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 ...
Two percent of 3 billion base pairs is 60 million. Assuming a generation of 15 years that would be 400,000 generations over 6 million years. Can you show me that 150 mutations occur are fixed each generation much less ones that convey a benefit to survival?
BTW, the latest studies seem to indicate a 6 percent different and even that's not established.
With regard to ID, those that accept science based upon evidence and reason are not members of a “cult” should mean that if the evidence indicates life to be designed you would accept it right?
The “wedge” document is not a "Trojan horse" for sneaking in Creationism -- which you yourself have noted is the idea that all species of life were created near simultaneously via supernatural means sometime in the recent past. Many IDist accept common descent, an old Earth and even evolution albeit one directed by positing a front-loaded program in the original life by the designer
The Wedge document, however, is a manifesto for the rejection of scientific materialism, atheism and the absolutely silly idea that there is no purpose or direction to our existence.
So it isn't at all a matter of there not being enough mutations, it is a matter of how few changes actually get “fixed” in the population.
And it might help if you knew or understood the difference between genetic DNA and genomic DNA. The figure IS and WILL remain, a 2% GENETIC difference between humans and chimps. The 6% difference is in genomic DNA; and it IS well established.
The one problem you must consider then is if you believe the Bible, is that death entered the world through original sin. So how do you have evolution without death?
It's not happening.
“The one problem you must consider then is if you believe the Bible, is that death entered the world through original sin. So how do you have evolution without death?”
It’s interesting to me that one observation brands me as the poster boy for Bible thumping creationsim. I don’t follow the Bible literally. While divinely inspired, men have altered it. I eat animals of the cloven hoof, I don’t give burnt offerings.
The vast majority of mutations that arise within a population will not be fixed within the population or convey any sort of survival benefit.
But natural selection shows that a mutation that does convey a survival benefit is more likely to become fixed within the population. Why wouldn't it?
“A major storm of protest against the myth of evolution has been building for many years, as proved by almost a thousand major scientists”
—I remember several years ago this list having “almost a thousand” signatures - and apparently it is still “almost a thousand” - yeah, quite a “major storm of protest” building there.
Sources vary as to how many scientists there are, but most agree that there are about 500,000 scientists working in various biological fields in the US. 30,000 scientists and engineers get their Phd in the US alone - every year.
The list is open to those working in all fields of science, engineering, mathematics, philosophy, education, etc WORLDWIDE - the available pool of Phd signatories is in the millions (and not everyone on the list has a Phd, e.g. Forest Mims, Bernard d’Abrera, etc, and thus the list is open to many millions more).
And they don’t even have a thousand signatures after a decade of trying?
And let’s take a close look at the statement they sign:
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.”
The statement is hardly “dissentful”. First, just about any scientist will say that one must always have room for at least some skepticism for any theory. Even one as hard-core as Dawkins has at least some skepticism:
“Darwin may be triumphant at the end of the twentieth century, but we must acknowledge the possibility that new facts may come to light which will force our successors of the twenty-first century to abandon Darwinism or modify it beyond recognition.” -Dawkins
Also, Darwinists have never believed that evolution proceeds solely by mutation and selection (there’s genetic drift, neutral selection, etc) even going back to Darwin:
“I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification.”
Thus there’s nothing to stop even Dawkins from signing such a statement - except that he’s probably aware of the dishonest way that the list is being used. And so it’s entirely possible that many of the signatories are actually Darwinists.
And so it’s merely a statement asking for “skepticism” for something that probably no one believes in the first place. And the best they could get after 10 years is less than a thousand signatures?
This is hardly something to brag about. If anything, the anti-evolution side should be embarrassed by this list.
The bottom line is, with a pool of millions of possible signatories, worldwide, for a decade, they managed to get less than a thousand people to sign an innocuous statement. Now THERE’S something to celebrate. :-)
And the ones that aren't will be more likely lethal than provide any benefit.
I didn’t assume that you believed in the Bible, that is why I used “if”.
I am not sure why you make a statement about what critters you eat as the New Testament did away with clean and unclean food.
I am curious as to how you decide what is worth believing in the Bible and what is not?
You are thinking of it the wrong way. Nobody thinks anything alive today will evolve into something else that's alive today. Carp aren't going to evolve into iguanas or cardinals. But carp--or some subset of carp--could evolve into something that's as different from today's carp as an iguana is. Similary, both rhinos and horses evolved from the same ancestor, but horses never evolved into rhinos or vice versa.
“What do you think accounts for the physical differences between humans and chimps other than DNA?”
I don’t know. What causes the physical differences in identical twins, since they have identical DNA?
By the way, I did not imply any geneticist should be embarrassed, I said, “a bit of an embarrassment for genetics,” which idea I actually got from a geneticist.
It is not, after all, the mere physical differences between chimps and man that are the most significant, but the fact man is a rational volitional creature, and chimps are not. The difference is astronomical.
Hank
The problem isn't one of there not being enough mutations, DNA polymerase alone creates far more variation than ever gets “fixed” within a population.
So obviously the creation of genetic variations is not an issue. So the only remaining issue is how selection changes the frequency of these variations within a population.
Numerous studies on selective pressure show that those variations favored by selection are more likely to be fixed, and those variations disfavored by selection are more likely to be eliminated from the population.
“You are thinking of it the wrong way. Nobody thinks anything alive today will evolve into something else that’s alive today. “
I know that evolution is adaptation. But, without intelligent design, it is hard to grasp. The current theory is life came from the sea, right? So, did fish just decide to flop themselves on shore until gradually lungs began to form? Or did a species of fish spontaeously mutate to have lungs? When considering evolution, gradual evolution is often considered. I understand survival of the fittest. But, how does one explain continued mutation to an end? If birds came from the sea, in order to fly, birds had to develop lighter bones, the proper body shape, feathers, and wings.
Would the theory then be that one little reptile mutated to have a skin flap and used it to jump out of trees and glide? Then it bred with a non mutant, but it’s mutation was somehow favored? And that skin flap lead to bigger flaps, which were also favored? Then lighter bones? And on and on?
I know it happened over a huge timeframe, but the prefernece for the millions of adaptations is mind boggling to me. In the simplest cases, it’s a little more obvious. A changing environment, getting colder, a species develops a heavier fur coat. Easy to see, the ones without the heavier coat die. Natural variations are favored.
Start with pond scum in the primordial soup and end up with people, that’s a tough one to grasp.
I’d still like to see life created from the soup. How did that happen?
I’m not trying to be confrontational, just presenting what I think I see.
“Two percent of 3 billion base pairs is 60 million. Assuming a generation of 15 years that would be 400,000 generations over 6 million years. Can you show me that 150 mutations occur are fixed each generation much less ones that convey a benefit to survival?”
—You’re forgetting part of the equation. Yes, since the common ancestor of chimps and humans there have been about 400,000 generations - of both humans AND chimps.
So here is how you can objectively demonstrate your point which Darwinists have yet to do -- show that the required number of mutations are actually get fixed. Isolate a population and see how many genetic changes are fixed each generation. A fast-breeding species would be a good choice on which to test this notion say like fruit flies.
It would be 400,000 generations since the common ancestor. How long do you think human beings i.e. Homo sapians have been around, btw?
T: It would be 400,000 generations since the common ancestor. How long do you think human beings i.e. Homo sapians have been around, btw?
The point is that both species only have to differ 1% from the common ancestor - and could have a difference of 2% between each other...
As a rough draft, I think that's correct. But remember, too, these things might not have happened in stepwise order, or even one by one. The mutation for skin flaps might have been in the reptile population for generations but was neutral--conferring no advantage or disadvantage, so it stuck around--until the reptiles started to climb trees. Then "suddenly" this trait started to get selected for, as the reptiles with the bigger skin flaps were better able to jump from tree to tree to evade predators. So in that scenario, it wouldn't have been just one reptile that suddenly developed a skin flap, but a whole group of reptiles that already had skin flaps that found themelves favored because of it.
“It would be 400,000 generations since the common ancestor. “
—Yes, 400k generations in the line that led to humans, and another 400k generations in the line that led to chimps. Your math is suggesting that ALL the differences between chimps and humans since the common ancestor occurred solely in the line that led to humans. I’m trying to point out that neither line needs to account for 60 million base-pair changes - instead each line would need to account for roughly half that.
If Train A and Train B leave the station at the same time going the same speed in opposite directions and end up 10 miles apart, you shouldn’t then calculate how fast Train A must have been going to travel 10 miles.
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.