|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,315
Master Elite Member
|
If you are claiming (yet another) conspiracy here, then you need to give some evidence for it. No one claims that neo-Darwinism was ever 100% correct, and it has its critics today, but these are mainly people who reject the heavy emphasis on genetic determinism. A relatively recent branch of science, called epigenetics, has moved beyond this. It is the standpoint from which Bruce Lipton wrote his book, as it is his particular field of expertise. What's missing from the treaty? Anything important, anything vital? Mutations aren't mentioned. What kind of evolution can occur under this treaty? I'm not sure why you seem to be making a case for Lysenko either. It's difficult if not impossible to separate the truth from the propaganda. Like your science blogger said, he was right about some things, but they turned out to be minor ideas that didn't work on a grand scale. He was responsible for crop failure and starvation in the USSR and in China. I maintain he was an evolutionist and a Darwinist. He is often faulted for not being aware of things discovered after his time. I make the case that history should be reported accurately. It's not like he's going to be vindicated or his deeds will be covered up by accurate reporting. Lysenko's equation for evolution was Lamarck plus Darwin minus Malthus. It is not terribly unlike that of one LindaLou Not the case. I'm tentative about Lamarckism in some forms. I've never said I don't agree with Malthus. Human populations do have the potential to become unsustainably large, and this can happen in nature too. I just don't think that that's the one and only way that evolution has worked -- constant competition for scarce resources. It seems to me that species can reach an equilibrium with their environment and not chage for a long time so long as they remain adapted to the conditions. I also think that if part of the population becomes isolated from the rest, genetic drift will eventually result in new species, because of random mutations and differing environmental factors. I begin to think that you neither know nor care what Malthus & Darwin said. You likely don't care what the modern synthesis says either. You're prepared to jump to NeoLamarckists, and I wonder if you care what they say. What's next, Oprah? If all you're looking for is someone who disputes the Bible and other sources of history, there's a lifetime supply of wrong ideas out there. I don't think you've given evidence that anyone was "conned." The prevailing philosophies of science were products of their societies. As your science blogger stated, the former-USSR is more accepting now of the idea of competition, whereas Western society is more accepting of the idea of cooperation. I don't think either polarity is 100% correct. I think both can be true. Maybe I underestimated your Hegelianism after all... Not that I expect you to care what he said either.
Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
