Darwinism Benefits Scientific Method?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nothing to do with Darwinism, so we're still stuck on "traffic flow solutions" and "airplane wing designs."

Darwinism has been dead for a long time, my friend. Its called The Theory of Evolution now. It is based loosely on Darwins work in the Galapogos and later. But all this really did was open up intrigued minds to other possibilities besides a conscious creator. Many other people have worked on the idea since and it is their work that scientists today think of when hearing the term 'evolution'.

You come across to me as if you think that scientists adhere to the strict idea of evolution that darwin layed out. That's ancient stuff, even if its too hard to believe for someone who thinks that the absolute truth of the universe was layed out in a book written two thousand years ago.

Evolution occurs naturally in all things. This is what they mean when they say that it benefits the scientific theory. Think about it.

Something doesn't work to its maximum efficiency. So if some part of it changes a little bit, it works more efficiently. Unless it works less efficiently, at which point it loses ability to maintain its niche (think of a particular model of car, or a computer program). If it doesn't change at all, then other things will change and become more efficient, causing it to be less efficient relatively, even though it doesn't change.
 
Call it whatever you like, the "mainstream" still teaches that goo morphed into you, most people consider that Darwinism.

Just calling it evolution doesn't cut it, as young earth creationists believe in evolution per se, and that's obviously not Darwinian evolution (or whatever you want to call it).
 
I challenged some chatters at the New York Times message board to say what scientific discoveries were derived from Darwinian theory, and all they could come up with is "traffic flow solutions" and "airplane wing designs," so obviously, Darwinian theory really has no impact on scientific progress, and in fact, actually impedes it has people are preoccupied with that nonsensical notion which has no bearing on how the world works.

Maybe the New York Times message board isn't the best place to ask such a question?
You think?

Anyway.
The list of fields influenced by Darwinian selection processes is practically endless.

Here's a couple.
Neuroscience.
Artifical Intelligence.

One way of bringing darwinian selection into these fields (but not the only or even the most striking) is Hebbian cell assemblies.

Live and learn, Mr. Ice Age.
 
No.
Natural selection of the neuronal processes.
That is, the connections between neurons themselves.
They compete with each other.
 
It has been said that to not treat Darwinian evolution as writ would lead to a retardation of scientific progress because many new discoveries are supposedly predicated upon Darwinian theory.

I challenged some chatters at the New York Times message board to say what scientific discoveries were derived from Darwinian theory, and all they could come up with is "traffic flow solutions" and "airplane wing designs," so obviously, Darwinian theory really has no impact on scientific progress, and in fact, actually impedes it has people are preoccupied with that nonsensical notion which has no bearing on how the world works.

Neo-Darwinism which incorporates Darwin's 'Theory of Evolution of Species by Natural Selection' is one example of the effect of Darwinian theory on scientific progress.
The terminology Darwin used (e.g. production and reproduction) is permeated with the capitalist/industrialist symbolism of the time and no doubt, in turn, Darwin's theory influenced capitalist economics which in turn determined the lives of millions of people.

The premise for your post intrigues me...where exactly did you hear it?
 
It happened, they kept saying that almost all of scientific innovation is predicated upon some Darwinian theoretical matrix, so I asked them to give examples, and all they could say was "airplane wing designs" and "traffic flow solutions," and now, you, with "capitalist economics," it's all desperately graspy.

How does "neo-Darwinism" supposedly affect scientific progress?
 
The existence of a genetic code was predicted by Darwin (and the Augustinian priest Gregor Mendel), although he could not know the actual form. This led to the discovery of DNA, and the mapping of the human genome.

This OK?
 
Call it whatever you like, the "mainstream" still teaches that goo morphed into you, most people consider that Darwinism.

Just calling it evolution doesn't cut it, as young earth creationists believe in evolution per se, and that's obviously not Darwinian evolution (or whatever you want to call it).

I never heard the term "darwinism" in school, other than discussions about the history of the development (or evolution) of the Theory of Evolution. Furthermore, I have never seen/heard a scientist use the term darwinism with when speaking of current or recent research in evolution.

I don't know why you have such an obsession with the guy. His findings were good for getting other people started, but thats about it.

How do those sciences supposedly spring from Darwinism?

The mere idea of evolution shows that all things are able to change and are often forced to in order to further their own (or their line of) existence. Not just living things, but physical structures, chemical formations, relationships (between any two or more things), etc. This is why it makes so much sense, because the basic idea works for all things. Any situation in which change occurs can be related to the idea of evolution. Any one thing will adapt or change in response to its direct environment. One change leads to another. Change occurs constantly. It is not chaotic, it is cause and effect. These ideas of evolution can be a very useful basis for any scientific research.
 
Thanks superdim.

Good job, you just proved his point.

If you are really serious about continuing this crusade against "darwinism", it would be beneficial to your cause if you acted more mature and took other's responses more seriously. Even if you radically disagree with it, or think that it makes no sense. Calmly point out their mistakes, making sure to include examples.

In no way can you change what people think just by telling them that they are wrong. You must show them. You must illustrate it many times over from many different perspectives. You must cater to them, because people are always stuck in their ways and are unwilling to accept anything different unless it is painfully obvious.
 
I look at it this way, what has been called evidence by Darwinists, such as "transitional fossils," are not that, just wishful thinking, and Darwin said himself that "in a hundred and fifty years, the paleontological record would prove or disprove the theory," so a hundred and fifty years later, no supposed transition fossils to prop up this bizarre theory, that goo morphed into you.

Not to mention that the "complimentary" uniformitarian geology scheme is belied by the geologic record, so the evidence is against what mainstream science is force-feeding us, and yet it's all treated as fact, very strange.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top