Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
January 8, 2013
Link

Statistics

Replies: 446

Darwinian Evolution?

:iconrionx:
RiONX Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
i just had a couple of quick questions, do modern scientist still use the Darwinian model of evolution? if so is it in exactly the same form as originally postulated? or has it um... evolved based on scientific data that has been gathered since its' inception? Also do only atheist believe in evolution?
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconkingvego:
KingVego Featured By Owner Feb 4, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Well yes and no. Darwin had some good concepts and ideas but at the time (before fossil and DNA evidence) he was ridiculed for his books "The Origin of Species" and the "Descent of Man". But after the fossil record become more and more complete and comprehensive along with DNA and geological evidence made Darwin's ideas irrefutable. And even thou we know much more then Darwin could have ever imagined and even added to the theory with things like DNA drifting and so on. But the fact that someone over 150 years ago not just thought about this but also had evidence to prove it is extraordinary.
Reply
:iconsaeter:
Saeter Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013
Only opposing theory [link]
Reply
:iconchakatblackstar:
ChakatBlackstar Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013
The theory of evolution is modified as new evidence appears. For instance, the original theory stated that it was a gradual change at a consistent rate, but nowadays the evidence suggests that it happens in bursts and spurts, usually from something significant such as an environmental change or a new predator, followed by long periods of mere micro-evolution(i.e. adapting to new diseases, etc.).

And no, atheists aren't the only ones who believe in evolution. I remember one stat that claimed 47% of Muslims believed in evolution. There are also Christians who find that evolution and the bible aren't incompatible. And I'm sure there are many other religions that don't dismiss it outright either.
Reply
:iconrhichter:
Rhichter Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013
" I remember one stat that claimed 47% of Muslims believed in evolution "

I'm afraid you're going to have to provide evidence for that because i would have a hard time believing that any more than 30% of Muslims even knew what evolution was.
Reply
:iconchakatblackstar:
ChakatBlackstar Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013
That's probably because you're thinking middle-eastern fundamentalist Muslims while forgetting that there are other Muslim countries and other countries, such as the US, the UK, France, etc. where they live, and apparently a significant number of them are okay with evolution being the most likely explanation for changing species.
Reply
:iconrhichter:
Rhichter Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013
A significant majority of them are religious, and their religion isn't exactly the most tolerant of the scientific method if you catch that drift. So by extension, the majority oppose evolution as an observation of speciation.

They're on par with America in terms of the rejection of natural selection being taught in schools and accepted as factual by the scientific community.

They're not in any way pro-evolution, don't think otherwise.
Reply
:iconchakatblackstar:
ChakatBlackstar Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013
As Dr Khalid Anees of the Islamic Society of Britain put it: "Muslims interpret the world through both the Koran and what is tangible and seen. There is no contradiction between what is revealed in the Koran and natural selection and survival of the fittest."

Evolutionary biology is included in the high-school curricula of most Muslim countries. Science foundations of 14 Muslim countries, including Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Indonesia, and Egypt, recently signed a statement by the Interacademy Panel (IAP, a global network of science academies), in support of the teaching of evolution, including human evolution. Granted many of the average folks still don't believe in Macroevolution, especially when it comes to human evolution, they're still much more accepting of microevolution, especially compared to...certain other religious groups who flat out deny any and all evolution whatsoever.
Reply
:iconhai-etlik:
Hai-Etlik Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
That's like saying that you accept Newton's theory of Universal gravitation, but only the bit about gravity causing things to fall, not the bit about orbits. It misses the key part of the theory, which is that the two apparent phenomena are really one.
Reply
:iconchakatblackstar:
ChakatBlackstar Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
I didn't say it wasn't stupid.
Reply
:iconhai-etlik:
Hai-Etlik Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
Sorry, I was using the generic "you". I suppose "That's like saying that one accepts..." would have been more correct and less ambiguous, but it also sounds a bit supercilious.
Reply
:iconrhichter:
Rhichter Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013
Which is why it doesn't count as actual scientific education in the principle foundry. Its great that they're taught the process of natural selection. But macro and micro evolution are the same thing. They are terms coined in order to explain differences in time, not differences in pressure and reactions. Which is why Muslims, like Christians, do not accept evolution wholly as fact. But merely relative observation throughout recorded history.

This is the primary problem.
Reply
:iconkarinta:
Karinta Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Student General Artist
森の村の丸を見る。
Reply
:iconrionx:
RiONX Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
私は木を見て森を見。
Reply
:iconkarinta:
Karinta Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013  Student General Artist
君は、木から 森が見えない。
Reply
:iconrionx:
RiONX Featured By Owner Feb 4, 2013
我々 の木です。
Reply
:iconarifmajid:
ArifMajid Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
[link]
this site explain evolution from science and religion prespective
Reply
:icontimlavey:
TimLavey Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
I had a look at the site and evolution is in no way explained from a scientific perspective or even a perspective that even tries to somewhat fairly represent evolution. There's present the all too common misconception or perhaps deliberate lie that evolution should be able to explain the origin of life when anyone who knows the first thing about evolution or just have read the title of Darwins' book "On the Origin of Species" would know that the origin of life is a different field of study in biology. It is the diversity of life the theory of evolution goes out to explain.

That's just one of many ignorant and most likely dishonest things told on that site. I also noticed in an article the absurd claim that in the fossil record we should find freakish Chimeras if evolution were true. I don't know about you, but I don't think Kirk Cameron is a real authority when it comes to science.

Another article expect all species to have evolved at the same pace throughout Earth's history if evolution were correct, but since some species visibly haven't changed at all despite having been around for a considerable amount of time, then everything evolution is bunk. Unless of course you consider what mechanisms drive evolution, but that require you to at least read the introduction page to a textbook on evolution.

These people clearly knows nothing about evolution and have no scruples making things up about it to further their agenda of making their own ludicrous creation story seem more legit by talking shit about science. These people are dishonest liars and they are attempting to drag people down to their level of superstitious thought and ignorance of the real world around us.
Reply
:iconarifmajid:
ArifMajid Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
First of all, species that evolving in the same time is refer to the cambrian explosion.

second of all, it is logical that a species have to evolve step by step, from species A to species B, the species must first evolve into species AB (half A-half B) after the species evolved into species A-AB (half A-half AB). Plus, each stage of the evolution must have many and abundance fossil record to represent evolution, otherwise it would only represent anomalies in that particular fossil.

And another thing that, even if a smart man married with a smart woman, do the baby born by the wife have larger brain?
Reply
:icontimlavey:
TimLavey Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
Your english is kinda hard to understand. Perhaps if you elaborate more it'd be easier to discern what you're talking about. Just an advice. As it is now I've really got no clue what you're trying to say with the Cambrian explosion. Many new species evolved during that time. So?

To your second point, yes. That is what we should expect and that is exactly what is found in the fossil record. Intermediates between species. The author though on whatever article I read on that site seemed to expect something more grotesquely absurd such as a crocodile head attached to a duck's body. You on the other hand seem to understand that there's more subtle changes we're dealing with when it comes to evolution and not such radically nonsensical steps that'd produce something like Cameron's Crocoduck.

Would the offspring to a smart man and woman have a larger brain? If the parents had large brains the offspring would probably grow to possess a similarly sized brain and perhaps even a larger one, yes. Smarts are not entierly dependent on brainsize though. You could take Einstein's brain as an example of that. But now we're not really talking evolution. You need a population for that, not just a couple and their one offspring.
Reply
:icontimehasanend:
TimeHasAnEnd Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013  Hobbyist
That's why is debunk and clearly knows nothing about evolution." Nor we can even begin to call it theory. That's why evolution is not even scientific, because it makes statements about times, places and events that have never been nor ever will be observed or measured by men. Because there's no one there to witness the events. The question of what happened "billions of years ago" is not based on scientific observation, but on assumptions, speculation and guesses. Therefore, the evolutionary view of natural history is a theory and can only be a theory. It can never be a fact. Therefore, if it is a theory at all? Then, it's called another religion.
Reply
:iconsaeter:
Saeter Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
Really at this point it can only be said that you are absolutely retarded or a liar. Take your pick.
Reply
:icontimlavey:
TimLavey Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
Oh, gosh. No one there to witness the events? Are you a kid or something that just gotta see absolutely everything happen in front of your own two eyes if it is to be believed? If your window is broken and you find a brick and shattered glass just below the window inside the room, would you from the evidence be able to conclude that a brick thrown from the outside hit your window and broke it or was your old window just as likely stolen and replaced with a broken one with all the pieces of glass being placed in a very intricate, but not yet understood, pattern on the floor along with a commemorative brick?

Also, come on! Surely people have bothered to read to you the scientific definition of a theory and explained its relation to facts at least a hundred times by now. Can't your knowledge increase? Don't you ever grow as a human being? Do you want a hug?
Reply
:iconveelore:
Veelore Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I think you misunderstand the meaning of the term scientific theory. It's not an educated guess as to how something works. It's a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world based on FACTS that have been repeatedly observed and confirmed. Scientific theories are PROVEN. You can't argue with facts, you can't have an OPINION about FACTS.

The Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution still stands. Other scientists later made discoveries that supported and shed more light on the theory. For example: Mendelian inheritance allowed for a mechanism by which natural selection may occur, the Sutton-Boveri chromosome hypothesis, Morgan's experiments with drosphila and discovery of sex linkage, Beadle and Tatum's one gene-one enzyme hypothesis, Watson and Crick's discovery of the structure of DNA

Basically, the root of all of this scientific information is the theory of evolution.
Reply
:iconrionx:
RiONX Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
Actually as a scientist i have a pretty clear understanding of the word.

You'll notice the word theory appears nowhere in the question.
Reply
:iconveelore:
Veelore Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
As a scientist, you would also know the answer to your own question
Reply
:iconrionx:
RiONX Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013
True, and as a theologian i would be interested in learning why the the clear answer is being continually denied. And as a philosopher i would wonder what part of human consciousness creates the desire for such obfuscation.

So here we are, any thoughts?
Reply
:iconveelore:
Veelore Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
And as a pseudo-intellectual you can continue self-qualifying yourself and asking pointless rhetoric questions
Reply
:iconrionx:
RiONX Featured By Owner Feb 4, 2013
Okay...?

i'm really not sure where your hostility is coming from, but i would like to encourage you not to let emotionalism cloud your desire for scientific inquiry. If that is even your true purpose in being here. It is a bit silly to imagine that you know someone well simply by reading a header question and reading a few comments in a thread. i think that if you had taken some time to scroll through the initial discussion that took place on this thread, you would be able to see that there was a very specific point to this question. Whenever i post a question on the Philosophy & Religion forum; whether it be rhetorical or plainly stated, it is with the intention of starting a discussion. Objective thinking requires us to be able to see things from different points of view. i know what my views are on a subject, but i often find myself interested in the what and why of others perspectives. Knowing what others think and trying to understand why they think those things is by no means a hollow pursuit. This can only lead to more knowledge, which is never a bad thing. The truth of the matter is that i have absolutely no confusion whatsoever what the difference between a hypothesis, a theory, and a law are. Any more than i am convinced that the bible talks about a big bearded gentleman floating around in the clouds or contains the word trinity anywhere in it.
anyway,
i never made any claims of being an intellectual. Self-definition is the root of freedom, allowing others to define you, especially when they have no interest in the truth and are basing those definitions on some undefined arbitrary prejudice... that's just being ridiculous. And yes i can and will keep asking questions. Not asking questions and simply accepting things as absolute truth is really the opposite of what i stand for as a person... but how would you know that? You haven't bothered to look through the thread or even to read the question accurately.
Reply
:icontimehasanend:
TimeHasAnEnd Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Hobbyist
"The question of what happened "billions of years ago" is not based on scientific observation, but on assumptions, speculation and guesses. And, that is all you can educate yourselves, until it's proven fact. Therefore, the evolutionary view of natural history is a theory and can only be a theory. "It can never be a fact." In addition, the theory of evolution is not scientific, because it speaks about times, places and events, that no man has gone there before or to witness the events. Wherefore, it can't be observed or measured by men."
Reply
:iconveelore:
Veelore Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
The Miller-Urey experiment recreated the environment of primitive Earth and the formation of synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors was OBSERVED. Over 20 amino acids found in present day life were produced in that experiment, leading us to believe that theory is correct.

While we may not have had witnesses to the past, overwhelming scientific evidence suggests that the evolutionary theory is correct.
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Christians make the mistake of thinking that evolution happens by chance, whereas the truth is that the theory of evolution teaches us that nothing happens by accident. Fundamentally, Christians are just confused about everything. I suppose if you can educate a chimp, you can educate a Christian. But I would not like to try. Tedium is the enemy of quietness. A closed mind is nothing that you can work with, which is probably why most Christians are illiterates.
Reply
:iconrionx:
RiONX Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
What a challenge it might be though.
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
A challenge is a bright, open mind; stupid is stupid.
Reply
:iconrionx:
RiONX Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
meh, an open mind is easily programmable, diffusing fear and emotionalism in the interest of awakening intellect becomes a twisting spiral staircase of dense lucidity.
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Teaching isn't easy. But when stupidity meets arrogance, stupidity becomes more like itself.
Reply
:iconrionx:
RiONX Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013
True, i see were talking about the difference between someone willing to ask questions in an honest attempt to learn and someone who isn't really interested in the truth at all. A good question might be "How does one instill a willingness to learn in someone who's apathy toward reality has shut the doorways to the empathy that is required for learning?" My theory is that one must find a way to subvert the ego without attacking it directly, attacking the ego only strengthens it's arrogance; this would completely undermine any progress, however subliminal, that one has already made.
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
The ego and empathy are not a mismatch. If anything, we should be encouraging egotism.
Reply
:iconrionx:
RiONX Featured By Owner Feb 4, 2013
:iconfryplz:
Or so Ayn Rand would have us believe...

Reply
(1 Reply)
:icongwendolyn12:
Gwendolyn12 Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
I think Darwin's theory evolved through time. I see it as the basis of evolutionary studies.   
Reply
:iconhanciong:
hanciong Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
what exactly do you mean "darwinian model" of evolution? how many models do you think there are?
Reply
:iconrionx:
RiONX Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2013
My questions, however rhetorical, aren't subjective. The Darwinian model is definitely the most popularly taught in primary education, but a little research into the subject might lead you to find that Darwin wasn't the only scientist to postulate an evolutionary formula. In fact i'm going to propose what i will call the "lego" model of evolution, right now: i believe that all life is built by tiny legos. Every living thing that exists is made up of these "lego" collections, and over time various "theme sets" have been released that have altered the "lego collection over time.
The major problem people most scientists have with my theory is that life would have had to begin on June, 7 1968. Most scientists would agree that is a pretty big flaw in my theory, however there are a lot of things that actually seem to make sense about it. i'm hoping that my lifes' research into the theory will vindicate me though.
Reply
:iconhanciong:
hanciong Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
"but a little research into the subject might lead you to find that Darwin wasn't the only scientist to postulate an evolutionary formula" --> who else postulates evolutionary formula? as far as I know only Lammarck, but that has been discredited (giraffes can't make their necks longer simply by reaching high leaves on trees.)

"The major problem people most scientists have with my theory is that life would have had to begin on June, 7 1968." --> with all due respect, if your theory predicts life begins at 1968, then certainly your theory is wrong. as we know, life exists way before 1968.
Reply
:iconpristichampsus:
Pristichampsus Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Professional General Artist
Um, Alfred Russel Wallace came up with the theory of evolution independantly of Darwin at the same time, so yeah, research ftw.
Reply
:iconhanciong:
hanciong Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
yes, but then wallace's idea is not fundamentally different from darwin's. I think......
Reply
:iconpristichampsus:
Pristichampsus Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Professional General Artist
cool
Reply
:iconrionx:
RiONX Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2013
Maybe you can help me in my research. Do you remember there being life before 1968?
Reply
:iconhanciong:
hanciong Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
in this world there are many people who were born before 1968. they can tell you.
Reply
:iconrionx:
RiONX Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2013
Well, hearsay is hardly good science, but like i said, a lot of scientists and religions disagree with my hypothesis. Of course God could have used "legos" to build the universe... i'm sure i could have convinced Schrodinger of my model. But i definitely need to a little more research, i'll update you when i come to the end of science.
Reply
:iconwonderglass:
Wonderglass Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2013   Photographer
i think she's implying that if you gave her a little research money she could prove that her ultra-modern theory was viable.
Reply
:iconrionx:
RiONX Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2013
i'm a dude.
Reply
Add a Comment: