• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evolution answers

justintime said:
If according to Dinwar "Darwinism was abandoned about a century ago." there is very little left of evolution to consider because it removes the cornerstone in Darwin's evolution theory the theory of Natural Selection. We are then left with Mendel's genetics or heredity and that only offers an explanation for variations within a species. But you have Dinwar to quote and I am sure he can defend his position. Starting here..........

Dinwar wrote: Darwinism was abandoned about a century ago. Check link below.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9787380&postcount=788
Click to expand...
You've had the opportunity to understand there are other selection pressures besided natural selection. You seem unable to comprehend.

Or are you just ignoring those who attempt to educate you? I'm beginning to doubt your sincerity here.
 
justintime said:
I never made it a point of interest to learn what afflicts other people for fear it might bias my attitude towards them.
Click to expand...

Let me just say this, Justin, and we'll discontinue the derail:

Your education, from what I can tell by your posts here, is probably not much better than mine- high school only; if it is, you've certainly wasted it, if education is understood as something more than just the amassing of facts, but also learning the ability to (so to speak) collate them (not to just forge a sword, but to hone it to a useful edge- otherwise, all you have is a club). But you'll notice that I've never made any claims in detail about evolution; I leave that to the folks (like Dinwar) who have the education to understand and collate those details. The difference between you and me is that I understand and accept my limitations (which makes me able to learn from Dinwar and the others), where you seem to think of your limits as actually a benefit that allows you to doubt what anyone without those limits may say- you think you have a sword when all you have is a club of prideful ignorance.

Your main error isn't in the details (because you don't address them), but in your basic logic and approach; and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what it doesn't take a rocket scientist to get wrong.
 
Last edited:
turingtest said:
Let me just say this, Justin, and we'll discontinue the derail:

Your education, from what I can tell by your posts here, is probably not much better than mine- high school only; if it is, you've certainly wasted it, if education is understood as more than just the amassing of facts, but also learning the ability to (so to speak) collate them (not to just forge a sword, but to hone it to a useful edge- otherwise, all you have is a club). But you'll notice that I've never made any claims in detail about evolution; I leave that to the folks (like Dinwar) who have the education to understand and collate those details. The difference between you and me is that I understand and accept my limitations (which makes me able to learn from Dinwar and the others), where you seem to think of your limits as actually a benefit that allows you to doubt what anyone without those limits may say- you think you have a sword when all you have is a club of prideful ignorance.

Your main error isn't in the details (because you don't address them), but in your basic logic and approach; and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what it doesn't take a rocket scientist to get wrong.
Click to expand...

That is the trouble with people who are too willing to leave it to so called experts. I guess you are forced to agree with what Dinwar posted.

If you read the link. Darwin even doubted his own theory of natural selection soon after he set out his theory of evolution by natural selection as an explanation for adaptation and speciation. Evolution (Darwin's theory)is still taught in schools and the text books still refer to natural selection as a cornerstone of modern biology even though Darwinism was abandoned a century ago according to Dinwar our resident expert. Somebody got the facts wrong and somebody confused the facts with their facts and got it wrong too.

It is the experts who want you to believe they are experts. But if you are aware that 65% of the science papers studied were found fraudulent, you would be less intimidated by those so called experts.

Darwinism was abandoned about a century agohttp://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9787380&postcount=788
 
Okay, define "Darwinism" please and kindly list how both modern theory and your "theory" differ from it and from one another.
 
justintime said:
...even though Darwinism was abandoned a century ago according to Dinwar our resident expert. Somebody got the facts wrong and somebody confused the facts with their facts and got it wrong too.
Click to expand...

You're cherry picking quotes. Darinwism was not abandoned, it was amplified upon.
 
justintime said:
You are downplaying Natural Selection. It is the cornerstone of Darwin's theory and the mechanism for descent with modification.
Click to expand...
I stated what Natural Selection is:
Reality Check said:
It is called evolution, justintime. This is not the "Natual Natural Selection answers" thread :D.
Natural selection is half of one of the mechanisms behind the fact of evolution.
Click to expand...
Creationists and IDiots have the crazy idea that research on evolution stopped with Darwin and ignorantly go on aboutDarwinism
[QUOTE0]Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.[/QUOTE]

It is the modern evolutionary synthesis that includes other mechanisms of evolution that "downplays" natural selection.
 
justintime said:
In my Unified Theory of Evolution I pointed to the fact Darwin's theory was over simplified because Darwin was not privy to Mendel's genetics, DNA sequencing, adequate fossil samples and modern investigative technology.
Click to expand...
That "Unified Theory of Evolution" is just wrong, justintime. The theory of evolution started by Darwin was confirmed and enhanced by Mendel's genetics, DNA sequencing, more fossil samples and modern investigative technology.
Darwin's evidence and theory was not flawed. He presented the evidence and a theory that matched the evidence.

And yes, we know that the words natural and selection appear in his book :jaw-dropp!
 
justintime said:
Darwinism was abandoned about a century agohttp://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9787380&postcount=788
Click to expand...
We are forced by the real world to agree with Darwinism was abandoned because Darwinism was replaced by the modern evolutionary synthesis.

We are forced by the real world to disagree with Darwinism was abandoned a century ago for the reason that Darwinism was replaced by the modern evolutionary synthesis between 1936 and 1947 which is more like about 70 years ago.
 
The error here is that "Darwinism" and "rejected" don't mean what JiT thinks they mean. Increasingly obvious to me is that he just want to score Internet Points rather than have an actual discussion. When someone descends to scoring points with disingenuous use of wordplay they're done.
 
justintime said:
Thank you for pointing out the deliberate attempts to mislead by taking my quotes out of context. It is only when readers exercise their rights and demand a higher standard of integrity will we see a reduction is intellectual dishonesty.

Many of my ideas are left to blush unseen and waste it sweetness in this desert of empty space. (adaptation of Thomas Gray)
Click to expand...
You're right, of course. You need look no further for proof than this series of posts in which you espoused no laughable or racist ideas and in which you resoundingly demonstrated your grasp and acceptance of my point.
 
justintime said:
In my Unified Theory of Evolution ...
Click to expand...
Unfortunately you do not give a citation to your "Unified Theory of Evolution", justintime.
The title suggests that you believe in the fact of evolution and have a theory to explain the evidence for evolution.

Googling gives a couple of forum threads, e.g.
* Unified theory of evolution...work in progress (Feb 29, 2012) by the banned justinrapper.
* Unified theory of evolution...work in progress (Feb 29, 2012) by the banned for trolling justintime.

But the summary of the theory makes the title very grandiose:
"Unified theory summary. Ardipithecus was common ancestor to humans and chimpanzees. After human and chimps diverged they interbred as proto-human-proto-chimp about 1.2 million years later. Evidence is the fused Chromosome 2 in humans are closely matched with chimps chromosome 2a and 2b"
So nothing about the theory of evolution, just a speculation about a common ancestor.

Amusing aside: The Kruger-Dunning effect is named after Justin Kruger and David Dunning and your user name is justintime. It could be 'just in time' or maybe you share the same first name as Kruger :D.
 
justintime said:
Evolution (Darwin's theory)is still taught in schools and the text books still refer to natural selection as a cornerstone of modern biology even though Darwinism was abandoned a century ago according to Dinwar our resident expert.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing:

Darwin's original theories are still approximately correct. They are certainly NOT completely wrong or misguided.

Modern evolutionary studies have gone way beyond Darwin's work, into much more detail than Darwin ever could, using many more factors regarding evolutionary change, than Darwin could have ever guessed at. (This includes, but is not limited to, Mendel's work on genes.)

However, there is soooo much science generated from modern evolutionary thinking, that it would overwhelm first-year science students.

So, before one can get into all of those newer, nitty-gritty details, it pays to get the foundations established first! And, one of the best ways to do that, is to START with Darwin's work on the subject! It's easier to comprehend (relatively speaking), and sets up the scene for the more complicated stuff to come after. (There might also be benefits from teaching it as a history lesson, but that's besides the point.)

So, it makes sense, to me, that Darwin's theory and works would still be taught in school textbooks, while simultaneously being "abandoned" by modern science.
 
Last edited:
justintime said:
That is the trouble with people who are too willing to leave it to so called experts. I guess you are forced to agree with what Dinwar posted.
Click to expand...
justintime said:
It is the experts who want you to believe they are experts. But if you are aware that 65% of the science papers studied were found fraudulent, you would be less intimidated by those so called experts.
Click to expand...

Okay, so let's assume the experts are all wrong. What have you got? (And can chimpanzee has cheezburger?)
 
Missed this:
justintime said:
It is the experts who want you to believe they are experts. But if you are aware that 65% of the science papers studied were found fraudulent, you would be less intimidated by those so called experts.
Click to expand...
Everyone in this thread is aware that "65% of the science papers studied were found fraudulent" is a absurd mistake since the authors studied over 25 million PubMed papers to extract 2047 retracted papers.
Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications
PubMed references more than 25 million articles relating primarily to biomedical research published since the 1940s. A comprehensive search of the PubMed database in May 2012 identified 2,047 retracted articles, with the earliest retracted article published in 1973 and retracted in 1977
Click to expand...
As noted on 19th December 2013:0.0096% is a tiny percentage, justintime.
68% of the 2047 retracted papers out of 25 million papers studied were retracted because of fraud or suspected fraud.
That is an even smaller 0.0056% of the 25 million papers studied :jaw-dropp!
 
justintime said:
In my Unified Theory of Evolution I pointed to the fact Darwin's theory was over simplified because Darwin was not privy to Mendel's genetics, DNA sequencing, adequate fossil samples and modern investigative technology.
Click to expand...


Mendel's genetics actually solved a problem that Darwin recognised; the model of inheritance current at the time, which was that the characteristics of the parents were 'blended', would have meant that speciaes would tend to remain stable because individuals with unusual traits would tend to breed with individuals more typical of the species. Darwin's theory actually predicted that the then-current model of inheritance was wrong.

The same goes for the fossil record. Darwin recognised that it was incomplete. What has since been discovered is as predicted by his theory.
 
Mojo said:
Mendel's genetics actually solved a problem that Darwin recognised; the model of inheritance current at the time, which was that the characteristics of the parents were 'blended', would have meant that speciaes would tend to remain stable because individuals with unusual traits would tend to breed with individuals more typical of the species. Darwin's theory actually predicted that the then-current model of inheritance was wrong.

The same goes for the fossil record. Darwin recognised that it was incomplete. What has since been discovered is as predicted by his theory.
Click to expand...

But Dinwar said Darwinism was abandoned about a century ago. So why are you still referring to Darwin.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9787380&postcount=788
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom