Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory

The New American ^ | 11 March 2019 | Alex Newman

[BroJoeK]

Elsie: "Sigh...
"Evolution" does NOT care about these either."

I saw what you wrote and knew right away what you intended.
I make plenty of mistakes like that...

[BroJoeK]

Dave Wright: "There is a popular misunderstanding about what a scientific theory represents..."

Your post is an excellent summary and defense of science.
A good place to start any discussion of evolution theory.

[Elsie]

How does a plant evolve to eat an insect??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_flytrap

And how does it get a NAME like... VENUS??

[BroJoeK]

rx: "Disproven hypotheses should no longer be called a theory by anyone."

"Evolution theory" today is a far cry from what was understood in Darwin's time, over 150 years ago.
The breadths, depths & granularity of today's understandings are orders of magnitude greater than Darwin could even imagine.

And yet, and yet... in all those years basic evolution theory has never been verifiably falsified.
Indeed, much of what was "just theory" to Darwin has now been observed as facts.

Point is: it's important we keep in mind scientific distinctions between observed facts, confirmed theories, falsifiable hypotheses and research "brain storming".

[BroJoeK]

ml/nj: "Darwinian Evolution is a crock."

Most of what Darwin himself proposed is now observed fact.
What you call "a crock" is likely just a creature of your own imagination.

[PeterPrinciple]

Tell me exactly what Darwin proposed. Not what you think he proposed. It isn’t what you think........................

[PeterPrinciple]

In the first edition of “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, Charles Darwin speculated about how natural selection could cause a land mammal to turn into a whale. As a hypothetical example, Darwin used North American black bears, which were known to catch insects by swimming in the water with their mouths open:

“I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale,” he speculated.
The idea didn’t go over very well with the public. Darwin was so embarrassed by the ridicule he received that the swimming-bear passage was removed from later editions of the book.

[BroJoeK]

Vaquero: "Global warming IS fake.
Evolution is a fact.
No theory.
A fact. (Various permutations Of evolution may be considered theoretical)"

You just have to be careful with such claims.
An awful lot of this "debate" boils down to definitions of terms...

So, there are indeed innumerable observed facts associated with evolution and many confirmed predictions, making Darwin's falsifiable hypothesis a valid theory.
There are also many related unconfirmed & unconfirmable hypotheses, along with notable research brainstorming.
I would put ideas like "panspermia" in the brainstorming category.

Here is a fact: in over 150 years basic evolution theory has never been strongly falsified.

[ml/nj]

Most of what Darwin himself proposed is now observed fact. What you call "a crock" is likely just a creature of your own imagination.

May I quote from Speciation by Coyne and Orr?

So begins The Origin of Species, whose title and first paragraph imply that Darwin will have much to say about speciation. Yet his magnum opus remains largely silent on the "mystery of mysteries," and the little it does say about this mystery is seen by most modern evolutionists as muddled or wrong.

ML/NJ

[BroJoeK]

Vaquero: "Luddites abound.
I suppose as a constitutional conservative I must hang with strange bedfellows."

I would not derogatorily call our fellow conservatives "Luddites" just because they use a more traditional interpretation of scripture, one that precludes the possibility of taking natural-science philosophically.
They have to take science itself with a grain or salt, or two, and indeed that's just as science is supposed to take itself.

Natural-science was not originally intended to be an overarching philosophy, only a methodological assumption -- meaning, we will assume, only for explanation purposes: no supernatural interventions in natural processes.
It doesn't mean there aren't any, only that natural-science can't & won't deal with them.
Science leaves such matters to theology, philosophy, metaphysics & saints, etc.

When you make such natural-science assumptions, "Darwinism" is a natural result.
But if we have any faith in the Bible and the Deity, then we know that God not only created but also has a role in natural processes, and evolution may yet prove a subject which cannot be fully explained without Him.

The usual term for that understanding is: theistic evolutionism = God directed complexification.

It doesn't mean even a single word of "evolution theory" is necessarily wrong, only that we believe it to be... incomplete.

[BroJoeK]

DoodleDawg: "How many thousands more consider Darwins theory on evolution to be sound science?"

going hot: "The remainder."

Seems to me there was a very similar article posted on Free Republic maybe 10 years ago, leading me to wonder if this isn't simply an updated listing of the same thing?

At the time, on that thread there was speculation many who signed were not experts in a related field, so I notice this time the article stresses many are.

I also notice the signed statement itself is pretty bland:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life...
Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
There is scientific dissent from Darwinism.
It deserves to be heard."

Well... seriously?
Scientists, by their nature are supposed to be "skeptical", it's how they work.
All observations have to be confirmed, theories can only ever be accepted tentatively pending new falsifying data or simply better explanations.
That's what science is, and to sign on to such a statement represents, in a sense, nothing more than an employment application.

They're looking for research jobs.

[BroJoeK]

DungeonMaster: "It's not the "theory" of evolution it's the "anecdotes" of evolution.
There is no math what so ever to support the anecdotes. "

So, you can cite chapter & verse where it says math must be employed to confirm a theory?
No, of course not, that's nonsense.

A theory is confirmed by, among other things, making predictions later observed as facts.
For a listing of some Darwin predictions confirmed, see this link

[DungeonMaster]

So, you can cite chapter & verse where it says math must be employed to confirm a theory? No, of course not, that's nonsense.

I can cite David Berlinski and his who is much more eloquent than I.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6ElA0--JNg

I also like the one about the probability of a single protein falling together in an entire earth sized ocean of amino acids assuming that for some reason they'd try to fall together and at the first error they'd try again.

[BroJoeK]

Buffaloguy: "C14 dating is accurate , roughly to 1 or two decades throughout most of its useful range."

Sopater: "Only if you assume many things that cannot be known...
Hence, why it cannot be truly calibrated. "

Oh, but C14 dating can be, and has been, rather precisely calibrated by numerous cross-references to other dating methods, such as tree rings, ice cores, archeological & even historical data.
Of course, there are still small margins of error, but certainly not large enough to invalidate the entire process.

Sopater: " Sorry, but '[f]acts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.' "

Exactly.

[Sopater]

Just because there is dissent (even “dissent of a group of 1,000) from one theory in support of another does not make one more credible over the other.

Neither is a majority opinion necessarily more credible.

[RFEngineer]

“dissent” is not a refutation of an accepted theory.

Every theory is subject to scientific “dissent” these guys act like they invented it, and through sheer numbers intimidate.

They are a bunch of drama queens pretending that there is a conspiracy against them where none exists.

They know little of faith and even less about science.

They assume that faith and science must agree and pervert both to get to their chosen end.

As a group the 1,000 of them fail to make any case for being taken seriously.

[rustbucket]

Non-scientist here (but Ph.D). It defies logic that unimaginable complexity such as found in the “simplest” of organisms could spontaneously arise. This is the death knell of evolutionary theory.

It seems logical to me, a Ph.D chemical engineer with more peer reviewed articles in science journals than in engineering journals, that complex live organisms did not simply "spontaneously" form directly from a group of raw simple molecules coming together to form complex living organisms. In that sense, you are correct.

"Spontaneously" is the problem in your statement. I think those raw simple molecules would very likely form more and more stable complex precursor molecules given long eons of time and immense numbers of interactions with immense numbers of other molecules. Those more and more complex molecules, while not "alive" in a conventional sense, could have had greater probabilities of forming still more complex molecules that might be self replicating and ultimately lead to live simple organisms.

We do not yet know the precise path that formed those intermediate complex molecules that led to living, reproducing, simple organisms. But complex molecules such as amino acids have been formed in laboratories from simple raw chemicals.

The following link might be of interest to you:

The Beginnings of Life

[Vaquero]

would put ideas like “panspermia” in the brainstorming category.

Yes. There is that. Like to check the geysers on Enceladus to see if life exists there. Or perhaps Europa.

[BroJoeK]

PeterPrinciple: "Tell me exactly what Darwin proposed.
Not what you think he proposed.
It isn’t what you think........................"

This link has a summary of "Darwinism".

Here is a summary of that summary:

"These are the basic tenets of evolution by natural selection as defined by Darwin:

1. More individuals are produced each generation than can survive.
2. Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable.
3. Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment will survive.
4. When reproductive isolation occurs new species will form."

I learned it as two confirmed observations (aka facts) operating together:

1. descent with modifications and
2. natural selection.

[BroJoeK]

PeterPrinciple: "Darwin was so embarrassed by the ridicule he received that the swimming-bear passage was removed from later editions of the book."

And yet later discoveries showed it to be a pretty good analogy.