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 ...
But in addition, children should be taught that the answers some claim to find in evolution are not perfect answers and are not agreed upon by all. There are questions and problems that remain, even in "the best answer we have" and I think this should also be discussed.
I recognize that government schools should not push any particular religious viewpoint -- but noting potential problems in current scientific theory should be OK and ough not to require that a "better" idea be right at hand.
Ideally, I think parents should homeschool and teach precisely what they wish. In the public schools, I just want an admission that questions remain.
Are you failing to read what I’m saying? I don’t refute subtle adaptation within species, whether it’s developing resistances or changing colouring to deal with predators.
However, atheists like you seem to want to believe that humans could evolve from single-celled organisms, without any kind of proof that natural selection can do such a thing.
Fine. You didn't know what you were talking about then, and you know a little more now, you seem to be learning, at least you learned that your statement was so ludicrous that you couldn't defend it.
“But in addition, children should be taught that the answers some claim to find in evolution are not perfect answers and are not agreed upon by all. “
Well THAT could be said of any topic of science... or subject in history... or just about anything.
In other topics of science or academic subjects, controversies ARE taught. Biology and Global Warming are two stand out areas where NO controversy exists. Only STUPID people thing that other answers shoudl be considered. It's all SETTLED science.
Pro-evolution people don't like to be questioned. Other academics recognize that it's part of what academics is all about.
You make assumptions, and then make statements as if they were fact. I’ll end this exchange with you this way:
If you’re so confident, show me conclusive evidence that evolution is the only possible way we exist. Present a logical coherent case that nullifies any creation scenario.
You didn’t tell me why you can’t evolve a fish into a mouse? Or maybe a fern into a mouse?
“However, atheists like you seem to want to believe that humans could evolve from single-celled organisms, without any kind of proof that natural selection can do such a thing.”
You want huge evolutionary changes to happen in one or two generations. Either you see cat’s give birth to a fish or evolution is false. Well pal, that is crap.
My real point about the Nene is that with enough time a species will have adapted and changed to the point where it is not recognizable as being an offshoot of its parent species.
Plenty of marsupials (and marsupials in general) come to mind.
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. It is the only scientific scenario that explains the observations of the similarity and divergence of life.
Some people prefer their interpretation of scripture to science, that doesn't make their interpretation of scripture scientific.
Well the question I keep asking... and never getting an answer to, is WHAT else WOULD you teach?
What scientifically based alternative theory would you TEACH in school?
???
The claim that random mutations fixed by natural selection accounts for all biodiversity is contradicted by observations in a controlled setting -- not to mention probability -- and is not supported by anything.
Evolution, btw, is a fact. It's just a matter of finding its limit.
Asked and answered.
A population selected for heat stress will derive new genetic variations that will be under positive selection until the new population can survive a heat stress that would kill the original population.
In fact, a bacterial population under stress has a stress “program” that increases its mutation rate.
Now why do you suppose a bacteria under stress would be more likely to survive with a higher mutation rate, than a bacteria under stress with a lower mutation rate?
Evolution through natural selection of genetic variation provides an answer that leads to further knowledge and use.
Creationism has no answer that leads to further knowledge and use.
And in uncontrolled settings as well. But in no way shape or form can observed changes account for the wide variety of biological life even given 100 million years (which would probably be the fairest time frame) or 700 million years or even 4.5 billion years.
How many of these types exist?
What is Creationism?
And how many hundreds of thousands of scientists are not skeptical of Darwin’s theories at all?
The observed mutation rate is both necessary and sufficient to explain a 2% genetic divergence and a 6% genomic divergence between humans and chimps over some six million years.
Do you think six million years is insufficient to explain a 2% genetic difference between human and chimp DNA? Do you think ANY amount of time could change the two populations by that amount?
I'm certain that 100 million is insufficient to explain the difference in form and function between a horsefly and a horse.
You agree that Creationism is not the same as ID then which is the claim that the markers seen in items of known design are found in biology; or that one can doubt that the claim random forces can account for all biodiversity?
Or more importantly, that it is imperative for a society to hold a belief that there is a point to existence and that truth is objective?
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.