Is science being divided?

[uwot]

Darwinism claims that all the adaptive structures in nature, all the organisms which have existed throughout history were generated by the accumulation of entirely undirected mutation.

More or less, so yes, if you do not wish to believe in evolution, you can ignore the context. Another way to interpret natural selection is to think in terms of the ecological niches that organisms can fill. Any undirected mutation that happens to give an organism a slightly better chance of exploiting an ecological niche will improve its chances of reproducing. Over generations, that and other undirected mutations accumulate until a creature looks as if it were designed to fill it's particular niche. As it happens, there are more ecological niches that organisms can exploit on other creatures than there are parasite free organisms. If you believe that creatures are designed, you have to admit that the designer loves a parasite.

[Averroes]

Yes, it is spot on, and interesting.

I’d like to hear the evidence supporting Darwinism, and the refutation.

Well, about the alleged "supporting evidence" of Darwinism I am sorry to tell you that you are going to be very disappointed because never will the Darwinist dare mention these alleged evidence to me. NEVER! I have been trying to get them to engage in a serious, civilized, intelligent and scientific discussion with me for YEARS but ALWAYS they refuse, or back away into oblivion whenever I ask them for scientific evidence of their claims! I do not discourage though. I am patient and keep trying every so often. As they say science progresses with time, so I give them time to prepare a case that they won't feel ashamed to present publicly and enlighten the public about their beliefs. Which beliefs so far are undoubtedly controversial, dogmatic, and above all utterly unscientific.

About the refutation though, I will see what I can do if still no Darwinist gets the courage to provide the alleged supporting evidence! That will involve me debating against myself though which I find to be a bit weird!

What I’m likely to hear is attempted distraction in the form of assertions that I’m illiterate and uneducated because of what I’d like to hear, and dismissal unless I present proof of why such discussion is spot on, why it is interesting, and why I’d like to hear. The form these assertions is likely to take is, insult.

To be honest, I do not mind at all that they label me as "uneducated" about Darwinism! The reason that I ask questions is primarily to learn from those who profess to know! "Illiterate" though would not be wise for someone to qualify me (or any other person) in a written message addressed to me! But given the level of argumentation of these people, I would not be surprised if they do that! But anyway if they say that I am uneducated about Darwinism, then here they have an opportunity to produce the proofs of the claims of Darwinism. Why are Darwinist so ashamed to educate people about the so called "overwhelming evidence" of their beliefs? All this is very strange to me. Isn't science supposed to back its claim with some empirical evidence? Otherwise, I do not mind people having faith in whatever they have faith in. I understand and accept that it is right of every human being to believe in fairy or monkey tales or whatever!

[Averroes]

The evidence is so overwhelming it's impossible to know where to start.

Begin with the essence that you perceive.

This is a hopeless case! Now you have asked for evidence, just observe how they back away into oblivion! As I said, I have been trying that for years, but never is the slightest bit of the alleged "overwhelming" evidence ever presented. My guess is that they are themselves overwhelmed when asked about their unscientific beliefs!

[Averroes]

Darwinism claims that all the adaptive structures in nature, all the organisms which have existed throughout history were generated by the accumulation of entirely undirected mutation.

More or less, so yes, if you do not wish to believe in evolution, you can ignore the context.

I too think that Darwinian evolution is solely a question of belief. I have no problem at all with people believing in whatever fairy tales or not they want to believe in. Respectfully, I don't think it wise to discuss 'religious' beliefs in this section of the forum. The science section of the forum should be dedicated to science in my humble opinion. And science requires some empirical evidence to back its claims!

In this thread, the author implied that Darwinism is science and it is the qualification of the scientific nature of Darwinism that I am here challenging and not that people can choose to believe in it! And I also remark that you have taken care to omit the term "scientific" in your comment! So, that is fine with me! But if someone were to say that Darwinism is scientific then I think it is appropriate for one to ask such a person for the empirical evidence of how such claims amount to be qualified as scientific. I think that is fair, don't you?

Another way to interpret natural selection is to think in terms of the ecological niches that organisms can fill. Any undirected mutation that happens to give an organism a slightly better chance of exploiting an ecological niche will improve its chances of reproducing. Over generations, that and other undirected mutations accumulate until a creature looks as if it were designed to fill it's particular niche. As it happens, there are more ecological niches that organisms can exploit on other creatures than there are parasite free organisms.

Thank you for sharing with me how you understand the concept of natural selection. But I have no need of that. I know the story too. For how can someone not know that nowadays given the propaganda that such concept receives in the media?! For me so far (i.e. until proven otherwise) it is rightly subsumed under the same category as Harry Potter, i.e. fictitious literature. But again, what I am interested in here is the empirical evidence of the claims of Darwinism. If you have that then please inform me of that too. If you do not know or do not want to further conversation on this, then it is your right which I respect. There is no need to worry about it.

If anyone knows of the subject and want to discuss that with me in an intelligent and civilized exchange, then please don't be shy and express yourselves and let us have a good time philosophizing purposefully.

[uwot]

I too think that Darwinian evolution is solely a question of belief.

Well, I believe that organisms which are better adapted to their environment are more likely to reproduce than less advantaged competitors. What do you believe?

[Atla]

NEVER! I have been trying to get them to engage in a serious, civilized, intelligent and scientific discussion with me for YEARS but ALWAYS they refuse, or back away into oblivion whenever I ask them for scientific evidence of their claims! I do not discourage though. I am patient and keep trying every so often.

Hehe ok.. with what explanation do you dismiss the billions of found fossils, and the entire fields of paleontology and genetics? (To name a few.)

[Greta]

Greta, thank you for exemplifying my previous posting.

Darwinism that refuses challenge on the basis that the science is settled, is not science.

That's the division.

The science of chemistry doesn't use that basis. It uses experiments, and evidence such as explosions.

You are just ignoring evidence.

As I say, if you are so confident, test yourself against professional evolutionary biologists - or are you afraid that then your lack of knowledge and understanding would be exposed.

Come on, Walker, you cannot possibly be seriously suggesting to me that there is no evidence for evolution. That's the exlusive domain of idiots and loons. I'd thought you had at least some merit but if you really are so hopelessly basic and out of touch with reality, then I think we might as well forget about communicating. I'm not prepared to waste time with flat Earthers or Moon landing denialists either.

It's right to question old assumptions, but NOTHING has ever been more questioned, tested and fought against than the theory of evolution, and every single new thing learned confirmed it more. It has passed more acid tests than any theory outside of GR and some of the QM ideas. There are literally millions of pieces of evidence that have been found - all denied by those who never made the field trip and didn't do any of the work work.

It's easy today for a clueless person to just shoot off their big mouth and make the same impact on the public as a researcher with decades of study and experience. Not so easy to actually do the work and see it undermined by fools. Sorry for my rudeness but I don't suffer fools gladly. There is no division in science about evolution! It's only a few desperate theists still trying to prove that the Genesis passage was not allegorical - fools.

[thedoc]

Acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact, look it up if you need evidence and will accept it. Darwinism is BS made up by deniers to deny the evidence. Science is not divided as far as the theory of evolution, it is a scientific fact, the only argument is about the mechanism.

[wtf]

It's easy today for a clueless person to just shoot off their big mouth ...

While they're looking for a parking space.

Oh God that was beneath me but I simply could not help myself.

[Walker]

Averroes,

Not so disappointing or bleak a picture.
Some irrelevant appeals to authority, some sit-down comics, a couple of actual topics so far.

One:
- Darwinism theorizes some natural processes of life, but not the origin of life.
- Religion asserts the origin of life.
- So, why do Darwinists even care about what religious folks think about the origin of life, when the Darwinists’ bailiwick is process?

Two:
- The fossil record.
- Since it goes unstated, I suppose the argument is that in the bible, there is no specific mention of Dinos on the gene-pool-preserving-Ark.
- So, this is empirical evidence of Darwinism?

[Walker]

Acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact, look it up if you need evidence and will accept it. Darwinism is BS made up by deniers to deny the evidence. Science is not divided as far as the theory of evolution, it is a scientific fact, the only argument is about the mechanism.

I thought the word "Darwinism" is just a shorter reference to "Darwin's theory of evolution," with the same meaning.

[Necromancer]

Physics is not a philosophical program of materialism or other. It only relates to physics and the (processing power) of HDM, Hypothetico-Deductive Method as scientific method. HDM makes the case on plausibility whether something has been proven or not! Final!

HDM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheti ... tive_model.

[Greta]

- So, this is empirical evidence of Darwinism?

Here is someone friendly to ask: https://io9.gizmodo.com/ask-biologist-m ... -508314397

[Walker]

- So, this is empirical evidence of Darwinism?

Here is someone friendly to ask: https://io9.gizmodo.com/ask-biologist-m ... -508314397

Marlene, who are we, where do we come from, and where are we going?

[Walker]

The evidence is so overwhelming it's impossible to know where to start.

Begin with the essence that you perceive.

This is a hopeless case! Now you have asked for evidence, just observe how they back away into oblivion! As I said, I have been trying that for years, but never is the slightest bit of the alleged "overwhelming" evidence ever presented. My guess is that they are themselves overwhelmed when asked about their unscientific beliefs!

Well, it doesn't hurt to try now and then.