Timeline for Common false beliefs in Physics
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 19, 2011 at 0:10 | comment | added | Ron Maimon | I am saying that, while Darwin's original idea is close to accurate, you can't describe complex evolutionary systems in a simple mechanical way, as modern synthesis evolution does. Incorporating complex systems effects in this case is hardly distinguishable from intelligent design, because a large computing system of this sort is intelligent in a meaningful sense of being able to produce coherent logical mutations, and smart selection, at the system level. This is closer to Behe than to modern synthesis. | |
| Aug 16, 2011 at 17:15 | comment | added | Marek | @Ron: I am not saying it's obvious, only that it is possible (i.e. you don't need God to create life). And it is certainly the only scientific explanation we have, so what needs to be done is "only" better quantification of relevant processes. | |
| Aug 16, 2011 at 17:05 | comment | added | Ron Maimon | It is in no way obvious that statistics and natural selection can produce living things. The theory is not yet at the quantitative level. How would you estimate, even roughly, the order of magnitude of time for evolution? Darwin was able to do it only phenomenologically, by the known rates at which domestication changes animal traits. If you try to estimate the rate of change naively, using modern genetics, you get an estimate which is impossibly long, as was noticed by Pauli many years ago. In this case, the popular belief is pointing out that we don't understand evolution quantitatively. | |
| S Dec 3, 2010 at 9:48 | history | answered | Marek | CC BY-SA 2.5 | |
| S Dec 3, 2010 at 9:48 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki |