"A scientific Dissent from Darwinism"

[Shermana]

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=660

This here is a list of many scientists and PH.D.s of numerous subjects from Genetics to Molecular Biology to Marine Geology
Radiology, Biomedical Engineering, Chemistry, Nuclear Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Bioengineering, Immunopharmacology, Geoscience, Neuroscience, Pharmacognosy, Physiology, Kineseology, Plant Pathology, Microbiology, Molecular Biophysics, Mathematical Physics, and more, who agree that:

“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.�
This was last publicly updated December 2011. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.

Are these scientists all frauds?

Are these people all motivated by personal beliefs over objective evidence?

Are they all being dishonest?

Is their view on the matter unscientific?

Do they have basis for their claim to reject the majority opinion?

Are they being more honest than the majority concensus who accepts that the Darwinian (or "Neo"-Darwinian) approach can assertively be used to define the characteristics of life?

Is there evidence that the majority concensus is using that these PH.D.s and scientists are unaware of or ignoring?

Are they evidence that there is plenty of dissent on the issue of whether Macro-evolution is a "fact"?

Can one just brush off their opinions if the majority disagrees with them?

Is it fair to conclude that their dissent might be based on an objective, empirical examination of the available data and findings?

Is it fair to conclude that those who believe that Neo-Darwinian views CAN assertively account for the diversity of life may be just as biased (i.e. coming from a "naturalistic humanism" viewpoint) in which they base their belief on their pre-determined conclusion?

Is it safe to say that "Macro-evolution" is not a 100% agreed upon fact upon Professional scientists even if the majority support such an idea?

[Alter2Ego]

Like I said earlier, the appeal to popularity is when people say that there's no one who doesn't accept the Theory of evolution among the professional circuit. And if this is the extreme minority position, I don't see how it can possibly be interpreted as "appeal to popularity". See the actual questions on the OP. Appeal to numbers and popularity almost is a guaranteed occurence whenever someone argues against the TOE, you will often see arguments like "Everyone in the scientific community accepts the TOE", but if a list is provided that shows that not everyone does, it's somehow now appeal to numbers and popularity? I don't see how an extreme minority position can be labeled such.

The wikipedia Article basically shows that the accusations are just one big "Nuh uh", you should see the talk page, I've never seen so much dissent on a talk page even on actual evolution articles.

[font=Verdana]Let me put it to you simply, Shermana. The position of the average pro-evolutionist is as follows:

"It doesn't matter that there's no evidence in the fossils showing that one type of animal evolved into something entirely different from what it started out as. True, Charles Darwin predicted we would find evidence of a squirrel turning into a bat and evidence of a whale turning into a bear. And it's true that Darwin and present-day evolutionists in the scientific community believe that every animal that has ever existed evolved from a single organism.

"Yeah, we're aware that as hard as the paleontologists have looked, they haven't found one single fossil linking one type/species of animal to an entirely different species. But so what! We've got the numbers on our side. More of us believe the bat came from a squirrel and the bear came from a whale than do the Creationists who reject the belief. Never mind that the fossils of every single creature that evolved into a completely different creature can't be found. Every last one must have dissolved into the earth or something. Yeah, that's it! That's what must have happened. Every single fossil showing this occurrence dissolved away--mysteriously.

"I've said it before and I'll say it again: If so many of us believe it, then it stands to reason that it MUST have happened. Who cares about facts when so many of us are willing to believe what hasn't been proven? Grant you, it's an act of blind faith, but there, you have it. Since majority wins, we get the 1st PRIZE TROPHY for having the most people on our side--even if we're dead wrong."[/font]

[Autodidact]

Like I said earlier, the appeal to popularity is when people say that there's no one who doesn't accept the Theory of evolution among the professional circuit. And if this is the extreme minority position, I don't see how it can possibly be interpreted as "appeal to popularity". See the actual questions on the OP. Appeal to numbers and popularity almost is a guaranteed occurence whenever someone argues against the TOE, you will often see arguments like "Everyone in the scientific community accepts the TOE", but if a list is provided that shows that not everyone does, it's somehow now appeal to numbers and popularity? I don't see how an extreme minority position can be labeled such.

The wikipedia Article basically shows that the accusations are just one big "Nuh uh", you should see the talk page, I've never seen so much dissent on a talk page even on actual evolution articles.

[font=Verdana]Let me put it to you simply, Shermana. The position of the average pro-evolutionist is as follows:

"It doesn't matter that there's no evidence in the fossils showing that one type of animal evolved into something entirely different from what it started out as. True, Charles Darwin predicted we would find evidence of a squirrel turning into a bat and evidence of a whale turning into a bear. And it's true that Darwin and present-day evolutionists in the scientific community believe that every animal that has ever existed evolved from a single organism.

"Yeah, we're aware that as hard as the paleontologists have looked, they haven't found one single fossil linking one type/species of animal to an entirely different species. But so what! We've got the numbers on our side. More of us believe the bat came from a squirrel and the bear came from a whale than do the Creationists who reject the belief. Never mind that the fossils of every single creature that evolved into a completely different creature can't be found. Every last one must have dissolved into the earth or something. Yeah, that's it! That's what must have happened. Every single fossil showing this occurrence dissolved away--mysteriously.

"I've said it before and I'll say it again: If so many of us believe it, then it stands to reason that it MUST have happened. Who cares about facts when so many of us are willing to believe what hasn't been proven? Grant you, it's an act of blind faith, but there, you have it. Since majority wins, we get the 1st PRIZE TROPHY for having the most people on our side--even if we're dead wrong."[/font]

Wouldn't it be hilarious if any of this bore the slightest resemblance to reality? And yet, oddly, no one has yet to post anything remotely resembling this here at DC&R.

I too find it much easier to win arguments if I make up the other side's position. However, my integrity prevents me from doing so.

[TheJackelantern]

Theists such as them don't have any integrity.. Autodidact. They lie too much to have any. This video is very fitting for this article and a few theists posting in this article:

[youtube][/youtube]


Prime example:

every animal that has ever existed evolved from a single organism.

He's basically wasting our time with such intentional ignorance. It's really all he's got to argue with.

The wikipedia Article basically shows that the accusations are just one big "Nuh uh", you should see the talk page, I've never seen so much dissent on a talk page even on actual evolution articles.

OH the IRONY! ...

[TheJackelantern]

Here is something that states exactly whats going on :

http://assembly.coe.int/Mainf.asp?link= ... C11375.htm

Doc. 11375
17 September 2007

The dangers of creationism in education

Report
Committee on Culture, Science and Education
Rapporteur: Mrs Anne BRASSEUR, Luxembourg, ALDE

Summary

Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design�, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are definitely inappropriate for science classes.

In a nut shell.. Creationism is pseudoscience and a very scary attempt at trying to indoctrinate the education system, school systems, and science.. Hence, the creationist movement is attempting to turn schools into institutions of brainwashing students and the masses into their religious ideology to which has nothing in terms of intellectual or educational foundation, evidence, or empirical support. The movement is run by those whom care only about spreading their religion and trying to make everyone believe in it.. They don't care about intellectual integrity, or any form of honesty.. Anything that doesn't conform to their ideology is satanic, should be attacked and wiped out, and forced to believe in their skewed medieval and dark age idealism.

[TheBlackPhilosophy]

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=660

This here is a list of many scientists and PH.D.s of numerous subjects from Genetics to Molecular Biology to Marine Geology
Radiology, Biomedical Engineering, Chemistry, Nuclear Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Bioengineering, Immunopharmacology, Geoscience, Neuroscience, Pharmacognosy, Physiology, Kineseology, Plant Pathology, Microbiology, Molecular Biophysics, Mathematical Physics, and more, who agree that:

“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.�
This was last publicly updated December 2011. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.

Are these scientists all frauds?

Are these people all motivated by personal beliefs over objective evidence?

Are they all being dishonest?

Is their view on the matter unscientific?

Do they have basis for their claim to reject the majority opinion?

Are they being more honest than the majority concensus who accepts that the Darwinian (or "Neo"-Darwinian) approach can assertively be used to define the characteristics of life?

Is there evidence that the majority concensus is using that these PH.D.s and scientists are unaware of or ignoring?

Are they evidence that there is plenty of dissent on the issue of whether Macro-evolution is a "fact"?

Can one just brush off their opinions if the majority disagrees with them?

Is it fair to conclude that their dissent might be based on an objective, empirical examination of the available data and findings?

Is it fair to conclude that those who believe that Neo-Darwinian views CAN assertively account for the diversity of life may be just as biased (i.e. coming from a "naturalistic humanism" viewpoint) in which they base their belief on their pre-determined conclusion?

Is it safe to say that "Macro-evolution" is not a 100% agreed upon fact upon Professional scientists even if the majority support such an idea?

Your debate is merely an appeal to popularity combined with an appeal to authority.

This is not an argument against science; science is an argument against science.

Only scientific data can disprove evolution; were waiting, so provide some!
Please, I implore you to provide a reasonable argument; even that might inspire doubt within us "Evolutionists".

It is not as though we will not change our minds, it is science after all!

If theories were never dis-proven, we wouldn't have science; we would have Christianity as the main source of knowledge. But, since Christian views of society and reality have been shown faulty (for example reasons for deviancy, why the world has problems, where the universe came from), we have adopted science.

And so far, all is good; we have progressed greatly. What has religion done? Started wars, created mass genocide, created injustices that no man could be forced to commit?

Really? Is this a "Evolution vs Intelligent design" debate, or simply a "religion vs. science" issue?

If so; Science has 10, religion -10.

Bring a coherent, logical argument, backed with evidence that can be trusted.

Then we'll talk!

[Alter2Ego]

Theists such as them don't have any integrity.. Autodidact. They lie too much to have any. This video is very fitting for this article and a few theists posting in this article:

Prime example:

every animal that has ever existed evolved from a single organism.

He's basically wasting our time with such intentional ignorance. It's really all he's got to argue with.

The wikipedia Article basically shows that the accusations are just one big "Nuh uh", you should see the talk page, I've never seen so much dissent on a talk page even on actual evolution articles.

OH the IRONY! ...

[font=Verdana]Keep your eyes on the words in red, and then tell me who's "ignorant." The weblink to the official definition of Evolution Theory is directly below.[/font]


DARWIN'S THEORY IN 1859:
"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."
(Origin of Species, p. 484)


EVOLUTION THEORY IN 2012:
"The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects.
"1. The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor.
"2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage
"3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish"

Ancestry of organisms
"Most biologists believe in common descent: that all life on Earth is descended from one common ancestor. This conclusion is based upon the fact that many traits of living organisms, such as the genetic code, seem arbitrary yet are shared by all organisms. Some have suggested that life may have had more than one origin, but the high degree of commonality argues strongly against multiple origins."


http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Evolution/

[TheBlackPhilosophy]

Theists such as them don't have any integrity.. Autodidact. They lie too much to have any. This video is very fitting for this article and a few theists posting in this article:

Prime example:

every animal that has ever existed evolved from a single organism.

He's basically wasting our time with such intentional ignorance. It's really all he's got to argue with.

The wikipedia Article basically shows that the accusations are just one big "Nuh uh", you should see the talk page, I've never seen so much dissent on a talk page even on actual evolution articles.

OH the IRONY! ...

[font=Verdana]Keep your eyes on the words in red, and then tell me who's "ignorant." The weblink to the official definition of Evolution Theory is directly below.[/font]


DARWIN'S THEORY IN 1859:
"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed." (Origin of Species, p. 484)


EVOLUTION THEORY IN 2012:
"The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects.
"1. The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor.
"2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage
"3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish"

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Evolution/

Please don't confuse abiogenesis with evolution, it creates straw men and makes all of us angry.

Evolution says nothing about the origin of life, only how it changes into different forms/species. Charles Darwin was speculating when he stated that all life forms came from one original creature; quote mining is not a way to win a debate.

Not to mention the fact that this is SCIENCE, not religion. Science can freely change what it says about a specific theory, but only when the theory-change is backed by evidence. This is not dissent, this is progress!

You are the one that is ignorant, ignorant of how science works. Not in a negative way, but just do a little research.

By the way, scientists will never 100% agree upon a theory; many have their own side theories about evolution that they are trying to pass. But, that is not dissent, it is called innovation and creativity.

Take for example epigenetics, the idea that genes can be changed by environmental factors; not just random mutation!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

Educate yourself, it will help us from having to educate you ourselves. It is your responsibility, not ours. After all, you should have learnt this in high school!

[TheJackelantern]

Keep your eyes on the words in red, and then tell me who's "ignorant." The weblink to the official definition of Evolution Theory is directly below.

Lets see:

DARWIN'S THEORY IN 1859:
"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."
(Origin of Species, p. 484)

Firstly, this has nothing to do with evolution theory, and it's quoting from 1859... Yeah, we are kind of long passed that era in scientific understanding of the world around us... And you might want to educate yourself on the periodic table, the differences of atoms, and what biochemistry is about... Clearly you know none of this, or the fact that life is fundamentally electromagnetic phenomenon governed mostly by electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak force. You might also want to learn about energetics of adaptive systems and environment systems... And if you want to talk about abiogenesis vs evolution, make a separate thread.

EVOLUTION THEORY IN 2012:
"The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects.
"1. The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor.
"2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage
"3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish"

Incorrect. Common decent doesn't mean we all came from a "single" organism.. And this 1,2,3 is very laymen and really tells me you do not understand evolution, or the mechanisms involved.

Ancestry of organisms
"Most biologists believe in common descent: that all life on Earth is descended from one common ancestor. This conclusion is based upon the fact that many traits of living organisms, such as the genetic code, seem arbitrary yet are shared by all organisms. Some have suggested that life may have had more than one origin, but the high degree of commonality argues strongly against multiple origins."

Do you have any evidence to suggest there isn't common decent? Because it's rather funny you bring up a subject you can not support. Atavism alone kills your argument entirely..

[Alter2Ego]

[font=Verdana]Keep your eyes on the words in red, and then tell me who's "ignorant." The weblink to the official definition of Evolution Theory is directly below.[/font]

DARWIN'S THEORY IN 1859:
"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."
(Origin of Species, p. 484)[/size]

Firstly, this has nothing to do with evolution theory, and it's quoting from 1859... Yeah, we are kind of long passed that era in scientific understanding of the world around us... And you might want to educate yourself on the periodic table, the differences of atoms, and what biochemistry is about... Clearly you know none of this, or the fact that life is fundamentally electromagnetic phenomenon governed mostly by electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak force. You might also want to learn about energetics of adaptive systems and environment systems... And if you want to talk about abiogenesis vs evolution, make a separate thread.

EVOLUTION THEORY IN 2012:
"The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects.
"1. The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor.
"2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage
"3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish"

Ancestry of organisms
"Most biologists believe in common descent: that all life on Earth is descended from one common ancestor. This conclusion is based upon the fact that many traits of living organisms, such as the genetic code, seem arbitrary yet are shared by all organisms. Some have suggested that life may have had more than one origin, but the high degree of commonality argues strongly against multiple origins."

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Evolution/

Do you have any evidence to suggest there isn't common decent? Because it's rather funny you bring up a subject you can not support. Atavism alone kills your argument entirely.

[font=Verdana]THE JACKE LANTERN
Incorrect. Common decent doesn't mean we all came from a "single" organism.. And this 1,2,3 is very laymen and really tells me you do not understand evolution, or the mechanisms involved.


ALTER2EGO
Protesting will do you no good. What I posted is not layman but is the scientific definition of "organic evolution" aka "common decent". I got that definition from several websites. And that definition is not abiogenesis (the supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter without God). The definition I'm giving here involves what takes place AFTER the first organism has already come to life.

You've been shown what you've been defending: the idea that every living creature in existence descended from a single organism. So you don't like the definition. Tough! That's what the Evolution Theory that you so dearly love is based upon. You don't believe me? Go to the two scientific websites at the end of this post, and you will see that they both give the 2012 definition that I posted above.[/font]

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Theory_of_evolution

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Evolution/

[Alter2Ego]

[font=Verdana]Keep your eyes on the words in red, and then tell me who's "ignorant." The weblink to the official definition of Evolution Theory is directly below.[/font]

DARWIN'S THEORY IN 1859:
"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed." (Origin of Species, p. 484)

EVOLUTION THEORY IN 2012:
"The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects.
"1. The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor.
"2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage
"3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish"

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Evolution/

Please don't confuse abiogenesis with evolution, it creates straw men and makes all of us angry.

Evolution says nothing about the origin of life, only how it changes into different forms/species. Charles Darwin was speculating when he stated that all life forms came from one original creature; quote mining is not a way to win a debate.

Not to mention the fact that this is SCIENCE, not religion. Science can freely change what it says about a specific theory, but only when the theory-change is backed by evidence. This is not dissent, this is progress!

You are the one that is ignorant, ignorant of how science works. Not in a negative way, but just do a little research.

By the way, scientists will never 100% agree upon a theory; many have their own side theories about evolution that they are trying to pass. But, that is not dissent, it is called innovation and creativity.

Take for example epigenetics, the idea that genes can be changed by environmental factors; not just random mutation!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

Educate yourself, it will help us from having to educate you ourselves. It is your responsibility, not ours. After all, you should have learnt this in high school!

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- THE BLACK PHILOSOPHY:

Read my quoted text above... slowly... so... you... can... comprehend... it. Then tell me where that says anything about abiogenesis (the supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter without God). The definition I'm giving here involves what takes place AFTER the first organism has already come to life. It's from that one organisim--according to Charles Darwin and now according to modern-day evolutionist thinking--that every creature that has ever existed evolved from.

Now, tell me who needs to "educate" themselves.[/font]