> It is a very grave mistake to equate evolution
> with Darwinism.
> There are many different theories of biological
> evolution. I am for instance
> an evolutionist but not a Darwinist, which implies
> believing that biological
> species are products of a sequence of random
> mutations in the DNA.
Darwinism is a term that has been usurped by creationist to use as a pejorative to dismiss aspects of the theory of evolution that they don't like or understand such as DNA modification through mutation. Darwin didn't have any idea what mutation or DNA was. What are these many other theories of evolution of which you speak? Can you give a couple of examples for discussion?
> Other evolutionists who are not Darwinists are for
> instance Jean-Baptiste
> Lamarck, who now is getting a revival through
> epigenetics and Richard Owen.
> Evolutionism cannot be equated with Darwinism even
> if its proponents
> although try to make it seem this way.
Lamark was studying speciation at the same time Darwin was. He had no idea about DNA or genes or any mechanism of inheritance. His theory that greater use of specific organs and structures created changes in species was open to debate until we actually discovered how DNA works and what genes are. Then he was shown to be wrong unless you can show otherwise.
Considering what Darwin knew nothing about DNA or genes back in the 1850's why are you using the term "Darwinism" to dismiss the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution through mutations in DNA? It is you who are equating Darwinism with the theory of evolution not anyone else.
> Darwinism has not withstood any of the
> experimental tests that you might place
> on it as far as I know, and I do not know what you
> are basing such a statement of.
Good. Could you please show one experiment or test that the theory of evolution through mutative changes in DNA has not withstood? Just throw one up for discussion and lets see what's really going on.
This is your statement, "Darwinism has not withstood any of the experimental tests that you might place on it." I'm going to replace your term "Darwinism" with theory of evolution through mutative DNA and again ask you to show one experiment for discussion that evolution has not withstood.
> Just as an example, Herman Muller who studied
> mutations in fruit flies (and got a
> Nobel price for this) found that these increased
> as a result of X-rays. However,
> these mutations did not generate new species or a
> process of evolution in the fruit flies,
> which the Darwinist theory would have predicted.
Evolutionist never predicted anything like new species arriving from a series of three experiments conducted over a couple of years in the formative 1920's. Creating a new species is so far beyond what Muller was trying to do that the fact that you would even equate it with these experiments tells me everything I need to know about your understanding of scientific methodology and experiment.
In 1926 and '27 they didn't even know that X-rays caused mutation. That was the scope of Mullers experiment. He won the prize for showing how X-rays effected Chromosomes period:
"Hermann Joseph Muller conducted three experiments in 1926 and 1927 that demonstrated that exposure to x-rays, a form of high-energy radiation, can cause genetic mutations, changes to an organism's genome, particularly in egg and sperm cells. In his experiments, Muller exposed fruit flies (Drosophila) to x-rays, mated the flies, and observed the number of mutations in the offspring. In 1927, Muller described the results of his experiments in "Artificial Transmutation of the Gene" and "The Problem of Genic Modification". His discovery indicated the causes of mutation and for that research he later received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1946. Muller's experiments with x-rays established that x-rays mutated genes and that egg and sperm cells are especially susceptible to such genetic mutations."
The fact that you would try to take what Muller was doing and try to lump all "Darwinists" and the science of the theory of evolution as wrong because he didn't magically pop up brand new species in a few experiments with radiation is pretty rich. You should know the timescale that it takes for a new species to arise.
> paleontology does not support the Darwinist idea
> of slow and gradual change,
> but of dramatic bursts of new species and large
> extinctions quite in contrast to
> what the Darwinist theory predicts.
Sure it does. You obviously missed the first year of biology when taking your degree. Do you remember? That was the course where they took you through all the genus, order, family, phyla and kingdoms of animals throughout the recorded history of life and showed you step by step how small modifications led to all the varied forms of life we have today. You remember, how human embryos have notochords and gills and all that and where those adaptations first started to arise in other species millions of years ago.
There were a few bursts of new species -called punctuated equilibrium and it is true that we don't understand all of that but it is likely due to vast areas of the Earth becoming open to new species facing brand new adaptive changes after mass species events that changed the environment and created drastic new challenges and opportunities for life to evolve. The Cambrian is probably the most famous of these though the one that wiped out the dinosaurs and allowed the rise of us is another good one.
> This is not the place to have a deep scientific
> discussion about how evolution actually takes
> place or what the other factors are. If you are
> seriously interested in this I recommend my books.
We don't have to have a deep scientific discussion. All you need to do is provide some evidence to back up any of your statements and then we can have a discussion about it. If you can't give a brief description of these of these other "factors" of which you speak, then why should I buy your book?
As I notice you have mostly refused to answer any of the question I have put to you. Instead you keep saying your scientific knowledge is too complicated to be discussed here on this forum and referring to your books.
It seems all you are really trying to do is sell a book which if I get the gist is how the Mayan Calendar is related to Cosmological Quantum theory and human evolution and even civilizations arise through some kind of wave function that permeates the Universe.
That would be a book I would not recommend.
If you feel up to answering any of the questions I have put to you though I will try to continue a civil discussion though.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 17-Aug-21 21:52 by Sirius7237.