Posted on 06/22/2006 1:28:41 PM PDT by Tim Long
600 dissenters sign on challenging claims about support for theory
More than 600 scientists holding doctoral degrees have gone on the record expressing skepticism about Darwin's theory of evolution and calling for critical examination of the evidence cited in its support.
All are signatories to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement, which reads: "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."
The statement, which includes endorsement by members of the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences, was first published by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute in 2001 to challenge statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series.
The PBS promotion claimed "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true."
The list of 610 signatories includes scientists from National Academies of Science in Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, India (Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland, Russia and the United States. Many of the signers are professors or researchers at major universities and international research institutions such as Cambridge University, British Museum of Natural History, Moscow State University, Masaryk University in Czech Republic, Hong Kong University, University of Turku in Finland, Autonomous University of Guadalajara in Mexico, University of Stellenbosch in South Africa, Institut de Paleontologie Humaine in France, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, Ben-Gurion University in Israel, MIT, The Smithsonian and Princeton.
"Dissent from Darwinism has gone global," said Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman. "Darwinists used to claim that virtually every scientist in the world held that Darwinian evolution was true, but we quickly started finding U.S. scientists that disproved that statement. Now we're finding that there are hundreds, and probably thousands, of scientists all over the world that don't subscribe to Darwin's theory."
The Discovery Institute is the leading promoter of the theory of Intelligent Design, which has been at the center of challenges in federal court over the teaching of evolution in public school classes. Advocates say it draws on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines that indicate some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
"I signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement because I am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in favor of Darwinian dogma," said Raul Leguizamon, M.D., pathologist and professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico.
"Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all," he added. "Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as Bernard Shaw used to say."
And the number of genius level "uncles" one claims.
Does that apply to the number of distinct PhDs you claim? And the number of biotech companies you run?
Does it apply to the number of PhD's that you claim your uncle/brother-in-law/good-friend has?
Damn, I didn't read to the end of the thread.
Actually the fact of evolution had been recognized long before Darwin. That's why Lamarck, Buffon, et al had created theories of evolution. Darwin's insight was that the same process that breeders use is also happening maturally.
" until he recognized that other people could also read, and were ready to publish their own observations.
Wallace.
'Argument from incredulity' was a retort that Dawkins popularized as a point of ridicule for creationists. I merely show that Dawkins didn't think through his 'insult' and it is easily explained that 'argument from incredulity' is nothing to be embarassed about, but argument from credulity should be.
Yes I do believe the earth is the center of the universe. There is no evidence to dispute the Biblical perspective and much to confirm it (Michelson-Morely, Sagnac Effect, Einstein's GR statement that 'you can consider the earth to be at rest because it appears to be at rest', uniform universe appearance no matter which direction we look, etc.)
The causes for disease are manifold. It is misleading to say 'the cause of disease' as though there is a single cause.
I believe that God created the universe and life ~ 6,000 yrs ago and that the universe is geocentric. I know of no *evidence* to the contrary and the *evidence* can certainly be interpreted in that context.
If you think you have some contrary evidence, present it and I will demonstrate where the evidence leaves off and the interpretation starts.
I don't think you ever had a word in this conversation.
Just a smart remark that you could not back up.
And that's the last word.
And you haven't even begun to address the substitution costs for the supposed 'beneficial' mutations that also need to move to fixation, in addition to the substitution costs for these supposed 'inactive viral infections'. It's all additive, you know and that's not in your favor.
And your 'exact match' has deteriorated to 'exactly consistent' before you presented your first reference. The most supportive articles I know of in the scientific literature only claim to be 'broadly consistent' w/ the phylogenetic 'tree'.
Do you know what you are talking about?
Don't forget the global flood while you're at it.
Yep, I'm down with with that as well.
'Earth is the Center of the Universe' Placemarker...For future reference
Sorry to hear that.
At what date do you place the global flood?
I haven't given it a date.
Any of these sound right for the global flood?
2252 BC -- layevangelism.com
2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years).
2350 BC -- Morris, H. Biblical Creationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.
2370 BC -- TalkOrigins.com
3537 BC -- Setterfield (1999)
Actually, this is the one I had in mind.
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month — on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened." Gen 7:11
Whatever you say.
OK, goodnight.
Good night.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you mean the cost of extra DNA to duplicate? How much is it?
And your 'exact match' has deteriorated to 'exactly consistent' before you presented your first reference. The most supportive articles I know of in the scientific literature only claim to be 'broadly consistent' w/ the phylogenetic 'tree'.
As you correctly pointed out, "exact match" is inappropriate unless all the animals in question have had the relevant parts of their genomes sequenced; until then all you can say is that the sequence tree is a subtree of the phylogenetic tree.
The only exceptions I'm aware of is when the stretch of DNA with the genetic marker is deleted entirely. This is rare, and AFAIK, can be detected independently of the ERV.
Do you know what you are talking about?
I'm not a professional biologist, so I'm sure I'm missing a lot of the details, but I have read a lot about this stuff - it's quite fascinating.
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.