You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #28: Yes. This "long view" fills in around the "short view" I gave in #21 [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
arendt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. Yes. This "long view" fills in around the "short view" I gave in #21
D'Arcy Thomson was the original "form" guy of the 1920s.

And, I completely agree that the Darwinists are dug in because of the creationsists, not because they are "an industry".

Mechanistic explanations just don't cut it at the atomic level. There is too much quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics (can you say "entropy", as in one part of "free energy"?) involved in biochemistry for Newtonian simplicity to work. For example, to figure out which water molecules are tightly bound to a protein (and therefore are effectively part of its shape and electrostatics and van der Walls energy) requires a full-blown statistical mechanics calculation that takes weeks to run and doesn't give the world's most precise answer.

Also, while we have deduced the structures of over 30,000 proteins, and decoded the entire genome, we still don't understand how either one works. So much for Newtonian mechanics.

You brought up that Darwinism justifies Spenceristic economics. But, a lot of people believe that Darwin got his ideas from the economic ideologues of free enterprise in England during his lifetime. Whichever is true, the Social Darwinism lobby is going to push back hard against A16.

So, there are two examples of why this may turn into a fight. In both cases, the people who want to fight are PSUEDO-scientists. Real scientists know the Modern Synthesis needs to include the new facts of this new scientific era.

Thanks for an interesting comment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC