Blogcritics Comments on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Comment by Dov Henis on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Wed, 2 Jul 2008 02:46:11 EDT

What is the "Selfish Gene" thing? Genes Are Primal And Genomes Are Evolved Organisms A. In view of the information we now have about life and its evolution: Earth Life: 1. a format of temporarily constrained energy, retained in temporary constrained genetic energy packages in forms of genes, genomes and organisms 2. a real virtual affair that pops in and out of existence in its matrix, which is the energy constrained in Earth's biosphere. Earth organism: a temporary self-replicable constrained-energy genetic system that supports and maintains Earth's biosphere by maintenance of genes. Gene: a primal Earth's organism. Genome: a multigenes organism consisting of a cooperative commune of its member genes. Cellular organisms: mono- or multi-celled earth organisms. B. Update of life sciences conceptions is now feasible and urgently desirable: - Earth's biosphere phenomenon is a distant relative of black holes, a form of constrained energy pocket. - First were independent individual genes, Earth's primal organisms. - Genes aggregated cooperatively into genomes, multigenes organisms, with genomes' organs. - Simultaneously or consequently genomes evolved protective and functional membranes, organs. - Then followed cellular organisms, with a variety of outer-cell membranes shapes and functionalities. This conception is a scientific, NOT TECHNOLOGICAL, life-science innovation. It is tomorrow's comprehension of life and its evolution. IT EVOKES INTRIGUING DARWINIAN IMPLICATIONS. IT IS FRAUGHT WITH INTRIGUING TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS POTENTIALS. Suggesting, Dov Henis

Comment by Baronius on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:49:39 EDT

I dunno... Aquinas and Roger Bacon were the leading proponents of Aristotle, who was viewed with suspicion – if read at all - before the 1200's. But Bacon and Albertus Magnus (Aquinas' teacher) were in many respects the fathers of modern science. By the 1600's, you had theoretical math, the beginnings of modern philosophy, and high-quality lenses. So that really leaves only 400 years for Aristotle to have been prominent, and even then he was not authoritative.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:41:39 EDT

Fair enough, Baronius. But by 'Church doctrine' I wasn't referring to biblical teaching but to the Church settling on Aristotle as the final and infallible authority on all matters scientific. It held the West back for a millennium.

Comment by Baronius on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:47:40 EDT

Dread - We're basically on the same page here. Near the same page, at least. I see the Renaissance as the flowering of rational thought, founded on the Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) idea of a rational universe. The great minds of the era thought that way too. The idea that religion and science would be in conflict is strictly late-Enlightenment. I don't see medieval thinkers as limited by church doctrine, because I don't see church doctrine as wrong. But the rest of our analysis matches pretty well. I appreciate your distinction between science and engineering - I was clumsily trying to make the same point about Rome.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:05:08 EDT

I'm not disputing the huge debt science owes to the Church in terms of systematized thinking. But pre-Renaissance thought did stifle scientific development in one very significant way: William of Occam, Aquinas and Pascal all deferred to Church doctrine. Often, such men self-censored if they perceived that their conclusions might be heretical: not out of fear, but because they assumed the Church possessed superior wisdom. Aquinas, although arguably the most brilliant Christian philosopher of all time, was constrained in his thought by his obligatory assumption that Church doctrine was the final authority. You also shouldn't confuse science with engineering. Medieval Europe did make significant progress, particularly in the military field - but they were building on existing technology that had been known since the Greeks and Romans. Many major developments, though, were introduced or adapted from other cultures - algebra from the Arabs, gunpowder and the printing press from China. And Magellan, who commanded the first expedition to circumnavigate the globe, was certainly a Renaissance man.

Comment by Baronius on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:19:03 EDT

Yes, Dread, most of the learned people were churchmen... but that proves my point. The church was the center of learning. Guys like William of Occam, Thomas Aquinas, and Blaise Pascal did some pretty good thinking on the church dime. Also the aforementioned Copernicus and Mendel. You say that nothing interesting happened between Rome and the Renaissance. That's wrong. Roman science was crude and unsystemitized. It was mostly military applications of Greek scholarship. From Arabic math to the circumnavigation of the globe, from the printing press to the philosophy that encouraged scientific thinking, the monotheistic cultures have nothing to apologize for. It's easy to be pro-science today. We've got cell phones. What you need to remember is that, in pre-Christian Europe, there was no intellectual or commercial underpinning for science. If there was a lightning storm, it was because the sky god was angry. That was a sufficient explanation. Christianity proposed that all things were part of God's plan, so churchmen began to look at the world as a single regularized system. Polytheists accept chaos; monotheists look for order. The point being, systematic science was a child of religious thought.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:00:57 EDT

Baronius, Much of medieval science was backed by the Church, but that was because the only people with any degree of learning were churchmen. Furthermore, all science was shackled by the requirement for it to support Church dogma, which had settled on Aristotle* as the only 'valid' ancient authority. Findings which were deemed to depart from Aristotle were suppressed or ignored - often by the churchmen themselves. As a result, Western science scarcely progressed between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance. Also, Mendel was the pioneer of genetics, which explains some of Darwin's theory but does not supplant it. Evolution, together with genetics, cell theory and homeostasis, is considered to be one of the foundations of modern biology. _{* Who was wildly and completely wrong about almost everything.}

Comment by Baronius on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:16:26 EDT

So much to say... Oddly, none of it is particularly about evolution. #34 – RationlRevolution: Your history of religion and science is completely wrong. Monotheistic culture developed science. These are the religions that saw regularity in the universe, and believed it to be the work of a single god. Yes, some learning came from some classical Greeks, mostly those oddballs who believed in Truth. But the tradition of empiricism came from Christian Europe. If all means of understanding truth point to the same truth, then they cannot be in contradiction. There is no battle between religion and science, and most every Christian realizes that. #43 – EM Sternberg: Modern biology is based on Mendel. Darwin has very little to do with it. #73 – Jet: Male nipples aren't some evolutionary quirk. Every species of mammal has two sexes, so nipples can't be a unisexual leftover. In the first two months of development, we're all rudimentary females. Then (for half of us), male hormones kick in and the structures develop toward the male. Male nipples are a byproduct of our early development.

Comment by Clavos on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 23:38:33 EDT

Boy, am I sorry I only just found this thread... I just spent literally all evening reading the article and the thread. I'm too late to add anything substantive to the evolution discussion (which arrogantly presumes I could, I know), but I do want to add my tuppence to the mourning for the death of Clarke. Agree with you as to the woodenness of his characters, Doc. Nonetheless, a great body of work, and a towering figure who will be missed.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:20:28 EDT

You quote some weasel who displays an utter disdain and disrespect for those who do not share his myopic intolerant point of view So basically, Jr, your only problem with Clarke is that he hurt your feelings. Your characterization of his point of view as 'myopic and intolerant' is your own. If that's your only criterion for respecting someone, then your world must be miserably impoverished. It would exclude such luminaries as... 1. Winston Churchill: 'He [Clement Attlee] is a modest man, who has much to be modest about.' 2. Mark Twain: 'I do not believe I could learn to like her [Lillian Aldrich] except on a raft at sea with no other provisions in sight.' 3. Dorothy Parker: 'It may be that this autobiography [Aimee Semple McPherson's] is set down in sincerity, frankness and simple effort. It may be, too, that the Statue of Liberty is situated in Lake Ontario.' 4. Margaret Thatcher: 'I wish I could say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done himself less than justice. Unfortunately, I can only say that I believe he has done himself justice. Some Chancellors are macro-economic. Other Chancellors are fiscal. This one [Denis Healey] is just plain cheap.' 5. Theodore Roosevelt: 'When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer "Present" or "Not guilty."' Oh, and: You evolutionists just love that word "weasel." Bit rich coming from someone who used the word three times in the same comment. But hey - if the cap fits...

Comment by Jr. on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:26:49 EDT

"Arthur had some choice things to say " You quote some weasel who displays an utter disdain and disrespect for those who do not share his myopic intolerant point of view and you shower praise upon him. You don't set the bar very high for character and integrity. That's very telling of your own personality. Talk about weasels. p.s. You evolutionists just love that word "weasel." I wonder why.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:01:22 EDT

Different IP address. Further than that, I couldn't tell you.

Comment by Jet in Columbus on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 01:47:18 EDT

He's probably related to Teano Doc?

Comment by Dr Dreadful on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 00:50:41 EDT

It was a simple enough and perfectly reasonable question, Jr. Especially since you were the one who brought the subject up in the first place. Stop trying to weasel out of it.

Comment by Jet in Columbus on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 00:14:00 EDT

I thought the great Wizard of Winn had fixxed the comment posting problem?????

Comment by Jet in Columbus on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 00:10:27 EDT

His achievements are thousands of times more than you'll ever see...

Comment by jr. on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:54:28 EDT

"back up his accusations of lack of character" How bad are the comprehension and analytical abilities on this site? You people are praising the swine for the wrong reasons. What I said was those are not reasons for praise. No one here has backed up claims of his good character.

Comment by Leslie Bohn on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:23:00 EDT

Afflecks are the only things that Garners respect. Perhaps Mr. Jr. could back up his accusations of lack of character? Artie C was a great thinker and was aces with me. I've got cable!

Comment by Cannonshop on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:42:47 EDT

Competence in areas that are not a matter of subjective opinion is ALWAYS worth respect, junior. As for Dr. Clarke's Character-can you provide examples of his CHARACTER (as opposed to politics) which demonstrate a reason NOT to respect him?

Comment by Clarke Jr on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:28:25 EDT

Cannonshop, Those things do not garner respect. Character is the only thing that garners respect.

Comment by Cannonshop on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:20:57 EDT

#190 I rather think that Dr. Clarke's respect was well-earned, actually. In addition to being a major figure in the science FICTION community, the man also contributed quite a bit to the real world, including an earned credit for the development of that device that has made world-wide communication possible, the Communications Sattelite. Some of his philosophies were all-wet, but he's never done that which deserves DIS-respect, and a lot of his work has spawned things scientists and engineers are currently working on, as well as things that people DO use every day. That Mulit-function cell-phone with the text messenger, web access, camera, etc etc? Clarke described it forty years ago. I don't agree with the man's politics, but his grasp of hardware and its possibilities was pretty damn hard to beat.

Comment by Clarke Jr. on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:50:41 EDT

Respect must be earned. Someone who was an ass when he was alive is just a dead ass when he dies.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:22:38 EDT

The only noteworthy thing about the above comment is how much disrespect for both the dead and the living 'Jr' was able to pack into a single sentence.

Comment by Clarke Jr. on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:52:55 EDT

"Germane to both the Clarke memorial and" So if Clarke was a horse's ass what does that make you?

Comment by Jet in Columbus on The Crumbling Facade Of The Theory Of Evolution

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:03:48 EDT

A very profound quote Doc...