• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Paper against Darwinism. Peer-reviewed.

Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Can't read it but it's probably hogwash because a serious contender to Darwin's theory would be truly a monumental event of global significance. It would be so widely covered you wouldn't have to pay to read about it.
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Pay wall.

Plus I suspect the "tree of life" is used metaphorically much like the term 'God' is used in science.

Also it's a science magazine, not a journal. Unless you have a journal in mind other than the magazine.
 
HonestJoe

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
questfortruth said:
Please read and comment:
Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life | New Scientist

read the name of Journal. It is respected journal. The best journal.
Read the title: "Darwin wrong." Not so shiny in Darwinian world today?
Click to expand...
That isn't a peer-reviewed paper, it's a opinion-based news report. It suggests that, based on recent DNA evidence, the "tree of life" image that Darwin presented was probably over simplistic, that there are more genetic variation and cross-over from cross-breeding that was previously thought.

None of this discredits Darwin or the fundamentals of the ideas he brought to the fore. I'm sure Darwin was aware that biology is rarely straight forward or simple and presented his tree of life as a general concept rather than a strict rule. Regardless, the fact modern biologists are continuing to study the area, using the ever growing range of technology and methods available today to clarify, refine and even correct previous ideas, is a good thing. It makes evolutionary theory stronger, not weaker.

I appreciate that you have some issue with accepting the possibility that anything you do or say could be in any way wrong though, and so believe that even the hint that anyone didn't get everything exactly right is an automatic indication of outright failure.

(A similar article about the same thing more people might be able to access; Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life)
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
questfortruth said:
Please read and comment:
Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life | New Scientist

read the name of Journal. It is respected journal. The best journal.
Read the title: "Darwin wrong." Not so shiny in Darwinian world today?
Click to expand...

What peer reviewed journal was it published in? I cannot read enough of that article to see where it was published.

And since none of us can read the article it is not evidence for you. The title is almost certainly clickbait. And you fell for it.

So once again, what peer reviewed journal article are they talking about?
 
Alien826

Alien826

No religious beliefs
That article was written in 2009. Here's an article about the article, written in 2019.

Was Darwin Wrong?

And a quote that pretty much sums it up.

To answer the question posed in my headline: Nah. Far from being wrong, Darwin is as right as ever when it comes to his big idea, natural selection. He couldn’t foresee all the sources of variation within and between offspring, which provide the raw material on which natural selection operates. He didn’t know about genes, and he speculated, wrongly but reasonably, that acquired characteristics might be passed on to offspring, as Lamarck had proposed. (As Quammen notes, Lamarck’s hypothesis has undergone “small surges of reconsideration even down to the present day.”)

Now we know that variations have many causes, including mutation, endosymbiosis, genetic drift, sexual recombination, epigenetic factors and, yes, horizontal gene transfer. But all variations, whatever form they take, serve as fodder for natural selection, which remains the primary evolutionary force, and which Darwin (and Wallace) discovered.
Click to expand...
 
The Hammer

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
questfortruth said:
read the name of Journal. It is respected journal. The best journal.
Read the title: "Darwin wrong."
Click to expand...

Doesn't help any.

Also, Darwin isn't considered indispensable anymore. Evolution has as lot more built into it, then just Darwinian theory. In fact most of what Darwin said is not regarded as accurate today with our knowledge of genomics, and heredity
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Shadow Wolf said:
Where did you get this idea from?
Click to expand...
I think that he means that we have learned a lot since Darwin. Darwin set the ball rolling and for how little information that he had he got quite a bit right. But there were many details of life that were no known in his time so some of his work is imperfect.

Does that mean that it is refuted? No, of course not. It is just that we have a much better understanding of evolution now then we did during Darwin's time. And I do believe that Darwin foresaw that himself. He did not have any delusions of grandeur of knowing everything when it came to the topic. He was aware of what claims of his were not well supported yet. But he predicted that they would be. And he was right about that.
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Subduction Zone said:
I think that he means that we have learned a lot since Darwin. Darwin set the ball rolling and for how little information that he had he got quite a bit right. But there were many details of life that were no known in his time so some of his work is imperfect.

Does that mean that it is refuted? No, of course not. It is just that we have a much better understanding of evolution now then we did during Darwin's time. And I do believe that Darwin foresaw that himself. He did not have any delusions of grandeur of knowing everything when it came to the topic. He was aware of what claims of his were not well supported yet. But he predicted that they would be. And he was right about that.
Click to expand...
Still seems odd because what we've learned since has added to the support of Natural Selection. No, he wasn't right about everything but he's still gaining support and knocking down contenders.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Shadow Wolf said:
Still seems odd because what we've learned since has added to the support of Natural Selection. No, he wasn't right about everything but he's still gaining support and knocking down contenders.
Click to expand...
Yes, we keep finding more and more evidence for evolution constantly. I was merely pointing out that Darwin was not being attacked in that post.
 
Quintessence

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Shadow Wolf said:
Where did you get this idea from?
Click to expand...

From working at a university where I come into regular contact with Ph.D's in evolutionary biology, and from time to time attending seminars on the research.

Basically what @Subduction Zone said - Darwin's ideas were a starting point and the field has changed significantly since then. Modern evolutionary biology is not "Darwinism" and that's not how evolutionary biologists refer to their own field. One of the most exciting newer frontiers I've caught wind of lately is a reckoning between ecology and evolution - finally an accounting for how organisms engineer their environments and are not mere passive recipients in the selection process. I dunno when I'm going to find the time to dig into that literature... :oops:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top