Posted on 05/03/2010 6:22:25 AM PDT by Need4Truth
A major storm of protest against the myth of evolution has been building for many years, as proved by almost a thousand major scientists, all with doctorates who have signed on to the following statement as of 2010: “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.”
Those scientists threw down the gauntlet to evolutionists by publishing a two-page ad in a national magazine with the heading, “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.” Fevered, fanatical, and foolish evolutionists will charge that those dissenting scientists were backwoods yokels (maybe even a few snake handlers and flat earthers mixed in) dug up by pushy creationists to promote their cause. Not so, I have gone over the list and if certification and accreditation are so important, impressive, and indispensable, then those people will give evolutionists a perpetual heartburn.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Most creationists couldn't care less about horses or horseflies; they care about humans and other primates.
Do you think six million years is enough to explain a 2% genetic difference between humans and chimps?
Moreover ID is shoddy theology in that it posits an incompetent creator who put in place an insufficient mechanism and needs to pop in to personally effect changes that the system in place could not do. This is NOT a scientific theory, it is a furtherance of the “god of the gaps” theology.
Do you think “random” means ‘beyond God's control’? Why do you think that things we observe as “random” are not under the control of God? Do you read the Bible or base your beliefs upon the Bible?
Prov 16:33 The dice are cast into the lap, but every result is from the Lord.
I don't think that given six million years of random mutations and fixed by natural selection you would have man evolving from a common ancestor with a chimp.
So the short answer is yes.
You seem to accept it as an article of faith that it happened.
With regard to the horsefly & horse example, do you understand that if evolution can't account for that then neo-Darwinism is false?
It's not but members of a cult can't be reached through reason.
The “wedge” document shows that those behind the Incompetent Design movement are only interested in using it as a Trojan horse for Creationism.
Moreover, as an idea, it is neither novel (being just a rewarmed “god of the gaps” argument) nor useful, nor scientific.
So why would six million years be insufficient to explain a 2% genetic difference? Do you think the observed mutation rate is insufficient? Do you think there is some “gap” that the power of your incompetent designer had to fill?
If you think a 2% difference over six million years is unexplainable, then obviously a much larger change over a much larger span of years is going to seem much more so.
But your inability to conceive of it is not a reasonable argument that it didn't happen.
Those crazy psycholinguistics.
Hope they can work out 2012.
Any objective look at the evidence shows that there is indeed micro evolution...adaptations that God programmed into the species dna. However, there is and never will be any evidence of macro evolution . If there was, these scientists would not take this stand and the whole debate would not even exist!
“Evolution is not the only possible way we exist, it is a model that helps to explain all the facts in evidence, and is not contradicted by any of the facts; and leads to further information and use.”
Well, it’s good to see you can learn, when pressed for factual information.
“Again, flatly and completely wrong. A mutation can be negative, neutral or positive. I’m a mutant. I was born without wisdom teeth. Today that is NOT a survival characteristic, but in the days before antibiotics and dentistry, infections caused by wisdom teeth could be fatal.”
The issue has never been change within a specie, the issue is always, “new specie,” and most importantly, a more complex specie from a less complex one.
Please provide one observed example of this. (Please, not one of those cooked up fairy tales based on almost non-existent fossils.)
I do not believe in God, so do not believe in creation, but I also cannot swallow the pseudo-science of species evolution by means of mutations. I have no idea how everything got here, and the only difference between you and I is that I admit it, because you don’t know either, and neither to any of those grant-money-chasing lying evolutionists.
Hank
And in science, a model that helps to explain all the facts in evidence and is not contradicted by any of the facts, a model that leads to further information and use; that model becomes a well accepted and well supported scientific theory; just as the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation has become.
And as long as you creationists are fixated upon the logical fallacy of appeal to authority; over a thousand major scientists named Steve all agree that Darwin's model is well supported by evidence.
“So do these 1000 scientists AGREE on an alternative to Evolution? It is one thing to say ‘you’re wrong’. It is another to say ‘you’re wrong and here is a better theory that fits’.”
Absoloutely not. There no reason there must be a theory of origins, or even an acceptable hypothesis. There is not a single thing in legitimate science that rests on how things got here. Not a single bit of biology, botany, medicine, genetics, or organic chemistry requires any knowledge about how things got to be what they are. All of legitimate science only studies what is, now how it got here.
There is some kind of disease in some men that makes them unable to bear to live with the knowledge that some things are just not known, and probably won’t be for a long time if ever. So they either make religious fairy tales, like creation, or pseudo-scientific ones, like Darwinism, and they are both held with the same fanatical irrational faith, only Darwinism gets bigger research grants, so is more popular.
See my post 110
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2505514/posts?page=110#110
Hank
I posed two simple questions to you, you ingored both. You aren’t trying to debate, you’re showing yourself to be an internet jerk off who is somehow displaying superior intellect, in your mind.
#1 - Show me a documented evolution beyond a species. Fish to mouse, snake to rabbit, something that can be proven. After all, science is about the provable.
#2 - Why does it matter? If I believe that God created the life on this planet, and you believe you evloved from pond scum, and another poster thinks we all came from Mars, what’s the difference? We are here, and the physical realities don’t change.
Unless you can answer those, your doing nothing but wasting keystrokes.
By the way, I may buy that YOU evolved from pond scum.
“That’s because it evolved from a Canadian goose over 5000 years ago.”
Why aren’t you people ashamed of yourselves. You do not know that. It’s just a story made up to fit what you think the evidence is. Tell me how you know that one goose change from the other (which is not evolution anyway, since they are both geese).
See my post 110 & 112
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2505514/posts?page=110#110
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2505514/posts?page=112#112
Hank
And how many hundreds of thousands of scientists are not skeptical of Darwin’s theories at all?
All the same ones that believe in global warming. Since when was science done by consensus anyway?
Hank
Science is not about what is provable and nothing in science is ever proven, it is accepted provisionally awaiting refining or contradicting data.
All the data indicates that species arose via common descent. I do not need to demonstrate a Grand Canyon sized canyon forming via erosion over millions of years to deduce that erosion is a necessary and sufficient mechanism to explain the Grand Canyon.
What does it matter? It matters in what we teach our children about science and the nature of reality. If we teach them useful ideas, like science, or useless vanities like creationism; will have a huge impact upon their lives and future productivity. If you think it doesn't matter then take your ludicrous statements based upon the false premise of cross species hybrid infertility elsewhere.
I am willing to buy that YOU didn't evolve at all intellectually from the pond and the scum.
“So do you think six million years is insufficient to explain a 2% difference in genetic DNA between humans and chimps or not?”
Actually there is damn little difference between human and chimp DNA, certainly not enough to explain the almost infinite differences between them. A bit of an embarrassment for genetics, actually, and no help to evolution.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html
Hank
Nothing for any geneticist to be embarrassed about, as that would be the exact amount of genetic and genomic difference you would expect from two populations that diverged some six million years ago.
What do you think accounts for the physical differences between humans and chimps other than DNA? This should be amusing.....
“If you think it doesn’t matter then take your ludicrous statements based upon the false premise of cross species hybrid infertility elsewhere.”
How very liberal of you. Don’t like what I have to say, so you attack the messenger.
Teaching creationsim would stunt a child’s education? Are you serious? There is no practical application for evolution, none. It takes too long, and is entirely too random. We haven’t been able to do anything but modify a species’ traits. Thank God.
And you didn’t even consider the possiblity of teaching both theories concurrently. However, I don’t believe it’s the school’s place to teach creationism. That’s what the home environment is for. If I, as a parent, choose to teach that, it should be done at home, and in church. Evolution is the current accepted scientific theory. IF evolution exists, it does because God put that system in place. Creationism, while I believe it to be more likely, can be interpreted differently for a given religion. So, it should be left out of school.
And what of the origin of the universe? A big bang? Out of nothing, something by one big explosion? Believing that makes you much more educated, and much smarter than someone who believes God put it all here?
Next you’re going to tell me that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real.
You’re a mindless, hate spewing troglodyte. I’ll have no more to do with the likes of you. Try to grow up a little, will you? I’d tell you to evolve, but that takes entirely too long.
Yes, teaching creationism instead of science would stunt anyones intellectual development.
There are plenty of direct practical applications for evolution, but I wouldn't expect you to know of them, that might require actual information. Directed or programmed evolution is where, to develop novel enzymes for industrial applications, random mutations are introduced and the protein screened for functionality using stringent selective criteria. Selecting among randomly generated genetic variations to derive novel and useful proteins? Gee, where would they have gotten THAT idea?
Creationism is not a theory, it never was and never will be a scientific theory, it is a religious belief. And we find agreement on that it is not the schools place to teach creationism (or any religious beliefs for that matter).
So why don't we end on our two points of agreement. We both agree that schools should not teach creationism. We both agree that evolution (once you get around to accepting that it does indeed occur) occurs because that is the system that God put in place.
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.