• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong


Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,301
Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong
What if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inaccurate? What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants? Evolutionary thinking is having a revolution . . .

Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong | Science | The Guardian

Well well well....:D

Just goes to show - Science is full of surprises...

Gotta admit I have always found Theory of Evolution to be full of missing links...

Maybe the latest findings will help fill in some of the gaps.:)
 

toughbutfair

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
9,744
I read a book which explained it all, woman is descended from man's rib and dinosaurs never existed. We've been on the planet as we are from the first week of the earth.

It is all laid out in this great science book written long ago. We were taught it in school.
 

toughbutfair

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
9,744
I think Darwin is in the right ballpark. Like most science it will be adjusted for various errors over the centuries.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
31,939
It is all laid out in this great science book written long ago. We were taught it in school.
You write really well for someone who left school after High Babies:confused:
 

Q-Tours

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
2,465
That's why its a theory.
I think you've misunderstood what scientists mean by the word 'theory'. It doesn't mean 'an educated guess' or such like.

If you observe a pattern of behaviour or phenomena (e.g. dropped balls fall to the ground, life forms show variation over generations, etc), you can describe that consistent set of facts as a 'law' if you can show it happens generally.

You can make a guess as to why that law is the way it is. If you can think of a test that will support your reasoning by demonstrating something not yet observed, you've got a hypothesis. You can test that hypothesis by experiment or observation (i.e. to see if it turns up the observation you predicted).

That gives you a hypothesis that's supported by data. A few different ones that also support your explanation lets you upgrade your explanation to a theory.

The point is that you can't call it a theory unless it makes specific predictions that are supported by observational data.

Newton only managed to come up with laws of gravity. Einstein's theory of general relativity is the generally accepted explanation of why Newton's laws say what they do.
 

eoinod

Active member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
261
Stupid article title.

Most people know next to nothing about the "Theory of Evolution" (or any other scientific matter), what most people have heard is of course likely bunkum. Most people know little than that we are descended from apes.
 

BlowIn

Active member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
267
Good linky thanks Cat.
 
D

Deleted member 17573

Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong
What if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inaccurate? What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants? Evolutionary thinking is having a revolution . . .

Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong | Science | The Guardian

Well well well....:D

Just goes to show - Science is full of surprises...

Gotta admit I have always found Theory of Evolution to be full of missing links...

Maybe the latest findings will help fill in some of the gaps.:)
Rather than post a link, would you like to explain this issue? And
you really should resist the temptation to toss in references to "missing links" - that was never an issue except in the feeblest of fundamentalist minds.
 

sondagefaux

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
15,682
Interesting stuff. Environment and lifestyle could have a much greater role to play in evolution than thought before. I wonder what biological determinists will make of this?

The Guardian article has a link to another article from Time.

The great hope for ongoing epigenetic research is that with the flick of a biochemical switch, we could tell genes that play a role in many diseases — including cancer, schizophrenia, autism, Alzheimer's, diabetes and many others — to lie dormant. We could, at long last, have a trump card to play against Darwin.

Can epigenetic changes be permanent? Possibly, but it's important to remember that epigenetics isn't evolution. It doesn't change DNA. Epigenetic changes represent a biological response to an environmental stressor. That response can be inherited through many generations via epigenetic marks, but if you remove the environmental pressure, the epigenetic marks will eventually fade, and the DNA code will — over time — begin to revert to its original programming. That's the current thinking, anyway: that only natural selection causes permanent genetic change.

And yet even if epigenetic inheritance doesn't last forever, it can be hugely powerful. In February 2009, the Journal of Neuroscience published a paper showing that even memory — a wildly complex biological and psychological process — can be improved from one generation to the next via epigenetics. The paper described an experiment with mice led by Larry Feig, a Tufts University biochemist. Feig's team exposed mice with genetic memory problems to an environment rich with toys, exercise and extra attention. These mice showed significant improvement in long-term potentiation (LTP), a form of neural transmission that is key to memory formation. Surprisingly, their offspring also showed LTP improvement, even when the offspring got no extra attention.

All this explains why the scientific community is so nervously excited about epigenetics. In his forthcoming book The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You've Been Told About Genetics, Talent and IQ Is Wrong, science writer David Shenk says epigenetics is helping usher in a "new paradigm" that "reveals how bankrupt the phrase 'nature versus nurture' really is." He calls epigenetics "perhaps the most important discovery in the science of heredity since the gene."

Geneticists are quietly acknowledging that we may have too easily dismissed an early naturalist who anticipated modern epigenetics — and whom Darwinists have long disparaged. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) argued that evolution could occur within a generation or two. He posited that animals acquired certain traits during their lifetimes because of their environment and choices. The most famous Lamarckian example: giraffes acquired their long necks because their recent ancestors had stretched to reach high, nutrient-rich leaves.

In contrast, Darwin argued that evolution works not through the fire of effort but through cold, impartial selection. By Darwinist thinking, giraffes got their long necks over millennia because genes for long necks had, very slowly, gained advantage. Darwin, who was 84 years younger than Lamarck, was the better scientist, and he won the day. Lamarckian evolution came to be seen as a scientific blunder. Yet epigenetics is now forcing scientists to re-evaluate Lamarck's ideas.
Epigenetics, DNA: How You Can Change Your Genes, Destiny - TIME
 
Last edited:

sondagefaux

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
15,682
Yes - but complimentary to traditional evolution - not contrary to it.
Absolutely. Creationists won't be able to take any comfort from this. It's the doctrinaire biological determinists who are going to be most put out.
 

martino

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
1,382
Bacteria express different genes in response to their environment very quickly. It might figure then that higher organisms can do this too only it takes longer-a couple of generations maybe. I don't think Darwinism is the whole picture-an important part of it surely, but by no means the end of the story. I always found the notion of random mutation just a little bit too,well, eh, random!
 

Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,301
Rather than post a link, would you like to explain this issue? And
you really should resist the temptation to toss in references to "missing links" - that was never an issue except in the feeblest of fundamentalist minds.
Its easier just to read the article.

These latest findings put TOE through the mixer on full power IMO...
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,359
Absolutely. Creationists won't be able to take any comfort from this. It's the doctrinaire biological determinists who are going to be most put out.
The horizontal gene transfers also make rather a mess of the whole 'tree structure' approach to taxonomy. And the likelihood is, according to some recent research, that speciation doesn't happen the way most of us expect either.
 
Top