Is Jesus's "this generation will certainly not pass" valid grounds for scepticism?

[Pixel42]

Post #939

Thanks. I came into the discussion later, when it was the use of 'Darwinism' and then 'evolutionist' that were being questioned.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Yes, a minority.

I'm not sure why you highlight what you did?
I do think there is some truth in what you highlighted.

Yeah, I wasn't very explicit. It emphasized the claim in the third quote...

some of the criticisms of the MS and contemporary evolutionary biology are primarily meta-scientific, revealing the underlying identity politics of critics

I think that's what some folks are tripping over in your posts.

 

[acbytesla]

Your point is?

Dictionaries are not authorities on definitions. When those attempting to dismiss evolution use language in the way that they do, the words that they use creep into the lexicon. It would better that we don't encourage that.

The BBC has a page on the 'Theory of evolution'. Here's a quote from it:
Richard Dawkins is a famous biologist and is also an atheist. He is a great supporter of the theory of evolution.

What's your point? Are you trying to make an argument from authority. Why mention theory?

You haven't established that anyone is a 'nut job'.

Behe is a nut job. Answers in Genisis is a group of nutjobs. Collins's reasons for his religiosity is nutty.

I'm happy to use the language that evolutionary biologists use - so 'evolutionary theory' is just fine.

Why not just say evolution? There is no reason to say theory. Adding it makes you appear to be dismissive.

 

[steenkh]

Actually, I don’t think there is anything controversial, or wrong, in calling it the ‘theory of evolution’. In scientific circles, a theory is something that is rock solid, and no longer a hypothesis. The problem that we can see with the scientific use of the word ‘theory’ is that practically nobody else use it in this sense, and that is why it opens up for creationist arguments that evolution is “just” a theory.

It is unfortunate, and I think that it would be better that the scientific community adapts to the normal use of the word, than having to fight this battle over and over again.

But as the situation is right now, it is not wrong to use the term ‘theory of evolution’. As opposed to ‘Darwinism’

 

[arthwollipot]

I'd quote Art's response to 'are you a Christian'?

That's not a direct quote. I never string full stops together like that. Modifying someone's quotes without permission like that is against the forum rules.

 

[arthwollipot]

Okay, I wasn't totally clear . I meant that your response of 'does it matter' when I asked you if you were a Christian would be sincere if you also thought it didn't matter what I was either. Is that the case - it doesn't matter what I am?

I'm not the one using creationist language.

 

[Poem]

That's not a direct quote. I never string full stops together like that. Modifying someone's quotes without permission like that is against the forum rules.

You know very well that I had and have no intention of misrepresenting you. Why are you doing this?

Your first sentence response was related to my 'Are you a Christian?' and the second sentence was related to my second sentence:

Are you a Christian? If you are, would you care to respond to the OP?

YOU: "Does it matter? And I think that's what I've been doing."

I'm not the one using creationist language.

And I have given multiple examples of biologists using such language.

If you want to interrogate a Creationist then go and find one.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

And I have given multiple examples of biologists using such language.

Have you given multiple examples of biologists calling themselves "evolutionists"? Because I do not recall seeming them if you have.

 

[Poem]

I think that's what some folks are tripping over in your posts.

I think that is probably right - I mentioned that their 'division' is somewhat nuanced.

It is still a little startling to read this from The Third Way site:
The DNA record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations.

That flatly contradicts modern synthesis. According to Christ's College Cambridge:
The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis identifies mutation as being central to natural selection. Mutation provides and maintains genetic variation amongst individuals in a population, a prime factor for natural selection to occur.

 

[Poem]

Dictionaries are not authorities on definitions. When those attempting to dismiss evolution use language in the way that they do, the words that they use creep into the lexicon. It would better that we don't encourage that.

Okay - but that does not worry me.

What's your point? Are you trying to make an argument from authority. Why mention theory?

That you appear to have an issue with a whole lot of folk, including (but not limited to) the BBC, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, Denis Brain, Gregory A. Wray, Hopi E. Hoekstra et al.

Behe is a nut job. Answers in Genisis is a group of nutjobs. Collins's reasons for his religiosity is nutty.

I prefer facts.

Why not just say evolution? There is no reason to say theory. Adding it makes you appear to be dismissive.

Already addressed.

 

[sphenisc]

I think that is probably right - I mentioned that there 'division' is somewhat nuanced.

It is still a little startling to read this from The Third Way site:
The DNA record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations.

That flatly contradicts modern synthesis. According to Christ's College Cambridge:
The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis identifies mutation as being central to natural selection. Mutation provides and maintains genetic variation amongst individuals in a population, a prime factor for natural selection to occur.

It doesn't flatly contradict it. Large or non-random mutations are compatible with both statements.

 

[Poem]

It doesn't flatly contradict it. Large or non-random mutations are compatible with both statements.

I'm listening - but according to Berkley University of California:

Mutations are random
The mechanisms of evolution — like natural selection and genetic drift — work with the random variation generated by mutation.

 

[Poem]

The central tenet of evolutionary theory is that it is a blind, undirected process.

 

[steenkh]

It is still a little startling to read this from The Third Way site:
The DNA record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations.

Mutations are random
The mechanisms of evolution — like natural selection and genetic drift — work with the random variation generated by mutation.

I don’t think that anybody (except creationists) contest that new and useful variations in microbes and vira originate in random mutations, but once created, it seems that they can be transferred from one organism to another. I have no idea if these genes are the main source of new of variations for the receiving organisms or not. I doubt that there is a way to calculate it at this point.

As pointed out, there are other factors in evolution than DNA, such as RNA genes, or symbiosis. But all of these are at one point caused by random variations as I understand it.

 

[sphenisc]

I'm listening - but according to Berkley University of California:

Mutations are random
The mechanisms of evolution — like natural selection and genetic drift — work with the random variation generated by mutation.

Which a) doesn't make it true, and b) doesn't make it a requirement of the Modern Synthesis.
Adaptive Mutation and Site-specific Mutagenesis

 

[Poem]

Which a) doesn't make it true,

Okay - but if Berkley UC has got this wrong then that would be further evidence of some disagreement.

and b) doesn't make it a requirement of the Modern Synthesis.
Adaptive Mutation

According to wikipedia:
Adaptive mutation, also called directed mutation or directed mutagenesis is a controversial evolutionary theory. It posits that mutations, or genetic changes, are much less random and more purposeful than traditional evolution, implying that organisms can respond to environmental stresses by directing mutations to certain genes or areas of the genome. There have been a wide variety of experiments trying to support (or disprove) the idea of adaptive mutation, at least in microorganisms.

According to AI:
While the idea of "adaptive mutation" (where mutations occur in response to environmental pressures rather than being random) is a topic of debate within evolutionary biology, there isn't a consensus among biologists that it's a universally accepted mechanism, and many biologists hold that mutations are primarily random.

and Site-specific Mutagenesis

As far as I am aware - such mutations are introduced by the scientists themselves....CMIIW.

 

[sphenisc]

Okay - but if Berkley UC has got this wrong then that would be further evidence of some disagreement.

Well, it's part of they're webpages called Evo101, so probably best regarded as a generalisation. They do explain their use of random elsewhere, which does contradict the TTW usage AFAIK.


"Adaptive mutation, also called directed mutation or directed mutagenesis is a controversial evolutionary theory."

The controversy is largely about how important its role is and under what circumstances it occurs.

As far as I am aware - such mutations are introduced by the scientists themselves....CMIIW.

Yes, SSM are introduced by scientists, and they don't do it randomly.

 

[theprestige]

Okay - but if Berkley UC has got this wrong then that would be further evidence of some disagreement.

It's University of California - Berkeley (UC Berkeley).

It could also be further evidence of undergrads not yet fully understanding the material they're studying.

A university is essentially a an administrative and support infrastructure for learning and research. UC Berkeley has a reputation for producing good research. If you're looking for dissent in the scientific community, you need to look at published papers in reputable journals by reputable researchers (either by name or by institutional affiliation). A university's commodity web pages aren't substantive.

According to wikipedia:

Wikipedia is an aggregator. There's either a source cited for that claim, or there's no "according to" worth mentioning.

According to AI:

Jesus Christ, dude.

 

[acbytesla]

Okay - but that does not worry me.

i know. You're clearly either a creationist or you're trolling. IE: Looking to get a reaction

That you appear to have an issue with a whole lot of folk, including (but not limited to) the BBC, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, Denis Brain, Gregory A. Wray, Hopi E. Hoekstra et al.

I have an issue with nutty or dishonest arguments.

I prefer facts.

You don't seem to know what those are. Evolution is a fact. But you insist on saying evolutionary theory. As if just maybe it's wrong. That it's just a hunch. As opposed to what it actually is which is the most demonstrated, best confirmed scientific ideas ever proposed.

Already addressed.

So what? As if referencing where actual scientists sometimes refer to as theory somehow justifies how you're using the term. But whatever, you're getting your rocks off tugging on our chains. I'm done playing with individuals that aren't straight forward.

 

[Poem]

Could have fooled me.
Your constant use of terms like "Neo-Darwinism" and "modern synthesis" rather than simply "biology" is creationist language.

Trust me when I say that creationists cherry pick from "pro-evolutionary" (aka. reality-based) websites all the time when they can find a soundbite that when taken out of context appears to support their ideas.

Here's Dragutin Savic (professor of Molecular Genetics at the Faculty of Sciences, University of Belgrade) using the terms 'neo-Darwinism' and 'theory of evolution'


Adaptive mutations: a challenge to Neo-Darwinism?
The directed mutation controversy has attracted a great deal of attention for an obvious reason. The hypothesis, particularly the conclusions drawn from early experiments is in sharp contrast to a basic tenet of neo-Darwinism which presumes that the factors governing mutational rate on one side, and direction of selection on the other, and independent. Do the data accumulated so far put in jeopardy the theory of evolution on which generations of biologist have been brought up? I think not, at least for the time being.