Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Almost a Thousand Major Scientists Dissent from Darwin!
Canada Free Press ^ | May 2, 2010 | Dr. Don Boys

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creation; darwin; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-205 next last
To: fabian
Bigfoot? You're actually citing Bigfoot to argue against evolution?
161 posted on 05/04/2010 5:25:49 AM PDT by Abin Sur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
There is a gene within bacteria known as error prone DNA polymerase. Usually a bacteria uses its regular DNA polymerase to replicate its genome. Under high stress error prone DNA polymerase is used, increasing the mutation rate.

Now don't you feel silly? You sure should. No known mechanism, unknown to YOU.

And I do not depend upon grants silly person. I am employed as a scientist in a private industry, the kind that hires actual scientists, not creationist know nothings.

Once again evolution has a productive answer at the ready for why a bacterial population would experience increased survival under stress with a higher mutation rate.

Creationism has nothing, produces nothing, knows nothing.

162 posted on 05/04/2010 6:06:05 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

Actually AGW and ID are both fraudulent ideas that are based on knuckheaded religious nuts. Kind of sickening how you both want to push your agenda on kids in school when the evidence is heavily weighed against both these ideas.

Evolution on the other hand has some pretty good evidence (ie. the Fossil Record).


163 posted on 05/04/2010 6:51:56 AM PDT by trashcanbred2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: fabian

Actually there is evidence we are connected. Identical structures, Identical DNA sequences for some. Identical DNA sequences in Humans and Chimpanzees, put there at the same time and place by retrovirus infection.

Ah, a bigfoot believer. Well, if you don’t need evidence, and you ignore evidence, you can believe anything.


164 posted on 05/04/2010 7:19:45 AM PDT by donmeaker (Invicto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
Yes, and sightings of the “Loch Ness Monster” is proof positive that dinosaurs lived contemporaneously with people and some still survive today!

Didn’t you know?

LOL!

165 posted on 05/04/2010 7:46:49 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

I have been to the “Creationist Museum” by the Morongo Indian reservation, and they also assert that St. George didn’t kill a dragon, but rather, a dinosaur.


166 posted on 05/04/2010 8:40:48 AM PDT by donmeaker (Invicto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

They inherited that postion from the Jesuits.


167 posted on 05/04/2010 8:46:37 AM PDT by donmeaker (Invicto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

168 posted on 05/04/2010 8:48:21 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

“I accept the theory of evolution via mutation and selection ...”

Yes I see. When the religious to that it’s called “faith.”

I don’t do that.

Hank


169 posted on 05/04/2010 9:37:38 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

” ...there are many similar sequences in DNA, emplaced by Retro viruses before our lines diverged... “

Are you sure it wasn’t the fairies at the bottom of the garden? Sorry, not buying your fairy tales either.

Hank


170 posted on 05/04/2010 9:40:11 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Here is something for you to ponder.

How can two genomes be only 2% different when one is 10-12% larger than the other?

Hint: by discarding any data that doesn't match the paradigm, you can ‘prove’ anything.
171 posted on 05/04/2010 10:00:29 AM PDT by Fichori ('Wee-Weed Up' pitchfork wielding neolithic caveman villager with lit torch. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

“Creationism has nothing, produces nothing, knows nothing.”

I absolutely agree. Why would you even bring it up? I’m not a theist. Or did you just make an assumption. That’s the whole basis of the “evolution” fairy tale, so I guess it would fit.

Genetics is real science. It would be the identical science without evolution, and it gets a little tiresome when evolutionists point to something legitimate science discovers to make claims about their pseudo-science.

What I said was, “There is no known mechanism, biological or otherwise, by which any collections of organisms could choose to “increase” their mutation rate.”

So you think they are choosing this mutation rate? (Not sure a genetic function that is built in really ought to be called a “mutation,” but this is certainly not an example of the kind of mutation that is supposed to produce more complex species from less complex ones.

You are right though. I do feel a little silly wasting my time discussing religion with the true believers.

Hank


172 posted on 05/04/2010 10:01:27 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
Genetics would be lost in trying to interpret the genome without the insights that the theory of evolution lends to such an undertaking.

What you said was that there was no known mechanism for a bacteria to increase its mutation rate. It is a genetic function that increases the mutation rate, it is not itself a mutation.

So why would a population of bacteria have increased survivability under stress by using an error prone DNA polymerase that introduces new mutations into its genome?

You evidently ARE wasting your time as you seem unable to actually learn anything. If you were willing to learn you might actually gain some knowledge from this discussion about HOW a bacteria induces a higher mutation rate, and you might even deduce why that would increase its survival rate.

Not much hope of that, but as long as you are here, pull head from nether regions and you just might learn something.

But probably not.

173 posted on 05/04/2010 10:07:06 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

“You evidently ARE wasting your time as you seem unable to actually learn anything.”

Well there you are. I guess you are wasting your time too, because you are just not going to get me to drink the Kool Aid. But I don’t mind if you do. Enjoy!

Hank


174 posted on 05/04/2010 10:12:19 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: trashcanbred2
“Actually AGW and ID are both fraudulent ideas that are based on knuckheaded religious nuts” [excerpt]
And yet, Darwinian Evolution came from an apostate theologian who failed med school.

“Kind of sickening how you both want to push your agenda on kids in school …” [excerpt]
I'm not pushing for taxpayers to be forced to fund the teaching of something they disagree with, but I'm guessing that you are.

Tell me, should parents be forced to fund the teaching of Darwinian Evolution?

“Evolution on the other hand has some pretty good evidence (ie. the Fossil Record).” [excerpt]
Sorry, thats speculative origins, not objectively verifiable science.

The only thing the ‘Fossil Record’ is a record of is, ‘Hey, look what we dug up!’ or, in the case of some naughty fools, ‘Hey, look what we buried and then dug up!’
175 posted on 05/04/2010 10:23:33 AM PDT by Fichori ('Wee-Weed Up' pitchfork wielding neolithic caveman villager with lit torch. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
“They [the communists] inherited that postion from the Jesuits.”
LOL! You're joking, right?
176 posted on 05/04/2010 10:26:38 AM PDT by Fichori ('Wee-Weed Up' pitchfork wielding neolithic caveman villager with lit torch. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
Knowing that bacteria have such a gene as error prone DNA polymerase, and understanding that it expresses it during times of high stress is not “Kool Aid”.

In fact, if you knew or understood this you wouldn't sound like such a fool insisting that there was no such mechanism.

177 posted on 05/04/2010 10:38:28 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
If you look at some of the responses it seems they want the burden to be on us to prove a negative by showing that man did not evolve from ape.

When you ask for them to demonstrate their theory, however, such as what specific mutations in what order occurred for the ability to reason abstractly develop, they resort to hand-waving.

Oh, and calling us "creationists" as though believing in a creator is somehow unreasonable or bad.

178 posted on 05/04/2010 10:56:41 AM PDT by Tribune7 (It is immoral to claim the tea parties to be racist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Well, they believe in an omnipresent demi-creator!

They call him her ‘Nature’!

But you knew that already.
179 posted on 05/04/2010 11:03:08 AM PDT by Fichori ('Wee-Weed Up' pitchfork wielding neolithic caveman villager with lit torch. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
They call him her ‘Nature’!

LOL. The irony is that the one's who see themselves as hyper-rationalists are basically superstitious pagans in white coats.

180 posted on 05/04/2010 11:06:43 AM PDT by Tribune7 (It is immoral to claim the tea parties to be racist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-205 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson