Outstanding intellectuals

[Exnihiloest]

To say that their DNA changes without explaining how it is a gain for their adaptation does not respond to Darwinian theory.

It is a gain since thanks to that they survived.

they do not necessarily correspond to a gain ...

In these specific cases, these mutations are a gain. Anyway, there is no such thing as "living fossils". This concept has been "updated" for a while.
http://ssaft.com/Blog/dotclear/?post/20 ... ssile-mort
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esp%C3%A8ce_panchronique

Not necessarily gain, indeed. We don't know if that's why they survived. Darwin's theory is that evolution is necessitated by the constraints of the environment which make a selection. Survival is therefore not evidence of an evolution, the constraints may not be sufficient for this purpose.
For example, the sphenodon has not evolved over millions of years. It does not mean that it does not evolve, it means that at best evolution can occur but in stages, not continuously as in the classic view of Darwin.

[ABC2019]

For example, the sphenodon has not evolved over millions of years. It does not mean that it does not evolve, it means that at best evolution can occur but in stages, not continuously as in the classic view of Darwin.

I do not know the sphenodon but it should be checked if it really has not evolved, the references given by Guy make it doubt.
Otherwise, it is not surprising that a scientist from 150 years ago does not have the perfect theory, it is precisely the characteristic of science to evolve.

This is exactly what distinguishes it from beliefs which apply prescriptions to the letter from several thousand years ago, or even from magic recipes from 200 years ago;).

[Exnihiloest]

... The only big problem that opposes evolution is the appearance of life and all attempts to reconstruct it have been doomed to failure ...

A matter of time. Science has not stopped in our time.
In any case, Darwin's theory applies to the life that we observe, with its evolution, so it cannot be invalidated by what would precede life or this moment of "creation of life" in all or nothing mode. as it seems, you get the idea.

[GuyGadebois]

For example, the sphenodon has not evolved over millions of years. It does not mean that it does not evolve, it means that at best evolution can occur but in stages, not continuously as in the classic view of Darwin.

It is an island species native to New Zealand. All the flora and fauna of these areas are exceptions.

[Exnihiloest]

For example, the sphenodon has not evolved over millions of years. It does not mean that it does not evolve, it means that at best evolution can occur but in stages, not continuously as in the classic view of Darwin.

I do not know the sphenodon but it should be checked if it really has not evolved, the references given by Guy make it doubt.

The question is less to know if it has evolved, than to know if it has evolved with a gain under environmental pressure. There may even be regressive characters.
What we see today is that if there is an evolution in him, it is not obvious, whereas over 200 million years, the context has nevertheless drastically changed! The creature had to be well equipped from the start ...

Otherwise, it is not surprising that a scientist from 150 years ago does not have the perfect theory, it is precisely the characteristic of science to evolve.

This is exactly what distinguishes it from beliefs which apply prescriptions to the letter from several thousand years ago, or even from magic recipes from 200 years ago;).

Fully agree. Imperfections are secondary points, which in no way call into question the theory of evolution.

[GuyGadebois]

The creature had to be well equipped from the start ...

It's like ants, apart from their size, they are the same as 150 million years ago. They were already almost perfect.

[Janic]

Janic wrote:
... The only big problem that opposes evolution is the appearance of life and all attempts to reconstruct it have been doomed to failure ...

A matter of time. Science has not stopped in our time.

it is not a question of time precisely. Materialist science has the means in its hands with all of today's sophisticated materials. So theoretically we have everything we need and it is precisely an unsurpassable Plank wall.

In any case, Darwin's theory applies to the life that we observe, with its evolution, so it cannot be invalidated by what would precede life or this moment of "creation of life" in all or nothing mode as it seems, you have the idea.

Darwin did not establish the theory of evolution, nothing in his first edition book appears this concept, he talks about adaptation which is not at all the same thing.
Scientifically all models and hypotheses are admissible, after that it's just a double question:
a) the material resources available
b) the philosophical approach.

The predecessors
If it is up to Darwin to have postulated two great ideas - descendants with modification and the essential role of natural selection in the adaptation of living forms, so in evolution - these did not come to him quite frightened. The land had been cleared, among others, by the zoologist Jean-Baptiste de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck, and the Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. It is also weighted with the first volume of the Principles of Geology, by Lyell, that the young Darwin left Plymouth at the end of 1831 to go around the world on board the ship Beagle. A very long journey of naturalistic exploration during which Darwin sets foot on the Galapagos Islands where land turtles, iguanas, sea lions, finches frolic ...
While many Darwinian exegetes make 1859 the zero time of a scientific event raising biology to the rank of historical science, the epistemologist André Pichot, of the Laboratory of Philosophy and History of Science-Archives Henri Poincaré3, minimizes the importance of Darwin in the history of science. According to him, "Darwinism in 1859 consists little more than natural selection. However, this was no longer really a novelty in the middle of the 1813th century. We find for example this concept in 1831 at William Charles Wells then, in 4, at Patrick Matthew, who will accuse Darwin of plagiarism. We also know that Alfred Russel Wallace had designed a version comparable to that of Darwin at the same time as this one. Without forgetting the pastor, geologist and political scientist Joseph Townsend, whose Darwin has almost copied the theses in this area. In fact, continues André Pichot, the idea of ​​selection was already more or less in tune with the times. And, if it made Darwin's success, it was because the time was right. “The second half of the XNUMXth century saw the triumph of economic liberalism XNUMX, and Darwin brought to it a weighty argument by giving it a natural foundation. "
https://lejournal.cnrs.fr/articles/char ... ne-theorie

The term evolution designates any type of a set of gradual modifications accumulated over time, affecting an object (planet, relief, ocean, manufactured object, etc.), a living being (growth and aging, for example), a population (evolution of species), a system (evolution of the climate, historical evolutions, economic evolutions, social evolutions, linguistic evolutions, etc.) or even thought (evolution of ideas) and behavior (evolution of mores).
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89volution

[eclectron]

The standard is what standardizes the thought that one should have on any subject. In environmentalism today, the standard means:
- adhere to anthropogenic warming and to the idea that CO2 is a pollutant
- adhere to the idea that GMOs are irrelevant to the public good
- adhere to the method of manipulation by fear (especially of the future), as motivation to save the planet
non-exhaustive list.

Is this not a most conformist speech?
I know in advance my intervention will surely be useless in the face of a boomer in denial, but do you ever know?

- adhere to anthropogenic warming and to the idea that CO2 is a pollutant
CO2 is GHG, global warming is proven.
Consequently the CO2 (the dose making the poison) by its impact on the climate becomes a pollutant. But CO2 is not a pollutant in absolute terms since it is on the contrary necessary for plants, it is just the dose that makes "the poison".

- adhere to the idea that GMOs are of no interest for the public good.
The problem with GMOs is that they are created in the spirit of current biocide agriculture, known as traditional and moreover we play sorcerer's apprentices with these GMOs in the wild.
GMOs there is simply no need for them to eat, period.
https://www.france.tv/france-3/pieces-a ... anete.html
It is enough to set up an agriculture with life and not against life.
Yes, that forces us to brainstorm and get out of the paradigm Man against wild and aggressive nature! boo!

That we make GMOs in the lab, in confined space , to produce a drug, I am not saying, but especially not in the wild, otherwise it will one day or another be a more serious problem than the initial problem treated by the GMO solution.
If you want examples, look for Roundup resistant wild mustard yes gene transfer ...

- adhere to the method of manipulation through fear (especially of the future), as motivation to save the planet.
Saving the planet should be formulated by saving humanity from itself.
Fear is indeed not a good engine for change since it makes people like you, who to protect themselves from this fear, are in denial of the very real causes.
Unfortunately, it takes a minimum dose of fear to become aware of the problems.
Staying there is indeed counterproductive.
It is necessary to go beyond the acknowledgment of the problem and the fear it generates, and then take action in motivating and exciting projects, in the spirit of what Gunter Pauli states:
Do with what we have locally, absolutely do not throw anything, absolutely use everything up to the rope, which means getting out of the hyper specialization model in which we are, where the producer is hyper competitive in his production sharp and too bad for waste and pollution that will be treated ... by the rest of society.

Hoping to light up your Sunday, what am I saying, light up!

[Ahmed]

The standard seems to me rather to be in the certainty of the absolute conformity of what makes the present world and its functioning: to deduce from it a strictly tautological justifying "intellectual" construction (at the cost of outrageous simplifications) constitutes a mystification. To get rid of the farce, we can see that these recurring anathemas on mysterious "Green Khmers" are only imaginary foils serving to give, by fallacious opposition, a little substance to inept and egotistical remarks (hence, on this last point, this self-promotional title!).
Beyond this rapid analysis, it should be noted that this ideology, far from being trivial, embodies the main determinisms aiming to "evolve" from the biosphere "to the" technosphere "as directly as possible.
Other fairly similar variants exist, such as the one represented by Izentrop in a more "open" perspective, in the sense that it incorporates a number of environmental parameters. This introduces complexity into the message and at the same time a certain logical fragility * from which the Tryphonnian model is totally exempted by practicing "cherry picking" with the relentlessness that it should be recognized.

* ... but with the advantage of a discourse which becomes more convincing, if not more accurate, since it aims at the same end ...

[izentrop]

Other fairly similar variants exist, such as the one represented by Izentrop from a more "open" perspective, in that it incorporates a certain number of environmental parameters.

More factual, excluding the ideological barriers that you impose on yourself.

Exnihiloest wrote:
The standard is what standardizes the thought that one should have on any subject. In environmentalism today, the standard means:
- adhere to anthropogenic warming and to the idea that CO2 is a pollutant
- adhere to the idea that GMOs are irrelevant to the public good
- adhere to the method of manipulation by fear (especially of the future), as motivation to save the planet
non-exhaustive list.

Is this not a most conformist speech?

I agree with the argument N ° 2, for the rest, Exnihilo remains frozen on its certainties, not worth talking about it more.