Jump to content
Science Forums

forests

Members
  • Content Count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

forests last won the day on February 24 2012

forests had the most liked content!

About forests

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. It is utter nonsense to deny there are no plans for an extended or new synthesis. Publications calling for an extended synthesis / revised synthesis etc: Auletta, G. A Paradigm Shift in Biology? Information 2010, 1, 28-59. Carroll, Sean B. Evo-Devo and an Expanding Evolutionary Synthesis. Cell. 134/1, 2008. Depew, David and Bruce Weber. The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution after the Modern Synthesis. Biological Theory. 6/1, 2012. Edelmann, Jonathon and Michael Denton. The Uniqueness of Biological Self-Organization. Biology and Philosophy. 22/4, 2007. Etxeberria, Arantza. Autopoiesis a
  2. forests

    Biophoton

    I have been researching Biophoton and Bio-communication recently. But I noticed this topic is kind of shunned by "mainstream" science, and that it has ended up as a fringe view? But biophotons do exist. It seems to be associated with the work of Fritz-Albert Popp. Here is an interesting paper on the topic: http://zeniclinic.com/zen/articles/BiophotonsAndBiocommunication.pdf From another website: http://www.integral-health-guide.com/biophotons-the-light-in-our-cells/ As you can see the journal who have published the paper will probably be called "fringe science" and the othe
  3. If you search, you should be able to find this information. I will personally message you a scientific paper about this I was sent recently. Nobody is talking about Darwinism in this thread, we were talking about neo-Darwinism also known as the "modern synthesis". You know what that model of evolution says, this information can easily be found infact Ernst Mayr even summarised "neo-Darwinism" in 5 bullet points. Now one of these points he said that "saltational events" never occur and that all evolution is gradual. We know Mayr and the other neo-Darwinists have been wrong on this (saltati
  4. There is much evidence for the non-Darwinian mechanisms which James A. Shapiro lists, scientific papers showing so etc, ie for saltationism, directed mutagenesis, hybridization or symbiogenesis etc. These mechanisms and processes have been denied and ignored by the neo-Darwinian synthesis, but many new researchers are studying these mechanisms again and instead of denying them are calling for a new synthesis which incorporates these mechanisms.
  5. According to wikipedia: I think that description would fit you Sman ie posting the off topic messages part. Face it you came to this thread and ignored every scientific paper I cited, is that open minded? You did not come to this thread to discuss or learn, you came to spout personal attacks. You were then asked kindly to give your comments on these papers twice but you still ignored them. You obviously did not like what was in the papers so then resorted to calling me a troll. Your anti-scientific behavior has been exposed. And please don't bother replying again becuase nothing you post
  6. Sman I know you are ignoring posts becuase you want to ignore the evidence but what is your comments on the following paper? The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis Michael R Rose1* and Todd H Oakley2 Abstract: The last third of the 20th Century featured an accumulation of research findings that severely challenged the assumptions of the "Modern Synthesis" which provided the foundations for most biological research during that century. The foundations of that "Modernist" biology had thus largely crumbled by the start of the 21st Century. This in turn raises the question of foundatio
  7. American biologist James A. Shapiro described the following non-Darwinian Evolutionary Scientists and their mechanisms. William Bateson (1861-1926) & Huge de Vries (1848-1935): abrupt variation as a source of evolutionary novelty. Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958): altering developmental processes as a source of rapid evolutionary novelty ("hopeful monsters" and Evo-Devo). Barbara McClintock (1902-1992): genetic change as a biological response to danger and evolutionary novelty through genome restructuring resulting from "shocks". G. Ledyard Stebbins (1906-2000): hybridization betwe
  8. Some atheists believe in the afterlife. There was also a book written on the topic titled The Atheist Afterlife: The odds of an afterlife - Reasonable. The odds of meeting God there - Nil by David Staume. Also angel860 seems to conclude NDE's are evidence for God, however most parapsychologists would disagree with this view becuase NDE's are claimed to be evidence for an afterlife not evidence for God. The problem I have with some of the NDE research is that it seems to be a bit anthropocentric. For example nobody is doing any research on fish or cats having NDE's are they? If there is an
  9. No comment about any part of my other post? Infact you have not commented on the topic of the OP at all. I think we should keep to the topic of the thread. Let's go back to your comment about Darwinism, first please define "Darwinism", you would find it means evolution by natural selection and nothing else. That is over 130 years ago when a certain group of scientists knew very little about evolution. No scientist today would describe themselves as a believer in just "Darwinism". There are many more mechanisms than just natural selection now. So in a strict sense yes "Darwinism" is dead and
  10. Firstly you need to assume good faith and perhaps read over the posts in this thread again. Nowhere did I say "Darwinism no longer exists", I said that some scientists believe evolution has moved beyond the neo-Darwinian framework as evidence has been found that cannot fit into a strict Darwinian framework. Most of these scientists are not denying the evidence which was presented by neo-Darwinism they are just saying it is incomplete. Perhaps you should read these articles here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-Darwinian_evolution http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extended_evolutionary_synthesi
  11. Gradualism says that organisms evolve through a process of slow and constant change but that is not what we see in the fossil record. As Stephen Jay Gould wrote: "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
  12. Creationists often confuse "Darwinism" with evolution and its clear they sometimes do this on purpose. Jerry Fodor for example wrote a book titled "What Darwin Got Wrong" and the book was not an attack against evolution, it was a book which only criticised natural selection but the creationists mistunderstood it and were all over the internet saying Fodor had refuted evolution which of course is not true. Well saltation is evolution by jumps or large changes opposed to any strict gradual basis, a recent mechanism which was proposed was a form of saltational symbiosis and the evolutionar
  13. Hello, I have no education in physics and I have a hard time understanding the subject so I need the basics. I have tried to search the internet to understand what matter is made of but I often see confusing and sometimes contradiction in different answers, so I have started this thread as a simple question. What is a matter made of? The first answer that I will probably get is atoms and then sub-atomic particles I do get that, but I am not understanding beyond that, I have seen people say these are made up of energy or strings? Please explain if you can? And what does it mean by energy or
  14. Pangenesis was an evolutionary mechanism for heredity which Darwin came up with, it was actually a Lamarckian type mechanism which said that parents could pass on traits acquired in their lifetime to their offspring. Neo-Darwinism says any kind of Lamarckian type feedback is impossible and does not occur, but as seen in the book Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka a form of Lamarckism does indeed occur. Thats another reason for the extended synthesis. Gould near the end of his life became a critic of some of the things proposed in neo-Darwinism and he called for an extended synth
  15. There is no such thing as Darwinism anymore, that truely is dead becuase Darwin's mechanisms were natural selection, sexual selection and pangenesis. No scientist supports just those mechanisms anymore that is outdated by over 100 years and sexual selection and pangenesis are obsolete. The neo-Darwinian view of evolution is Darwin's gradual theory of evolution via natural selection merged with mendelian genetics and Julian Huxley called it the "modern synthesis". In the 1950's and for a long time the modern synthesis was promoting natural selection and random mutation as the main evolutionar
×
×
  • Create New...