Well thanks for that link. And that nice drawing is about as strong as it all gets as for evo. It carries approx 3x the weight of any CG posting, IOW 3x0=0. A tragedy of some mens works it is.
CG, are you balrog and shuckmaster the same guy??
Wolf
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."
How is it that you know so much about ERVs without the help of 'science' (yours or someone else's)? Also, what is it about ID that instills such credulity in you?
ml1954: So where's the evidence the universe is 6000 years or so old?
GourmetDan: Actually, there is no evidence that the universe is not 6,000 years old
ml1954:What a strange world world you live in.
GourmetDan: See, I knew you had no evidence.
I think this exchange speaks for itself.
"I think this exchange speaks for itself."
Only because you are using abstract thought. How metaphysical of you.
Only because you are using abstract thought. How metaphysical of you.
I'm so metaphysical I think OJ is guilty.
nonexistent placemarker
There isn't just one ERV. There are thousands of them, in humans. Your infection-to-fixation-to-presrvation scenario must be played out thousands of times to produce the pattern you see. Not possible.
And you can't say that your data 'exactly matches the phylogenetic tree'. The 'tree' doesn't exist. The 'forks' are all imaginary and all of the bushy leaves haven't been sequenced.
You are way over-extended.
You are confused. Belief in creation is based on incredulity. There's nothing wrong w/ that. Like most evos, Dawkins thought it was cute without thinking through to it's logical end; that evolution was then based upon credulity.
It is credulity that is the problem and that is a requirement for evolution.
And evidently you don't understand that I got no problem with science. It's metaphysics masquerading as science that I have a problem with.
You can't tell the difference.
I can.
Maybe you got confused by the double-negative.
Stated positively, that would be that there is no evidence that the universe is more than 6,000 years old. There are only interpretations of evidence that claim that the universe is more than 6,000 years old.
You can present your evidence (if you think there is any) and I will teach you the difference between evidence and interpretation of evidence.
Maybe you got confused by the double-negative.
Nope. Maybe my original question confused you.
I will teach you..
There's nothing you can teach me. I already know all about your strange wacko world. And this 'conversation' is boring, so adios.
Once every 5,000 years for 5,000,000 years is 1,000 infections getting fixed in the genome. Not obviously impossible. What's "preservation"?
And you can't say that your data 'exactly matches the phylogenetic tree'. The 'tree' doesn't exist.
Huh?
The 'forks' are all imaginary and all of the bushy leaves haven't been sequenced.
OK, I should have said that the tree of presence/absence of genetic markers is always a subtree of the already-known phylogenetic tree.
But the trees produced by the different genetic markers are always consistent with each other and with the phylogenetic tree.
Always? Depends on your definition of 'consistent', I'm sure. Quite a move away from 'exactly matches the phylogenetic tree' already. I'm sure we will find out once we see just how 'consistent' they are.
Preservation is preservation across all speciation events since the mythical infection-to-fixation event. No losses at all? Ever? Exact matches?
And there are 'thousands' of human ERV's, not 1 thousand. Those are tremendous substitution costs for random, inactive retroviral infections.
Credulity. Simple credulity.
I knew you had nothing but ridicule.
Better get while the gettin's good.
You have nothing.
I said there was nothing.
You have nothing.
That's the point.
Whatever. Adios. And you can have the last word in this non-conversation.
I think YOU are the one who is confused. Do you believe that the Earth is the center of the universe? Why or why not? How about the cause of disease? Germs or evil spirits? Can you give me one evidence-based (or interpretation-of-evidence-based) belief that you have?
What on earth are you talking about?
Bye troll. Go bother someone who cares.
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.