Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

[RetiredGySgt]

Again there is no clear record, there are numerous holes and several points where the supposed evolution is not tied to the previous species or the next species. if you disagree post the record and show me where I am wrong.

 

[Hollie]

Again there is no clear record, there are numerous holes and several points where the supposed evolution is not tied to the previous species or the next species. if you disagree post the record and show me where I am wrong.

You don't support your "numerous holes" comment so I have to assume you are retreating to the creationist safe house that will require a fossil record that you will always define as inadequate.

Like all of evolution, and human evolution in particular, we don't see a straight line from species to sub-species to another but a diverse "splitting tree" with many different branches. What we see in nature is not supermagical design as claimed by creationers but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes. complete dead ends. God's "talents" as a designer are in fact inept and incompetent in that biological systems collapse easily, they can face extinction if basic elements relied on by a species is destroyed, they are susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" apparently-- (a round of thanks for the gods' blueprints for any number of diseases) and the general amount of waste is phenomenal in scope.

The point is, inefficiency, waste, ineptitude and incompetence are not hallmarks of the gods. Inefficiency in nature is the result of nature not being intellectually directed by your gods or anyone else's gods. That is why we see evolution sometimes retaining things (body parts, appendages in animals), it no longer needs, like vestigial bones (whales and snakes have useless leg bones) which are direct clues as to the start-and stop nature of evolution.

This is entirely consistent with the way our understanding of both human, animal and plant evolution has grown and improved using the process and the discipline of science. BTW, It is interesting to notice that creationists make such noise and fuss regarding our understanding of human ancestry which has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.

 

[Stryder50]

science does not work on consensus

No, but the people who signed the petition are scientists and you are not.

HOWEVER - as citizens/voters/taxpayers we vote for the representation that assigns funding for science and endorses~or not, the finding of scientists, so we have a vested interest.
ALSO - most education systems require some instruction in the basics of science since we live in an industrialized culture built upon/by science.

SO - even if many of us don't have a degree/sheepskin saying we are "scientists" we still have concerns about and live by science.

If you doubt this, I invite you to mix a home cleaning solution blending bleach and ammonia.

 

[Stryder50]

FWIW & FYI ...

Top 10 Design Flaws in the Human Body
From our knees to our eyeballs, our bodies are full of hack solutions.
...
The Greeks were obsessed with the mathematically perfect body. But unfortunately for anyone chasing that ideal, we were designed not by Pygmalion, the mythical sculptor who carved a flawless woman, but by MacGyver. Evolution constructed our bodies with the biological equivalent of duct tape and lumber scraps. And the only way to refine the form (short of an asteroid strike or nuclear detonation to wipe clean the slate) is to jerry-rig the current model. “Evolution doesn’t produce perfection,” explains Alan Mann, a physical anthropologist at Princeton University. “It produces function.”

With that in mind, I surveyed anatomists and biologists to compile a punch list for the human body, just as you’d do before buying a house. Get out your checkbook. This one’s a fixer-upper.
...

Top 10 Design Flaws in the Human Body

From our knees to our eyeballs, our bodies are full of hack solutions.

getpocket.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Admittedly, a bit subjective, but interesting still. One factor not properly explained by Religions (note the plural, not just the Judeo~Christian~Islamic) nor Science is how if humans evolved out of simians, we wound up with DNA structured in 23 chromosomes versus the ape/simian of 24. Among a few other things BTW.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

go ahead prove me wrong.

Sure thing! What would the evidence man descended from apes look like? Be very specific.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

My problem is your unwavering religious devotion to science when science even admits it is mostly guess work in most cases.

It doesn't do that. If you are going to make up silly nonsense, head over to the religion section.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

go ahead prove me wrong.

Sure thing! What would the evidence man descended from apes look like? Be very specific.

I already told you I see you avoiding the fact you can not prove anything.

 

[zaangalewa]

https://www.discovery.org/m/2020/04/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-04072020.pdf

Many scientists don't accept evolution as the key to Nature

Many scientistst have in general problems with darwinism - on political reasons (lots of misunderstandings of the scientific theory) but also more and more because of science itselve, if I understood the inherent critics from real scientistst well - what's not so easy, because specially the English speaking world produces an astonishing amount of nonsense about everything what has to do with biology and evolution.

I'm on my own always astonished about the fanatisms in context of this theme, specially astonished about the use of pseudo-religious arguments in this context. Creation and evolution for example are totally different things. Evolution is part of the creation but it makes not any sense to say creation evolved.

Indeed is the theory of evolution from Darwin not a big thing. The people saw this "biological evolution" since thousands of years and used this natural methods for mixed farming 'since ever' (about 10,000 years). Mendel for example was in this context more important than Darwin. I think to say something like "the nature is doing on its own the same what human beings are doing - it evolves characteristics of the living matter" was not really a new idea.

The real interesting idea was the so called "theory of games" in the background of the theory of evolution. I don't know how many people correct always the sentence "life is a game" with "life is not a game". But life is a game - although it is also a serios thing.

The religious problem in this context is not the theory of evolution - it's the concept of "happenstance". Sometimes "shit happens" for example on no deeper reason. Not on reason of a cause, or on reason of fate, karma, predestination and so on and so on. Also not on reason of good or bad will. Sometimes things go well or go wrong just simple on no deeper reason. This allows us for example not always to have to look for faults. Sometimes happens something without faults or merits and we have to take it as it is. What had happened means sometimes nothing for the next round of the game, which is called "life". Perhaps not the results are sometimes predestined - perhaps sometimes is only predestined a chance. Howelse could the world be a free world, in the will of god?

 

[zaangalewa]

... Many scientists don't accept evolution as the key to Nature

For a scientist it is unimportant whether an elephant or bumble bees with the same mass will fall into a black hole. But if the scientist is an Andromedian, who saw the first time in his life an elephant and bumble bees, then he will risk his life to save the elephant and the bumble bees. Why will this Andromedian scientist do so? Because living structures are the most valueable matter in this universe. Extremely seldom. I would wish all people on Earth had the same respect on life and the will to save life as owns this hypothetical Andromedian scientist in my fantasy.

 

[Crick]

"A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" (or "Dissent from Darwinism") was a statement issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank based in Seattle, Washington, U.S., best known for its promotion of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. As part of the Discovery Institute's Teach the Controversy campaign, the statement expresses skepticism about the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encourages careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinism", a term intelligent design proponents use to refer to evolution.[1]

The statement was published in advertisements under an introduction which stated that its signatories dispute the assertion that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things, and dispute that "all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution".[2][3] The Discovery Institute states that the list was first started to refute claims made by promoters of the PBS television series "Evolution" that "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true".[4] Further names of signatories have been added at intervals.[5][6] The list continues to be used in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns in an attempt to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support.[citation needed]

The statement is misleading and ambiguous, using terms with multiple meanings such as "Darwinism", which can refer specifically to natural selection or informally to evolution in general,[7] and presenting a straw man fallacy with its claim that random mutations and natural selection are insufficient to account for the complexity of life, when standard evolution theory involves other factors such as gene flow, genetic recombination, genetic drift and endosymbiosis.[8][9] Scientists and educators have noted that its signatories, who include historians and philosophers of science as well as scientists, were a minuscule fraction of the numbers of scientists and engineers qualified to sign it.[8] Intelligent design has failed to produce scientific research, and been rejected by the scientific community,[8] including many leading scientific organizations.[10][11] The statement in the document has also been criticized as being phrased to represent a diverse range of opinions, set in a context which gives it a misleading spin to confuse the public.[7] The listed affiliations and areas of expertise of the signatories have also been criticized.[1][12]

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

REFERENCES

1. Forrest, Barbara (2007). "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals"(PDF). Center for Inquiry, Inc. p. 5. Archived from the original(PDF) on 19 May 2011. Retrieved 25 April 2011. As I stated earlier, Johnson, Dembski, and their associates have assumed the task of destroying 'Darwinism,' 'evolutionary naturalism,' 'scientific materialism,' 'methodological naturalism,' 'philosophical naturalism,' and other 'isms' they use as synonyms for evolution.
2. "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" (PDF). September 2001. Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 September 2007. Retrieved 30 October 2007.; original "100 Scientists" advertisement.
3. Gross PF, Forrest BC (2004). Creationism's Trojan horse: the wedge of intelligent design. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. pp. 172. ISBN 0-19-515742-7.
4. "Skepticism About Darwinian Evolution Grows as 1,000+ Scientists Share Their Doubts". Evolution News. 4 February 2019.
5. Crowther, Robert (21 June 2006). "Dissent From Darwinism "Goes Global" as Over 600 Scientists Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwinian Evolution". Archived from the original on 17 November 2007. Retrieved 30 October 2007.
6. Staff, Discovery Institute (8 March 2007). "Ranks of Scientists Doubting Darwin's Theory on the Rise". Discovery Institute. Archived from the original on 23 October 2007. Retrieved 30 October 2007.
7. Evans, Skip (29 November 2001). "Doubting Darwinism Through Creative License". NCSE. Retrieved 25 April 2011.
8. Petto, Andrew J. (24 July 2015). "Chapter 2: Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design". In Muehlenbein, Michael P. (ed.). Basics in Human Evolution. Elsevier Science. pp. 23–25. ISBN 978-0-12-802693-9.
9. "Evolutionary mechanisms". NCSE. 24 September 2008. Retrieved 1 June 2019.
10. Statements from Scientific Organizations National Center for Science Education.
11. NCSE Voices for Evolution project, Sager C (2008). Voices for Evolution. National Center for Science Education, Inc. ISBN 978-0-615-20461-1.
12. Chang, Kenneth (21 February 2006). "Few Biologists But Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 9 May 2015. Retrieved 4 January 2008.; available without login

Viktor, what is your opinion on Intelligent Design?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I already told you I see you avoiding the fact you can not prove anything.

Which is a lie by you to avoid my question, as i am clearly trying to provide proof. Clearly the mountains of evidence thar have convinced virtually every educated person and scientist on the planet have not convinced you. So, in the interest of you acting like a reasonable, courteous adult, you need to tell me what convincing evidence would look like to you.

Or admit that no evidence could ever possibly convince you, and that your constant prattling about the evidence is a dog and pony show.

Surely you aren't going to dodge me, after accusing me of dodging. That would make you look pretty bad.

 

[james bond]

Perhaps it is isn't even a majority of scientists. It's really a minority who are atheists.

What's troublesome is lack of transitional fossils when it's main evidence is supposed to be fossils.

 

[james bond]

Evolution is a fact accepted by the global scientific community, on the evidence.

I've been telling you for years there is no evidence, evolution isn't a fact (hypothesis), and that it lacks hard evidence. If it was a fact, then we could all use it. Of course, you're an atheist and it's based on your religion.

 

[Stryder50]

Silly Humans ...

Intervention Theory

What Is Intervention Theory?

It is the theory that aliens deliberately placed and manipulated life on Earth, or to put it another way, aliens “intervened” in the development of life on Earth. There are many different versions of Intervention Theory, ranging from those who believe aliens merely seeded life here and then left it to naturally evolve (sometimes called “directed panspermia” or “terraforming”), to those who think aliens were actively involved in genetic manipulation to create domesticated species and humans. Lloyd Pye’s specific version of Intervention Theory proposes that there was at least one deliberate seeding event (the Cambrian Explosion), and that a human-like race of aliens called the Annunaki created humans by combining their own DNA with that of Earth’s native bipedal primates. As incredible as this sounds, there is evidence of DNA tampering in the human genome, and there are ancient written records detailing this incredible intervention.
...

Intervention Theory – Lloyd Pye

www.lloydpye.com

 

[Hollie]

Perhaps it is isn't even a majority of scientists. It's really a minority who are atheists.

What's troublesome is lack of transitional fossils when it's main evidence is supposed to be fossils.

Perhaps you’re not understanding. The validity of science is not dependent on belief or non belief of the scientist. The data is supportable or it is not.

Fossil evidence is only troublesome for the hyper-religious because that evidence clashes with biblical tales and fables.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I've been telling you for years there is no evidence, evolution isn't a fact (hypothesis)

Which is false

and that it lacks hard evidence.

Which means you would fail a 6th grade science quiz. You're a moron.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Again for the slow and stupid provide a chart that lists ALL the connections to the supposed beginning of man that shows no breaks no missing connections and all connections are clearly connected one after the other.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again for the slow and stupid provide a chart that lists ALL the connections to the supposed beginning of man that shows no breaks no missing connections and all connections are clearly connected one after the other.

Why would you need that? This would convince you? Why is a smooth line of nearly 100 such examples, with a smooth transition in physiology that aligns perfectly with mDNA studies not just as convincing? Be specific.

 

[Turtlesoup]

science does not work on consensus

No, but the people who signed the petition are scientists and you are not.

Sounds more like they are frauds--either lacking brains or a moral compass or both. Their consensus is shit.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sounds more like they are frauds--either lacking brains or a moral compass or both. Their consensus is shit.

Yep! The dummies who signed a petition rejecting evolution are definitely frauds.