Mirage
Vortigaunt
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2007
- Messages
- 599
- Reaction score
- 10
New Darwin...thing
- Thread starter Mirage
- Start date
Eejit
The Freeman
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 13,510
- Reaction score
- 219
Huge straw man argument.
Darwin's theories while generally correct have been acknowledged to be incomplete and have been revised to form our current understanding.
The water flea 'problem' is really nothing that unusual. Only someone with limited comprehension of modern biology would think that it's unexplainable by today's science.
It's not Lamarckism. There isn't even any firm evidence that such traits can be reliably inherited over multiple generations.
I can go into detail if you like, but trust me.
Darwin's theories while generally correct have been acknowledged to be incomplete and have been revised to form our current understanding.
The water flea 'problem' is really nothing that unusual. Only someone with limited comprehension of modern biology would think that it's unexplainable by today's science.
It's not Lamarckism. There isn't even any firm evidence that such traits can be reliably inherited over multiple generations.
I can go into detail if you like, but trust me.
jverne
Newbie
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,302
- Reaction score
- 0
god damn media...why do they have to write everything so dramatic and alarmist
"Water fleas wear helmets when predators are around new study shows, resulting in million of atheist running for their lives in despair as their overlord Darwin makes a mistake!"
*sigh*
look you...reporters with brains smaller than lab mice...science is constantly "evolving", discovering new stuff and gaining knowledge. what a man found out 200 years ago is not absolute and ultimate truth. if you can disprove a "theory" abiding to the scientific method then there is no problem.
and besides they didn't disprove evolution, it's more of an addition to it if anything.
Lamarck pulled his ideas out of his ass...oh giraffes have long necks because they stretch them...yes let's call it scientific knowledge.
"Water fleas wear helmets when predators are around new study shows, resulting in million of atheist running for their lives in despair as their overlord Darwin makes a mistake!"
*sigh*
look you...reporters with brains smaller than lab mice...science is constantly "evolving", discovering new stuff and gaining knowledge. what a man found out 200 years ago is not absolute and ultimate truth. if you can disprove a "theory" abiding to the scientific method then there is no problem.
and besides they didn't disprove evolution, it's more of an addition to it if anything.
Lamarck pulled his ideas out of his ass...oh giraffes have long necks because they stretch them...yes let's call it scientific knowledge.
Eejit
The Freeman
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 13,510
- Reaction score
- 219
It's also not news. It fails at the 'new' part.
It's like writing an article saying that - shock horror - scientists now say that Newton's laws of motion don't apply precisely in certain cases.
It's like an article Stern would write. 'Whut? Whussat there? Electricity? Tame lightning! Good grief what a fascinating new development!'
It's like writing an article saying that - shock horror - scientists now say that Newton's laws of motion don't apply precisely in certain cases.
It's like an article Stern would write. 'Whut? Whussat there? Electricity? Tame lightning! Good grief what a fascinating new development!'
Sheepo
The Freeman
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 10,577
- Reaction score
- 79
I've never understood arguing against evolution. It's completely logical and obvious once you think about it.
Organisms reproduce and their offspring have a varying range of traits.
Organisms without harmful traits live to reproduce, and those with harmful traits don't live to reproduce.
Over time certain traits become standard for a species since they are the only ones reproducing.
As a species gains and loses it's traits it becomes completely unrecognizable compared to the original.
There is no aspect that can be argued. It's simply common sense.
Organisms reproduce and their offspring have a varying range of traits.
Organisms without harmful traits live to reproduce, and those with harmful traits don't live to reproduce.
Over time certain traits become standard for a species since they are the only ones reproducing.
As a species gains and loses it's traits it becomes completely unrecognizable compared to the original.
There is no aspect that can be argued. It's simply common sense.
Mirage
Vortigaunt
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2007
- Messages
- 599
- Reaction score
- 10
No, I don't need anything explained to me. I am more interested in people's opinions on the article than the actual article itself. Simple.
CyberPitz
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2004
- Messages
- 24,791
- Reaction score
- 7
Been there, done that. Come up with something that HASN'T been done.
Godron
Spy
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 638
- Reaction score
- 4
I think this might be something called epigenetics or something. I think I heard about it on a documentary years ago; basically certain genes in the ova can be effectively switched on and off, depending on the environment the mother lived in, producing offspring with different characteristics but presumably the same actual genome as the mother. It's been observed in human communities apparently.
Don't quote me on this, my memory is hasy at best, but this does sound very similar.
Don't quote me on this, my memory is hasy at best, but this does sound very similar.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2004
- Messages
- 12,233
- Reaction score
- 241
I've heard of a similar study too Godron, phenotypes are not completely governed by genotype, environment factors influence things too. e.g. Different temperatures of incubated crocodile eggs produce male / female offspring.
I love how 99.9% of evolution / development of organisms can be explained via natural selection, with allopatric /sympatric speciation, gene flow & things like sexual selection, fitness & genetic variation. The other examples are mechanisms we don't fully understand yet or are a complex mixture of disruptive evolutionary systems. It doesn't mean the other 99.9% we fully understand is incorrect.
It's about time people stop fighting against completely solid knowledge and we start putting our energies into more useful things. The ultimate irony is most sensible / educated individuals know Darwin was right, the rest haven't evolved sufficiently to understand how simple and genius natural selection is.
Also, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744?1829) is well recognised to be full of rubbish, and his ideas are disregarded by the majority of the scientific community.
I love how 99.9% of evolution / development of organisms can be explained via natural selection, with allopatric /sympatric speciation, gene flow & things like sexual selection, fitness & genetic variation. The other examples are mechanisms we don't fully understand yet or are a complex mixture of disruptive evolutionary systems. It doesn't mean the other 99.9% we fully understand is incorrect.
It's about time people stop fighting against completely solid knowledge and we start putting our energies into more useful things. The ultimate irony is most sensible / educated individuals know Darwin was right, the rest haven't evolved sufficiently to understand how simple and genius natural selection is.
Also, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744?1829) is well recognised to be full of rubbish, and his ideas are disregarded by the majority of the scientific community.
Sulkdodds
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2003
- Messages
- 18,846
- Reaction score
- 27
?!?!??!
Eejit
The Freeman
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 13,510
- Reaction score
- 219
Yeah, pretty goddamn awesome.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1647302
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1647302
PvtRyan
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2003
- Messages
- 10,026
- Reaction score
- 1
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6LKjJT7gh9s
The sun wouldn't shine without quantum tunneling and there wouldn't be any life.
Similar threads
