and yes, God uses the laws of evolutionary biology.
   
   It is nice to think that God uses the supernatural and does miracles so much that He just suspends the laws altogether to make you happy.  The universe without laws is a universe of magic and the occult.  It is a universe of the Dark Ages and superstition and George Bush.  It is a universe that is anti-Christian, anti-Judaism, anti-science, and anti-reason.  It is a universe of insanity that you are welcome to but it does not exist.
   
   I know that poorly educated people see pictures of scientists working away at various problems whether it is the Infinitesimally small in physics labs or the infinitely large in astronomy observatories or life in biology labs (that includes those connected to hospitals) or rocks in geology labs or any of the thousand other scientific specialties and the poorly educated person thinks that because they do not understand what the scientist is doing -- well golly gee gosh !!!  "They must be e-vil becuz I don'ts be unnerstanding whut thems boys in white coats be doing."
   
   Well I, Toni Roman, don't understand plumbing enough to do some of the work on my house but I do not call plumbers evil.  I cannot grasp how roofers can be up there on hot August days without dying of heat exhaustion but I don't assume that they are demons who got used to heat because of throwing lost souls in the Lake of Fire.  Nice cinematic mental image though.  On the other hand, dentists really are evil (worse than lawyers and IRS agents) but other than that profession, I don't condemn people because their work is complicated and takes more than a sound bite to explain.  Half-wit preachers like to pick on scientists because they know that scientists won't bother to debate people who never got out of grade school.   To be a scientist, you need grade school, high school, college AND grad school.  A preacher or a shifty politician likes to put them self on a level with scientists but it's no use.  They just do not know science.  And even all preachers and politicians are not equal.  A preacher who had two weeks in summer Bible camp is no match for a Biblical scholar who may have a stack of PhD's before they let them near the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Catholic priests have to learn Latin and go through years of seminary training and be willing to be tortured to death rather than reveal what a grieving person said in confession.  A Jewish rabbi has to know Hebrew, the language in which what we Christians call the Old Testament was written, before he can teach a congregation. Saint Paul, one of the Apostles, was taught by Gamaliel, one of the greatest scholars in the history of Judaism and the grandson of the great Hillel.  And Jesus Himself was teaching the scholars at the Temple in Jerusalem before his parents took Him home.  It is said that the Holy Family lived among the Essenes when they were in Egypt and this explains Jesus' immense scholarship.
   
   What would Jesus do?  He would express how embarrassed He is at the people who claim to be Christians who make all Christians look stupid when they criticize science in general and evolution in particular.  One would think after Galileo was tortured by the church elders for saying that the Earth goes around the Sun rather than the other way around that church ladies and elders would keep their mouths shut on the subject of science.  Charles Darwin studied to be an Anglican parson before taking an interest in natural theology and religious natural theology.    He has been dead over a century and busy bodies just will not let him rest in peace.  Move out of your parents' basements, kiss a girl, get a life already !!! 
   
   How long will we have to listen to evolution deniers?  The wack jobs who said that the Earth is flat have given up the ghost.   But there are other deniers.  The Middle East is full of people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the president of Iran who denies the Holocaust.  But even the extremist clerics there find him an embarrassment.  There are still a few people who deny climate change but climate change itself is shutting up these morons one by one as their heating & cooling bills go through the roof and no one returns their phone calls.  So again I ask: How long do we have to listen to evolution deniers?
   
   Answer: As long as there are people who do not understand scientific method.
   
   That could be forever.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   [Apologies in advance to those I have offended.  My reply is not directed at any person -- certainly not the moderator.  My reply is directed at the sentence "Evolution has been rejected by the scientific community."    The followup phrase "what next?" might be interpreted as an expression of disbelief at the continued denial.  Please do not send death threats.  I keep the FBI on speed dial.  Seriously.]

   replyreport
   1. 0

      huckelburyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      No apologies are needed, Toni. As Mr. Jefferson reminded us, truth can stand alone. It is only false propositions that require assistance. Nice work here.

      replyreport
   2. 58

      W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for giving us a brief idea of your belief system (and a little more). It's a paradigm shift, not denial. 
      
      And people doing it are professional scientists, not a neo-philosopher fused with some lame textbooks of outdated science.
      
      http://www.azinet.com/aging/Evolution_Theory.html

      replyreport
   3. 58

      W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      http://www.brucelipton.com/excerpt-chapter-one/
      
      "I didn’t know it at the time, but I now believe that another reason for my students success was that I did not stop at praising cells. I praised the students as well. They needed to hear they were first-rate students in order to believe that they could perform as first-rate students. As I will detail in future chapters, so many of us are leading limited lives not because we have to, but because we THINK we have to.
      
      But I’m getting ahead of myself. Suffice it to say that after four months in paradise, teaching in a way that clarified my thinking about cells and the lessons they provide to humans, I was well on my way to an understanding of the New Biology, which leaves in the dust the defeatism of genetic and parental programming as well as survival-of-the-fittest Darwinism."
      
      We are witnessing a new movement in science. Well, some of us. For the masses, it might take a few years to touch their life directly.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         eternals3ptemberposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         We've witnessed it already. Quite a bit in The article is old news, already discussed, debated, revised. In the (almost) decade since publication, the "junk DNA" has turned out to not be as useless as we thought, for example

         replyreport
         1. 58

            W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            It has been like 8 years, not a decade, and still this is a news to some of these fellows here. The paradigm shift is visibly a movement now. And these people over here still hold these benighted conceptions.
            
            The 'junk DNA' is still in the line to be uncovered fully, because we have very weak idea, even now, how the cell really works, and how the DNA really functions within the organism. With the present available knowledge, which is severely incomplete, we can't link them to sources that we like to believe that they should be linked with.
            
            The new movement is trying to fill these gaps of knowledge, which were formerly repressed by the so-called scientists. The concept of life we had previously, has been virtually revolutionized. The popularly called 'junk DNA' has been already been proposed to be the part of a very complex gene-system. The engineering is still unknown.

            replyreport
         2. 58

            W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            THE UNSELFISH GENE
            By Johnjoe McFadden
            
            
            "And what about "selfish genes", the concept introduced by the Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins to describe how some genes promote their own proliferation, even at the expense of the host organism? The concept has been hugely influential but has tended to promote a reductionist gene-centric view of biology. This viewpoint has been fiercely criticised by many biologists, such as the late Stephen Jay Gould, who argued that the unit of biology is the individual not her genes. Systems biology is reasserting the primacy of the whole organism - the system - rather than the selfish behaviour of any of its components.
            
            Systems biology courses are infiltrating curricula in campuses across the globe and systems biology centres are popping up in cities from London to Seattle. The British biological research funding body, the BBSRC, has just announced the creation of three systems biology centres in the UK. These centres are very different from traditional biology departments as
            they tend to be staffed by physicists, mathematicians and engineers, alongside biologists. Rather like the systems they study, systems biology centres are designed to promote interactivity and networking.
            
            And of course, outside of biology, there will be many who will be saying, "I told you so". Holistic approaches have always dominated the humanities and social sciences."
            
            Comment in The Guardian, Friday May 6, 2005
            http://www3.surrey.ac.uk/qe/articles/Th … ay2005.htm

            replyreport
8. 60

   eternals3ptemberposted 11 years ago

   I do not doubt you; I agree, except that I'm saying the movement is already more pronounced than you let on.

   replyreport
   1. 97

      PaulGoodman67posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      There has been no serious rival for Darwin's theory since the early 20th Century.  Since then, all the evidence has been stacking up with Darwin's theory.
      
      The easiest way to prove Darwin wrong is to find a fossil that is out of time sequence.  Sounds easy, doesn't it?  Good luck with that.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         W Vidalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         That is no evidence at all, to begin with. As I said earlier, some folks here still stick to outdated ideas of the past.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Those theories were first proposed in 1999, almost 15 years ago and still no hard evidence to support it.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               ytbot1xposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               We all know that there is still no hard evidence to support evolution. However, you are incorrect in that you think that the 'theory of evolution' was proposed in 1999. That fairy tale was actually published in 1859.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  twosheds1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  What would you consider hard evidence, professor?

                  replyreport
9. 60

   Toni_Romanposted 11 years ago

   I can understand why you think quantum theory is uncertain. That whole uncertainty principle seems like God playing dice with the universe.  I once had to watch Schrödinger's cat once and it did not end well.  I knew better than to leave a bottle of poison out where the cat could get into it but then there was that dark room with all the rocking chairs.  The cat had a very long tail . . . .

   replyreport
10. 59

    Mark Knowlesposted 11 years ago

    What a silly argument for believing in  a god. In any case - which one would I choose? The Christian psychopath seems unlikely given the nonsensical nature of the story and horrible advertising.
    
    Assuming you accept the possibility of a god existing - which I don't - you must also accept that there are an infinite number of possible gods.
    
    Therefore the chances of your particular god existing are infinity:1 against, whereas the chances of a god not existing are at best 50:50 - either one exists or it doesn't. Add a touch of common sense and a dash of Occam's Razor and we are done here.
    
    
    
    Pollution and possible climate change are real and there is evidence for both - whether or not we are a primary cause is as yet unproven, but I can smell the fumes from cars and industry every time I go near a town so I suspect we are. I suspect Al Gore is doing just fine.
    
    Have you decided how to differentiate between irrational faith based beliefs and beliefs with substantial facts to support them yet?

    replyreport
    1. 60

       ytbot1xposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Don't advertise your belief in a supernatural God. You can't hang, junior. Be rational instead. Learn the latest trends in science and how the bests in the fields are debunking the myths and outdated paradigms of the benighted past.
       
       http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/is_physics_changing

       replyreport
       1. 59

          Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          LOL You back already? You must be making new accounts faster than they can ban them. ]
          
          Damn those rotating IP addresses.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             ytbot1xposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             Well brother Charlie, the fact that the bootlegger could survive for five years with its Evo, Zzly, Maito etc etc alternate profiles, is indicative enough to your claim.
             
             Change into another person and discuss how bad Google is doing to HP
             
             Please change the lingo, for it sounds like the classic sock Evolution Guy
             
             http://evolution-guy.hubpages.com/

             replyreport