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 ...
See post 73. Done in a laboratory. No fossils involved.
"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."
Surprisingly enough, I "do" believe in God, AND in evolution. Despite your skepticism, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. There is simply no other competing scientific explanation (and no, "intelligent design" ain't science). And I have yet to see any biologist get rich off of grant money, so that argument is simply your own prejudice.
One can perhaps excuse your mistake, being that you are a creationist and thus you have been deliberately lied to and kept ignorant of the actual state of science by the sources you have, for whatever reason, come to trust.
But there have been thousands of studies of how SNPs become “fixed” within a population, mostly as you so helpfully suggested, in fast reproducing species such as the fruit fly.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7268/full/nature08480.html
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/12/24/3325
“See post 73. Done in a laboratory. No fossils involved.”
Look I have no objection to you believing this is an example of speciation. I certainly cannot.
Whether a mutation can actually produce a more complex organism from a less complex one, I do not know, but seriously doubt it, and see no real example of it anywhere. Certainly yours is not an example of that.
Why are you so desperately in need of an “explanation” of how everything got here? I do not understand this. Are you willing to accept just any explanation because it is the least troublesome, in your opinion? Is it possible no one really knows? (I’m convinced this is the case.) Why would that be a problem for you? I’d really like to know your view on this. It has always been a great mystery to me.
Hank
The assumption that humans and chimps share a common ancestor in the more recent past than a human and a mouse leads to all sorts of interpretive breakthroughs when comparing the genome of the three.
The explanation that selective criteria of randomly generated genetic variation can achieve real world results has led to industrial application of a cell free protein evolution approach where increased errors in DNA replication introducing mutation and stringent selective criteria combine to produce novel enzymes for industrial applications.
The idea of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation has a ready explanation for why a bacteria would deliberately increase its mutation rate in response to stress.
What explanation do you have for why it would be advantageous for the survival of a bacterial population to increase its mutation rate while under stress?
“What explanation do you have for why it would be advantageous for the survival of a bacterial population to increase its mutation rate while under stress?”
Well, your assertion that a “bacterial population” increases its mutation rate is baseless. There is no known mechanism, biological or otherwise, by which any collections of organisms could choose to “increase” their mutation rate. What, do that take a vote on it?
You are confusing an observation of an event for its cause, and in this case the observation itself is incorrect. There is not in increase in mutations, only in the number of mutations that survive.
But this whole argument is irrelevant to speciation. There is no question about the ability of species to adapt, the whole question has to do with whether one specie can become a new and more complex one by means of mutations. That is the question that evolutionist always evade, usually by presenting examples of adaptation of species, such as you have.
Now explain something for me, because I intend to use your “arguments” as an example of the intentional obfuscation of the science by evolutionists, what this can possibly mean, “evolution through natural selection of genetic variation has a ready explanation for why a bacteria would deliberately increase its mutation rate.” Exacty how do bacteria “deliberately” do anything.
I think I understand where you are coming from, though. Your argument, “I have yet to see any biologist get rich off of grant money,” revealed it to me. Those who produce nothing of value and live on the wealth confiscated from those who do produce may not become rich, but it’s an easy life, and enjoys a kind of pseudo-prestige (”I’m a scientist”) that many cannot resist. Take away the grants and evolutionary “science” will wither and die in a week.
Hank
In 30 years, a group of lizards introduced to a Mediterranean island developed new structures in their intestines that enabled them to take advantage of new food sources (story here). Now, you may claim that's not enough to call them a new species or that the addition of a cecal valve didn't make them more complex, but I'll ask "why not?"
Take away the grants and evolutionary “science” will wither and die in a week.
That's true of a lot of basic research. Should we only investigate things that can "produce" something of short-term value? That's an argument you can make, but you can't single out evolutionary science to apply it to.
And what makes you think the life of a research biologist is "easy"?
Rather than deride and deny withOUT reference the positions of numerous scientists, let me and many other believers see how you can:
When one calls “bullshit”, it is usually wise to include at least ONE reference or link so your point isn’t considered just another BLOWASS spouting off. You make numerous claims, but provide no proofs, or even refer us to anything that might possibly support your indefensible assault against other ideas.
Reconcile the “non-existence of God” (your position)
with the immutable laws of physics, starting with the fact that without an external intelligent influence, everything falls to utter crap. Just look at your teenager’s room.
“Order cannot arise from disorder”. (That would be the first law of ENTROPY.)
Conservation of energy would be a good place to start looking for your proofs, since that’s where MINE are. DISPROVE the existence of God, dude.
“In 30 years, a group of lizards introduced to a Mediterranean island developed new structures in their intestines that enabled them to take advantage of new food sources (story here). Now, you may claim that’s not enough to call them a new species or that the addition of a cecal valve didn’t make them more complex, but I’ll ask “why not?””
Now, you know these lizards, “developed new structures in their intestines,” by means of mutations? You know you don’t. So the example is irrelevant.
“... but you can’t single out evolutionary science to apply it to.”
I don’t. It’s true of all of academia.
“And what makes you think the life of a research biologist is ‘easy’?”
If you can ask that, you must be an academic who has never felt the pressure to actually produce something that requires both original thinking and a ruthless dedication to productive effort on which multi-million dollar contracts and future culture depends. (Think about those competing in the world of wireless communication and skip-frequency transmission packet switching technology—that is your cell phone.) In the real world, one produces something of value, or perishes. Meeting a lot of aritificial “objectives” is not producing something of value, and something any seoond-rate mind can learn to do.
Besides I know so-called research bioligists within academia, and they are not admiral people. I also know some excellent minds that have abondened biology because of them.
Hank
For your information, I happen to be a devout Catholic. So much for your opinion that I somehow exhibit a belief in the "non-existence of God".
"“Order cannot arise from disorder”. (That would be the first law of ENTROPY.)"
Which statement basically says you have no understanding of the fundamentals of thermodynamics. BTW, I'm a chemist. I've taken a LOT of thermodynamics courses, and I "do" understand it.
"Conservation of energy would be a good place to start looking for your proofs, since that’s where MINE are. DISPROVE the existence of God, dude."
"Conservation of energy" has zip to do with it, and in fact it is by the expenditure of energy that life organizes from disorder despite the so-called "entropy gap". The Second Law actually states that "the entropy of the UNIVERSE tends to a maximum", which does NOT rule out localized increases in order through the channeling of energy. And I think my first response is adequate about "disproving the existence of God", since I believe in both God and evolution quite firmly. A position which is quite in tune with Catholic doctrines. The only folks who have a real problem with evolution are those who are Protestant "strict biblical creationists", who try to impose a literal interpretation of Genesis on science.
Well, considering I have spent my entire career relating to, serving, and dealing with the laws of thermodynamics in an engineering discipline, I guess you win. I am a compleat idiot, and evolution is indisputable fact, my fellow Catholic.
Now get stuffed you self important git. You did NOT answer my question, you only threw insults.
Have the life you deserve, and may God have mercy on our souls.
But you are going to believe what you want to believe regardless of what evidence is placed before you.
“Why would whales have non-functional hip bones unless they evolved from land animals.” [excerpt]Here we have an awkward premise begging the question. (apologetics anyone?)
“With God anything’s possible, even the beneficial mutation.” [excerpt]BZZZZZZZZTTT!
“Until a better theory is statedThere ya go, all fixed up :)EvolutionAGW will be the champ.” [excerpt]
Not in the sense that each mutation and its effects were recorded. But we know that mutations occur, and we know that they can lead to changes in body structure. And we don't have evidence for any other mechanism that produces changes like that over time. So I accept the theory of evolution via mutation and selection as the best available explanation for what happened. If you have a better explanation, please propose it along with your evidence.
If you can ask that, you must be an academic who has never felt the pressure to actually produce something that requires both original thinking and a ruthless dedication to productive effort on which multi-million dollar contracts and future culture depends.
I am not an academic, but I have worked in both "productive" environments and in those dedicated to pure research. I don't consider dollar return the sole measure of the value of research, nor have I found the minds of those involved in pure research to be any more "second-rate" than those dedicated to making money. If you don't value the advance of human knowledge for its own sake, that's up to you. I don't share your opinion.
“… especially in schools, where impressionable young minds can be indoctrinated with bogus science.” [excerpt]Why do you suppose the communists are so ‘committed’ to publicly funded mandatory education?
We now have evidence of 11 different Homids...Sounds like macro evolution at its finest. And further, there appears to be interbreeding between different homids. showing that at some stages the various homids were similar enough to breed and have fertile offspring.
The fun thing is the similarities between chimp and human. in particular there are many similar sequences in DNA, emplaced by Retro viruses before our lines diverged.
A computer can prove anything anybody wants to prove with a man made program/model.
yes, 11 different kinds of apes and super type apes..no evidence that we were connected and no fossil evidence has ever proved that. The bigfoot creature which has been videoed and seen by many preputable people is probably a left over of these super type apes. Hijacked science is constantly trying to disprove God and it just does not work.
You obviously learned very little, either in your schooling nor in your catechism, asshole. "First Law of Entropy"...really...try pointing out that "law".
"You did NOT answer my question, you only threw insults."
Uh, you never asked a question. There's this little item of punctuation "?" which indicates a question. None in your post.
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.