why do nikkas still deny charles darwin, evolution and natural selection

[Oville]

What I don't "like" is not the idea of natural selection, but its the perception that its the one guiding force behind evolution. Also the argument about Darwin and Lamark being wrong is relative to what question your asking. Were they wrong about the gradual evolution of species? No. Were they wrong about the exact mechanisms which cause these species to evolve? Yes. For a time when everyone still believed in creationism they introduced the idea of the gradual changing of species over time I'd say that these observations were remarkable considering the fact that understood this without knowledge of genes. Even Darwin's defunct explanation of "gemmules" isn't to conceptually far off with how genes actually work. My comparison over Darwin and Lamark isn't about who was exactly right about the mechanism evolution but about the conceptual ideas behind their theories. Its about how people overstate the randomness of evolution and how little awareness their is about epigenetics. I remember watching the evolution episode of Cosmos with Neil Tyson Degrasse for example and he's still explaining evolution specifically through natural selection. Science textbooks to this day still explain evolution strictly through Darwinism. Even scientists like Richard Dawkins appear to be strict Darwinists. I just think their needs to be broader perspectives in the mainstream.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

What I don't "like" is not the idea of natural selection, but its the perception that its the one guiding force behind evolution. Also the argument about Darwin and Lamark being wrong is relative to what question your asking. Were they wrong about the gradual evolution of species? No. Were they wrong about the exact mechanisms which cause these species to evolve? Yes. For a time when everyone still believed in creationism they introduced the idea of the gradual changing of species over time I'd say that these observations were remarkable considering the fact that understood this without knowledge of genes. Even Darwin's defunct explanation of "gemmules" isn't to conceptually far off with how genes actually work. My comparison over Darwin and Lamark isn't about who was exactly right about the mechanism evolution but about the conceptual ideas behind their theories. Its about how people overstate the randomness of evolution and how little awareness their is to how genes are altered through during our lives and the effects these alterations can play in evolution. I remember watching the evolution episode of Cosmos with Neil Tyson Degrasse for example and he's still explaining evolution specifically through natural selection. Science textbooks to this day still explain evolution strictly through Darwinism. Even scientists like Richard Dawkins appear to be strict Darwinists. I just think their needs to be broader perspectives in the mainstream.

Again, no one cares if you like it. Its all that has been demonstrated to be acted upon.

And yes, gemmules is RADICALLY off. Don't play semantics here. The man didnt know about fukking chromosomes...or anything beyond that. So don't try to weasle your discomfort with the theory in here.

 

[Oville]

Again, no one cares if you like it. Its all that has been demonstrated to be acted upon.

And yes, gemmules is RADICALLY off. Don't play semantics here. The man didnt know about fukking chromosomes...or anything beyond that. So don't try to weasle your discomfort with the theory in here.

Dude I swear between ur unnecessarily hostile reactions to things, ur inability to grasp conceptual perspectives over literal ones, and ur complete lack of empathy for lives of anyone outside of the United States u must have some degree of autism or asperbergers syndrome.

I would understand how ur emphasis on me "not liking" something being inconsequential had something to do with the actual scientific theory but it doesn't. Im not attacking natural selection as a theory, im attacking how its presented as the only theory thats presented given the fact that we know that genes can be altered by chemical signals our bodies produce throughout our lifetimes. If experience plays a part in our gene alterations than evolution should not solely be presented as strictly due to random errors in genetic transcription during reproduction. Nothing about that is unscientific, im actually bolstering ur point that more knowledge on how genes work is essential to bolstering the idea of evolution to the general public

Ur critique of Darwin and Lamark's impact on evolution is a subjective one. U choose to view their lack of knowledge of genes as a way to delegitimze them. I look at the very fact that they were able to present the idea of evolution as significant as their theories werent just guesses but based on observations made studying species. Darwin'sgemmules have a lot of similarities to genes as they both deal with mothers and fathers passing on characteristics that at times might produce random change. That aspect of the gemmules theory is exactly how evolutionaey scientists describe the process of evolution by using genes. Just because he was wrong about the structure doesnt mean he wasnt right about aspects of how the process works.
Not giving Darwin and Lamark credit is like not giving credit to Newton for the comcept of gravity as a force just because einstein proved his description of it to be wrong.

Im not viewing darwin and lamarks theories theough their literary paperwork but from their conceptual perspectives. Random characteristics passed on by parents do seem to randomly change over time and the environment for these changes can prove to be beneficial. In terms of lamarkian theory epigenetics give credence to how life experiences can alter a person's genetic makeup

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Dude I swear between ur unnecessarily hostile reactions to things, ur inability to grasp conceptual perspectives over literal ones, and ur complete lack of empathy for lives of anyone outside of the United States u must have some degree of autism or asperbergers syndrome.

we discuss geopolitics and my views are influenced by what benefits me as an american.

I would understand how ur emphasis on me "not liking" something being inconsequential had something to do with the actual scientific theory but it doesn't. Im not attacking natural selection as a theory, im attacking how its presented as the only theory thats presented given the fact that we know that genes can be altered by chemical signals our bodies produce throughout our lifetimes.

You think we don't know that? Fact is, Epigenetics have NOT been shown to act that way and as such, can't be promoted as doing such. The mechanisms are not clearly delineated. Your inability to understand this is perplexing.

If experience plays a part in our gene alterations than evolution should not solely be presented as strictly due to random errors in genetic transcription during reproduction. Nothing about that is unscientific, im actually bolstering ur point that more knowledge on how genes work is essential to bolstering the idea of evolution to the general public

BECAUSE THE MECHANISM IS NOT WELL UNDERSTOOD WITH RESPECT TO EPIGENETICS.

All we know is that things can change epigenetically...not how, or whats actually happening. We know the beginnings and the outcomes, not the process inbetween. You don't understand this.

Ur critique of Darwin and Lamark's impact on evolution is a subjective one. U choose to view their lack of knowledge of genes as a way to delegitimze them

This is where you're going to realize how wrong you are.

Stop inflating the work of dead men.

They GOT shyt WRONG.

So did Mendel. So did many others. In fact, what makes Einstein so amazing is that he, to date, has not been wrong.

Science doens't care about how much you revere individuals, only what you can prove.

. I look at the very fact that they were able to present the idea of evolution as significant as their theories werent just guesses but based on observations made studying species.

Too bad. It was still wrong with respect to very specific details

Darwin'sgemmules have a lot of similarities to genes as they both deal with mothers and fathers passing on characteristics that at times might produce random change. That aspect of the gemmules theory is exactly how evolutionaey scientists describe the process of evolution by using genes. Just because he was wrong about the structure doesnt mean he wasnt right about aspects of how the process works.

Its either right, or its wrong. his entire description of "gemmules", not to mention he didnt know about chromosomes, is flat out wrong and when compared to what he THEORIZED, looks even more ridiculous.

He has enough respect. Don't wedge him into any contemporary discussion because you refuse to acknowledge an error.

He's flat out wrong.

No nuance or massaging of that will help you.

Not giving Darwin and Lamark credit is like not giving credit to Newton for the comcept of gravity as a force just because einstein proved his description of it to be wrong.

Newton isn't wrong because physics works differently on mechanical scales using different variables.

Big difference.

Darwin hypothesized a physiological process that doesn't even exist.

Im not viewing darwin and lamarks theories theough their literary paperwork but from their conceptual perspectives. Random characteristics passed on by parents do seem to randomly change over time and the environment for these changes can prove to be beneficial. In terms of lamarkian theory epigenetics give credence to life experiences can alter a person's genetic makeup

You're applying a post-hoc rationalization to preserve the image of these men in your mind. Don't do that.

Lamark is wrong because epigenetics, with respect to PROVEN science, do not work in the manner he suggests or even to that extent or through such mechanisms.

Period.

 

[Oville]

we discuss geopolitics and my views are influenced by what benefits me as an american.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
At the expense of other people


You think we don't know that? Fact is, Epigenetics have NOT been shown to act that way and as such, can't be promoted as doing such. The mechanisms are not clearly delineated. Your inability to understand this is perplexing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If genes define a species characteristics, and genes can alter through a person's life than evolutionary characteristics can be passed on by things outside of random errors of genetic transcriptions during reproduction. The mechanism has not clearly been delineated your right, but their's been several studies have shown direct genetic mutations caused in lab animals based on changing that animals diet or giving them chemicals. There is growing evidence that genes can be altered without altering DNA.


BECAUSE THE MECHANISM IS NOT WELL UNDERSTOOD WITH RESPECT TO EPIGENETICS.

All we know is that things can change epigenetically...not how, or whats actually happening. We know the beginnings and the outcomes, not the process inbetween. You don't understand this.

The actual process is inconsequential if you concede that we know the beginnings and the outcomes. All knowing the mechanisms does is allow us to understand and influence the process in the future. But the point is a process other than random transcription error during reproduction can be responsible for evolution of species.

This is where you're going to realize how wrong you are.

Stop inflating the work of dead men.

They GOT shyt WRONG.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Only about the particulars of the process not on the concept of what they proposed. I could give a shyt about preserving their legacy I just disagree with your perspective.


So did Mendel. So did many others. In fact, what makes Einstein so amazing is that he, to date, has not been wrong.
^^^^^^^^
Lol dude I don't have posters of any of these guys on my wall I don't care if their wrong and Einstein has been proven wrong about plenty.

Science doens't care about how much you revere individuals, only what you can prove.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dude your making a lot of inaccurate assumptions lol

Too bad. It was still wrong with respect to very specific details
Its either right, or its wrong. his entire description of "gemmules", not to mention he didnt know about chromosomes, is flat out wrong and when compared to what he THEORIZED, looks even more ridiculous.

He has enough respect. Don't wedge him into any contemporary discussion because you refuse to acknowledge an error.
^^^^^^^
I've acknowledged their errors, I just don't let them influence my perspective on their contributions. I have no problem calling these guys hacks I just disagree with the idea that their lack of knowledge of DNA and Chromosomes makes their observations and theories about the evolution worthless

He's flat out wrong.

No nuance or massaging of that will help you.
Newton isn't wrong because physics works differently on mechanical scales using different variables.
Big difference.
Darwin hypothesized a physiological process that doesn't even exist.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You know what Einstein said when conceptualized the theory of relativity? "Sorry Newton, you are wrong". Hell Darwin's Gemmules theory is more similar to how genetic reproduction takes plan than Newton's theory of gravity is to General Relativity. Darwin's description of the process being wrong shouldn't take away from the fact that his observations gave fruit to the idea of species evolving during a time of creation, that these characteristics were passed on through parents, that at times during reproduction these characteristics are altered randomly and can change the physical nature of species and that how this changed physical feature can benefit or harm a species depending on its environment. I mean this entire aspect of this process pretty much mirrors what goes on in "genetic" reproduction.



You're applying a post-hoc rationalization to preserve the image of these men in your mind. Don't do that.

Lamark is wrong because epigenetics, with respect to PROVEN science, do not work in the manner he suggests or even to that extent or through such mechanisms.
^^^^^^^^
Again a lot of assumptions. Plenty of reconsideration has been given to the concepts of Lamark's theories based on recent discoveries in epigenetics. People don't completely remove Darwin's contributions to the theory of evolution as you have despite the fact that he didn't know about genes because of the fact that the conceptualization of his theory (absent genes) still makes sense to how the process works. I brought up these two scientists because their examples of theories of random changes in natural evolution vs. causal changes in natural evolution. Your looking at their work as a science professor looking at a dissertation which contains errors and thus invalidating their work. That's fine but the conceptualization of what their theories propose hold signicance in the evolutionary debate.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

@Oville since you fukked up the formatting, i'll tell you this.

I have degree'S in this shyt and do it for a living.

So you're going to really need to think if youre talking to someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Fact is, Darwin got shyt wrong. He just did. You can't weasel in a topic based on semantics to "how it sounds"...nah fam, its wrong. I know PhD's who's slap you for being so loose with the language, WHICH MATTERS.

 

[Oville]

@Oville since you fukked up the formatting, i'll tell you this.

I have degree'S in this shyt and do it for a living.

So you're going to really need to think if youre talking to someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Fact is, Darwin got shyt wrong. He just did. You can't weasel in a topic based on semantics to "how it sounds"...nah fam, its wrong. I know PhD's who's slap you for being so loose with the language, WHICH MATTERS.

*Looks over shoulder for dudes rocking pocket protectors and calculators

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

*Looks over shoulder for dudes rocking pocket protectors and calculators

Precisely, like I thought.

I'm serious. You really don't know what you're talking about. You can't just massage any little theory in. Its wrong.

You'd be out here trying to equate radioactive decay to alchemy

 

[Oville]

Precisely, like I thought.

I'm serious. You really don't know what you're talking about. You can't just massage any little theory in. Its wrong.

You'd be out here trying to equate radioactive decay to alchemy

Hey don't blame me, blame the scientific community for still holding Darwin's theory sacred.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Hey don't blame me, blame the scientific community for still holding Darwin's theory sacred.

Don't blame me for you not understanding that:

1. Darwin got things wrong
2. No one currently focuses on Darwin

Retelling the STORY of the discovery of evolution is different from the present teaching of evolution. Again, Gregor Mendel and others...

 

[Oville]

Don't blame me for you not understanding that:

1. Darwin got things wrong
2. No one currently focuses on Darwin

Retelling the STORY of the discovery of evolution is different from the present teaching of evolution. Again, Gregor Mendel and others...

 

[Oville]

Don't blame me for you not understanding that:

1. Darwin got things wrong
2. No one currently focuses on Darwin

Retelling the STORY of the discovery of evolution is different from the present teaching of evolution. Again, Gregor Mendel and others...

 

[OsO]

Precisely, like I thought.

I'm serious. You really don't know what you're talking about. You can't just massage any little theory in. Its wrong.

You'd be out here trying to equate radioactive decay to alchemy

I know I'm going to regret responding to this but-

1) The scientific mainstream promotes natural selection as the catalyst for evolution, and mutations as random. Let's not pretend otherwise.

2) If you don't know what alchemy is, then how can you compare it to something else?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I know I'm going to regret responding to this but-

1) The scientific mainstream promotes natural selection as the catalyst for evolution, and mutations as random. Let's not pretend otherwise.

2) If you don't know what alchemy is, then how can you compare it to something else?

1. The mutations aren't presented as "random" they're seen as inherent to some of the actual errors in the enyzmatic processes themselves. HINT: Theres more than 4 Nucleotides they tell you in high school. 99% of ya'll don't know this.

2. I've heard the comparison made, but again its flawed even though people want to make the connection. Elements changing isn't good enough to approximate whats a radically different suggestion

 

[Red Shield]

Don't mind Napolean.. dude is the worst poster in any section