Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: average joe who wrote (27451)	6/19/2012 4:46:24 PM
From: Greg or e	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

The end of the evolution debate It's always very telling when the so-called scientists resort to wishful thinking and ideological propaganda: Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself. Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that "even the skeptics can accept it. If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it's solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive," Leakey says, "then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges." Any hope for mankind's future, he insists, rests on accepting existing scientific evidence of its past.... Leakey, who clearly cherishes investigating the past, is less optimistic about the future. "We may be on the cusp of some very real disasters that have nothing to do with whether the elephant survives, or a cheetah survives, but if we survive." Leakey is letting the atheist evolutionary cat out of the bag here. Unlike the likes of Harris, whose revolutionary Enlightenment 2.0 globalism is never advertised and can only be confirmed by carefully reading through his books, Leakey is quite willing to draw the connection between evolution, atheism, multiculturalism, all intended to lead towards the long-term utopian fantasy of rule by a scientific and technocratic global oligarchy. My prediction is quite the opposite. I am increasingly convinced that genetic science will render the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis scientifically unviable in the same manner it previously required the development of the synthesis by rendering untenable classic fossil-based Darwinian evolution by natural selection. One thing that has escaped most professional biologists, who are neither historians of science nor logicians, is that the increasing complexity of the DNA/RNA interplay along with growing understanding of mutations renders the present evolutionary timelines increasingly improbable. Whereas the decoding of the human and other genomes was supposed to provide not only answers, but even conclusive proof of macroevolution, it has instead raised considerably more questions. And while the growing number of proposed evolutionary mechanisms are not necessarily proof that macroevolution has not happened in the past and is not happening in the present, they do show the need to develop epicycles that is always indicative of a theory that is in trouble and on its way to being falsified and ultimately jettisoned. Could I be incorrect? Of course. That is why I describe myself as an evolutionary skeptic rather than an anti-evolutionist. But once again, we see a conflict between pattern recognition and scientific consensus, and I expect that as has usually happened before, pattern recognition will win out because scientific consensus is not always science, it is often logical conclusions drawn from science by scientists. And the history of science shows that scientists are, for the most part, inept logicians, which is why they tend to keep making the same type of mistakes with each new generation of scientist. So, I am quite comfortable asserting, contra Leakey, that in 15 years, skepticism over evolution will not only not be history, but will be both more popular and more scientifically credible than it is now. Labels: evolution, science posted by Vox @ 6/06/2012 04:28:00 AM

To: average joe who wrote (27451)	6/19/2012 8:25:56 PM
From: 2MAR$	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Evolution debate will soon be history & it already pretty much already is , you can even tell when greg gets desperate going off in tangential 200yr old debates deflecting the subject with "nihilism & materialist science" he's even just one step away of admitting all the evidence . Its the cardinal rule that to be in denial as some kind of brave religious accomplishment but that one is old as the hills too . (You can't even figure out why he cut & pasted the dating methods post , one of the weakest & futile challenges made by Creationists decades ago and posting it here in 2012 , what a waste of space absolutely desperate) Saving habitat & the animals which today is questionable for many species while human beings get the oportunity to learn about themselves & change views , Scientism sure is "Nihilist" !

To: average joe who wrote (27451)	6/20/2012 1:00:25 AM
From: Solon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

"If you look back, the thing that strikes you, if you've got any sensitivity, is that extinction is the most common phenomena," Leakey says. "Extinction is always driven by environmental change. Environmental change is always driven by climate change. Man accelerated, if not created, planet change phenomena; I think we have to recognize that the future is by no means a very rosy one." That is why I concentrate on just getting through tomorrow! Had a few drinks with an old friend today and that was really good. We laughed at the nonsense of Science haters and the superstitious ones (that would normally be the Science haters...:-) ...and Jesus stole some bologna from my fridge--but I forgive him.