Posted on 03/11/2019 2:51:56 PM PDT by Sopater
Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a “Dissent” statement expressing skepticism about Darwin’s evolution theory, sparking fresh controversy over an idea that is at the core of many people’s worldview. The significant announcement, made last month, has been all but ignored by the establishment media. But it is making waves nevertheless.
The dissenting scientists all united around one simple statement. “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life,” the Ph.D.s said. “Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.”
The growing rebellion among scientists from a broad range of scientific disciplines suggests the science may not be as settled as evolution theorists claim, according to analysts. Despite enormous risks to their careers and reputations, the number of experts willing to speak out about their skepticism of Darwin’s theory is growing quickly.
And many of the scientists speaking out about this are prominent and highly respected. More than a dozen of the signatories, for instance, are members of various national academies of science, including those in the United States, Russia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and other nations, as well as the Royal Society.
More than a few come from America's most prestigious universities such as Harvard, MIT, Princeton, and Yale. Others come from prestigious foreign universities and research institutions such as the University of Cambridge, London’s Natural History Museum, Moscow State University, Hong Kong University, University of Stellenbosch in South Africa, Institut de Paléontologie Humaine in France, Ben-Gurion University in Israel, and more.
The experts speaking out also represent a broad array of scientific disciplines and fields. These include molecular biology, biochemistry, biology, entomology, computational quantum chemistry, microbiology, psychiatry, behavioral sciences, astrophysics, marine biology, cellular biology, physics, astronomy, math, geology, anthropology, and many more. Many medical doctors are raising questions, too.
“As a biochemist I became skeptical about Darwinism when I was confronted with the extreme intricacy of the genetic code and its many most intelligent strategies to code, decode, and protect its information,” explained Dr. Marcos Eberlin, founder of the Thomson Mass Spectrometry Laboratory and a member of the Brazilian National Academy of Sciences.
Among the prestigious scientists who have signed the statement are evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe; quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia; U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov; and geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, editor emeritus of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum and discoverer of genetic recombination in antibiotic-producing Penicillium and Streptomyces.
The project, known as “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism,” was first launched by the Discovery Institute in 2001. It was started in response to the demonstrably false claim by the tax-funded Public Broadcasting System (PBS) that “virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.” Obviously, that is not true. So Discovery Institute bought advertisements proving it in the New York Review of Books and other venues.
Since then, the number of public dissenters has grown tenfold. Indeed, many prominent scientists now dispute the evolution theory. A recent documentary that appeared on Netflix, Is Genesis History?, features myriad Ph.D. scientisists outlining their arguments against evolution and in favor of biblical creation.
This writer attended a conference in Turkey recently that brought together respected scientists from all over the world and from all different religions who argued that the evolution theory was a “hoax.” These included prestigious American scientists who have worked for NASA and leading U.S. universities. It also included Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Mormons, and more.
The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which advocates for Intelligent Design, is still growing its list of well over 1,000 Ph.D. scientists who dissent from Neo-Darwinism and its central tenet — the notion that random mutations and natural selection can generate the massive amount of genetic information present in living organisms. Indeed, critics of the evolution theory say there has never been a documented example of a mutation adding genetic information rather than destroying it.
Neurosurgery Professor Dr. Michael Egnor at State University of New York, Stony Brook, argued that scientists “know intuitively that Darwinism can accomplish some things, but not others.” “The question is what is that boundary? Does the information content in living things exceed that boundary? Darwinists have never faced those questions,” he explained. “They’ve never asked scientifically, can random mutation and natural selection generate the information content in living things.”
And the institute believes that the 1,000 plus scientists who have signed the statement represent the tip of a massive iceberg. “While that number surely represents a scientific minority, it also no doubt vastly understates the number of Darwin-doubting PhD scientists,” wrote Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer at Evolution News.
“When it comes to evolution, persecution is an all too well known fact of academic life. Endorsing Darwinian evolution is the safe careerist move, while questioning it can easily mean the end of your career,” added Klinghoffer. “So for every signer of the Dissent list, there is some multiplier’s worth of private skeptics in science, acting self-protectively. That is beyond reasonable doubt.”
Indeed, the growing willingness of leading scientists to speak out with their doubts about Darwin’s theory of evolution is especially noteworthy because it comes in the face of increased persecution of dissenters.
In 2017, for example, California State University at Northridge (CSUN) fired a Christian scientist after he published explosive evidence indirectly contradicting the theory in a peer-reviewed journal. Basically, Mark Armitage, a microscopist, found soft tissue in a dinosaur bone that was supposed to be around “65 million years old,” strongly indicating that the dinosaur in question died much more recently. The university paid him almost $400,000 in a settlement.
More than a few scientists have argued that peer pressure and fear are preventing an honest examination of the subject. “Because no scientist can show how Darwin’s mechanism can produce the complexity of life, every scientist should be skeptical,” said biologist Douglas Axe, director of the Biologic Institute. “The fact that most won’t admit to this exposes the unhealthy effect of peer pressure on scientific discourse.”
Meanwhile, as more and more scientists speak out, Americans largely continue to reject the evolution theory as well, and interest in the question is surging. Despite the theory being taught to generations of American children in government schools as if it were a fact, recent polls show about half of Americans still believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible's Book of Genesis. In short, they believe that God created humans within fewer than 10,000 years. Only a minority — fewer than 15 percent — believe that godless evolution explains the origin of man, which is what is taught to children at government schools.
“Where there’s a genuine controversy, as there is about Darwinian theory, anyone in search of truth has no choice but to weigh the evidence for himself,” observed the Discovery Institute’s Klinghoffer. "The observation that, beyond doubt, thousands of scientists are skeptical, and that a thousand of them publicly call for further ‘careful examination’ of the question, is one reason every thoughtful adult owes it to herself to consider the evidence without just passively swallowing the majority view.”
Beyond the scientific aspects, there are also profound implications of the theory. One reason religious humanists such as public-education founding father John Dewey latched on to it so fervently is because it allowed them to exclude the existence of a Creator. America's Founding Fathers held as a “self-evident” “truth” that man was created, and endowed by that Creator certain rights. Humanists such as Dewey and his cohorts, who designed the modern public-school system, rejected that — along with the concept of unalienable, God-given rights that governments exist to protect.
Regardless of what one thinks about the evolution theory, it is still a theory. To force Americans who disagree with this controversial theory to fund its propagation in taxpayer-funded government schools — especially when no alternative is even allowed to be mentioned, and when the implications are so huge — is immoral and wrong. Parents and taxpayers should take a lesson from these courageous scientists and speak out.
Then why is Evolution's a Fact being promoted in this thread?
hopeful monsters?
That’s because Nature says ‘abracadabra’ and you didn’t.
No, but if it's important to you, I can be.
My first source, going back about 15 years, on how to deal with these questions was Eugenie Scott.
ml/nj: "So teach me: Do you believe new species evolve over many generations or does speciation happen from one generation to the next?"
Ha!, which came first, the chicken or the egg? ;-)
The answer is: words like "species", "genus", "family", etc., are all artificial constructs and matters of definition.
With the recent advent of DNA analyses some critters have been redefined as more or less closely related than previously believed.
The critters themselves never changed, not one bit, but suddenly we see them in a different light.
Today the rough dividing line is genus -- within a genus breeds, sub-species & species can at least sometimes interbreed.
But between two genera species cannot naturally interbreed, so that is a hard & fast line of division.
But everything else is pretty much a matter of definitions & interpretations.
When exactly does a different population become a "breed" (or race)?
When are different breeds considered separate sub-species?
How does a sub-species become a different species?
It's all definitions & interpretations.
Well known examples include Indian & African elephants -- cannot interbreed so are classified as separate genera.
Polar Bears & Brown Bears were thought to also be separate genera until it was discovered they do interbreed in nature, occasionally, so now they are just separate species in the same genus.
Bottom line: setting aside cross-breeding, no mother ever gave birth to a different species, but a common ancestor, say, a million generations ago, might well give rise to several different species.
Is that the answer you hoped for?
Lots of words to answer a simple question.
All species have characteristic chromosome numbers. For us humans it's 23 pairs. Sometimes humans are born with the wrong number of pairs (usually 24) but none of those ever have produced a grandchild, SFAIK. Apes have 24 pairs. So tell me: how did we go from 22 or 24 or whatever pairs to 23 pairs except from mother to child?
[You may consult Eugene Scott, whoever he is or was.]
ML/NJ
"Is that the answer you hoped for?
It's as good as Joe's!"
The DNA evidence suggests splitting or combing of chromosomes does happen, on occasion.
How, why or what consequences, we don’t know, but do expect a natural explanation will be found, eventually.
That’s what science does.
In the mean time “God of the gaps” theology can easily say, “God did it”.
I prefer to think that whatever natural explanation may present itself, God is both ultimately and directly responsible.
You disagree?
In the mean time “God of the gaps” theology can easily say, “God did it”. I prefer to think that whatever natural explanation may present itself, God is both ultimately and directly responsible.
You disagree?
I prefer to say, "I don't know," when I don't know. Others seem to like to pretend.
As for you splitting and/or combining chromosomes, we don't see any grandchildren of any animals with any chromosomial abnormalities, handwaving notwithstanding.
ML/NJ
Do you agree?
This thread has DEvolved from It is written in stone; to Well, GOD could do it if HE wanted to.
"I don't know" is the understood answer to many specific questions, but does not mean we know nothing about the subject, and what we do know may be worth rehearsing -- if only to restrict further arguments from ignorance.
ml/nj: "As for you splitting and/or combining chromosomes, we don't see any grandchildren of any animals with any chromosomial abnormalities, handwaving notwithstanding."
"Handwaving" describes your statement here.
Here's how one article addresses it:
But researchers have long noted fused chromosomes in both animals and humans.
As Miller points out, a 2013 Chinese report described a 25-year-old male, otherwise completely healthy, with only 22 pairs of chromosomes instead of 23, the result of a fusion of chromosome pairs 14 and 15.
Similarly, a Spanish study described a case in which both parents of a family had by chance carried a fusion between chromosome pairs 13 and 14.
Three of their six children inherited the same fused chromosome pairs.
In short, none of these objections stand up to scrutiny.
Fusion happened, and humans and chimpanzees share a common biological ancestor."
The de novo mutation that produced chromosome 2 took place by means of a Robertson translocation.
Robertsonian translocation occasionally occur today in the human population, although they are seldom noticed.
The reason that they are unnoticed is because they don’t significantly affect the phenotype.
Robertsonian translocations don’t even produce a significant reproduction barrier.
One reason Robertsonian translocations don’t have a significant effect is that the Robertsonian translocation preserves the centromeres.
The chromosomes in the germline cell ‘recognize’ each other by their centromeres.
So as long as the centromeres are conserved, meiosis is no big deal...
"...Let me qualify what I just said though.
The Robertsonian translocation that caused the fusion of chromosome 2 probably caused an extremely small hybridization barrier that would be virtually unnoticeable in the first few generations after the de novo mutation.
The fusion of chromosome 2 would cause an extremely small hybridization barrier.
It would not be anywhere as big as the famous case of mules and hinnys.
Horses and donkeys have incompatible chromosomes due to a couple of de novo mutations that occurred a long time ago.
The apes with fused chromosome 2 would have been nearly as fertile as the apes without this mutation.
There would be a slight increase in the frequency of Down’s syndrome in crossings between apes with the fusion and without the fusion.
It would hardly be noticed in humans, let alone apes.
However, this small increase in risk could have caused a separation of ‘species’ over many, many generations.
People with a Robertsonian translocation crossing with people without the transplocation may have a slightly increased possibility of having offspring with trisomy 21.
Trisomy 21 causes Down’s syndrome, which in protohumans would have been fatal.
The increase in susceptibility is slight, but there probably is one."
How strong is the chromosome fusion idea?
Well, the first article above refers to it as the "fusion hypothesis", saying:
Not from me.
I've always said God did it, even if the physical evidence He left suggests natural processes.
First, Eugenie Scott is sometimes mentioned by Creationists as a, ah, boogie-person for her strong defense of science against their attacks on it.
Second, here is another discussion of your specific question.
This writer from 2013 is more pessimistic about the probabilities of successful reproduction among fused-chromosome offspring than is the 2017 writer in my post #172 above -- link here.
But he does lay out a realistic scenario in which such events could happen.
Color me unimpressed. You're wasting your time.
Maybe these chromosomes weren't fused at all? Otherwise you would have to explain why three of the six children had normal chromosomes (which is the implication here).
ML/NJ
Sorry, in the interest of brevity (which I've already grossly abused) in post #174 I provided you only a link, not quotes from it, but that does explain at least some of what you say:
From 2013, a less optimistic view of reproductive problems related to chromosome fusing:
The observation that such an event is very unlikely is, in fact, a significant genetic clue that the human species almost went extinct at one point!
Here's what happened: Specifically, the 12th and 13th chromosomes of the ancestors of modern humans (the same chromosomes in apes today except humans) fused to become the 2nd chromosome in modern humans.
A chromosomal fusion in one particular individual doesn't necessarily impact health, but it may reduce their fertility.
About a million years ago, an ancient human (let's say a male) was born with a fused 12th and 13th chromosome.
Thus, he had 47 chromosomes, with three of them being 12, 13, and a 12+13 fusion.
During meiosis, there are three equally likely ways to partition those three chromosomes into two groups:
Of course, under normal circumstances, natural selection eventually weeds these odd-chromosomed humans out of the population due to their reduced fertility.
However, if a 47-chromosome man mates with a 47-chromosome woman (with the same two chromosomes fused), then 1/36 of their children could viably have 46 chromosomes.
Furthermore, now that these children have an even number of chromosomes, the fertility issues no longer exist if these descendants continue to mate with others with 46 chromosomes.
The chances of two people with the exact same fusion mating is extremely small... unless they are closely related.
And that's almost certainly what happened about a million years ago:
For some still unknown reason (possibly climate change, disease, famine, etc), the world human population was reduced to only a few thousand individuals (or perhaps even just a few hundred) scattered around Africa.
Thus, there was much inbreeding in these small isolated groups, creating genetic bottlenecks where rare genes or genetic features (such as having fused 12-13 chromosomes) could become widespread."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.