"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?

[Shermana]

TheMayan: welcome to the forum! Awesome to have you here!

Now on to your points:

1) There is no such thing as "macroevolution." There is only evolution, which is defined as 'the change in allele frequencies in a population over time.' This change is slow and gradual, but over time it can add up to large changes.

Let's use this example: I could walk to my neighbor's apartment across the hall. This is "micro-walking." I could continue past my neighbor's place and walk all the way to Miami Beach, a distance of almost 2,000 miles. At what point does my "micro-walking" become "macro-walking?" When I cross the street? When I leave my city? When I cross the Mason-Dixon line? In fact, there is no distinction between "micro-walking" and "macro-walking," there is only walking, and my short steps eventually add up to great distances.

It is the same way in evolution -- short steps eventually add up to big changes. I am the direct descendent of a fish, but that doesn't mean a fish can give birth to a human being. Instead, over millions of years, a population of fish gradually evolved into humans through many intermediate stages due to evolutionary pressures.

2) It does not matter how many scientists disagree with evolution (all for religious reasons), the evidence for evolution speaks for itself. Every scientist in the world could oppose evolution, and evolution would still be the best explanation of the evidence.

Peace and Reason,

Haven

Haven, if there as no such thing as "Macro-evolution", you wouldn't have all these books on Macro-evolution written by non-creationists.

[Bust Nak]

It never ceases to amaze me that the argument that macro evolutionist have used for many years has been that all scientist in all fields prove that evolution occurred...

Firstly, some of us might have been careless and used phases such as "all scientists" in places but I think you'll find we are normally careful enough to say "almost all" or "vast majority" etc.

Secondly, what you've stated is false: scientists in other fields have confirmed the world is old, via geology, cosmology, physics etc, it's not only about evolution.

Finally, I should point out science cannot prove any theory true, if scientists said "prove" it's either about proving something false, or informally as in "prove beyond reasonable doubt."

therefore confirming the neo Darwinian synthesis/modern synthesis, yet when a group of hundreds of scientist sign a list entitled "Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", all of a sudden the story changes, and now only biologist are somehow qualified to speak on the issue.

This isn't the case, other scientists speak from their own field about the age of the earth, it's always been biologists who are qualified to speak on evolution. There is no "story change" at all.

What is even more interesting is that the list has many biologist on there.

How many biologists doesn't really matter, what matter is the evidence.

The list was not meant as a spitting contest. The list was put forth to show that it wasn't just religious fundamentalist that were critical of the neo Darwinian synthesis as if all Christians just decided to park their brains at the church door.

Are you saying scientists can't be religious fundamentalist? I refere you to Kurt Wise, a scientist who stated scripture trumps evidence.

Again it was to demonstrate that there is a growing minority of scholars including some from major universities and from National Academy's here and abroad, including the late Phillip Skell from the American National Academy of Sciences. To my knowledge only one person has asked to have his name removed, and per his request it was.

What it isn't demonstrating, is how evolution is false.

I include the members of the Altenberg 16 summit who are all evolutionist themselves but at least some of them are honest enough to admit that the theory that has been taught as a fact and an adequate explanation for the last 80 years is indeed inadequate, limited and needs to be reformulated and extended.

I had no idea what this Altenberg 16 was about so I did a little search on google. It seem it was a summit to discuss the latest advances relating evolution, and not about what is taught at school. Nor would it be suprising that what is taught would only cover the basics, where as this is cutting edge stuff.

Stewart Newman who was one of the main members blames some of his own evolutionary colleagues and admits that the public has been told to believe things that are simply untrue. In fact MIT published a report on the Extended Synthesis confirming that these particular evo devos I'm speaking of are calling for a relaxing of many of the assumptions of the modern synthesis. I think this is very telling.

I think you are referring to this report? Telling, how? This is how scientists work, research to produce new data, challenge each other, constanding re-evaulating their theories, updating them where necessary. I don't see how this is hurting theory of evolution itself or the credibility of the biologists working in this field. Isn't this the exact opposite of what creationists are accusing the scientists of - patting each other on the back, sticking to dogma and ignoring evidence?

You want to dissent from darwinism, do what these people do, with research and evidence, not with petition.

There is no such thing as "macroevolution."

Shermana has got you there. These is such a thing as macro-evolution, changes at or above the level of species, it just doesn't mean what creationists want it to mean re: crocoduck.

[THEMAYAN]

Thank you both of you for the welcome.

Now for my response….
No, that is incorrect. The term macro evolution does exist. It is definable term,
and a term that is used in the scientific literature.

^ Reznick DN, Ricklefs RE (February 2009). "Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution". Nature 457 (7231): 837–42. doi:10.1038/nature07894. PMID 19212402.

^ Dobzhansky, Theodosius Grigorievich (1937). Genetics and the origin of species. New York: Columbia Univ. Press. p. 12. LCCN 37033383.

"Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.[3]"

Random mutation,natural selection, genetic drift etc. cannot account for prokaryote to man evolution. These notions are based on assumptions. In fact the evidence is overwhelming that what is actually taking place is the corruption of the gene pool over time through cumulative mutations (errors in the transcription process) over many generations. See GeneticEntropy Mystery of the genomes .John C. Sanford.
The logistical biochemical nightmares that pertain to this notion cannot by described by a simple analogy of walking 2 or 2000 miles. We are speaking of extremely complex digital encoded information within the genome with under-layers of even more complex regulatory sequences just to name a few. We cant even explain how prokaryotes became eukaryote with out using assertions and assumption because of the lack of empirical evidence. I use the term macro evolution or the neo Darwinian synthesis/modern synthesis because I am not opposed to common descent among major animal groups, or adaption which can be referred to as evolution. Again it is macro evolution or universal common descent and the limitations of natural selection that is disputed. Not that some type of evolution does not occur.

Change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Is actually a term I agree with, but neo Darwinism goes much further than that, and again It is the limits to these changes that are in question. This is a part of Mendelian genetics that was incorporated into the modern synthesis, but Mendel believed in a finite gene pool. He disagreed with Darwin's theory of pangenesis or the notion that organisms could continue to evolve in the macro sense.

We have no empirical evidence to support this type of macro change. Neither in the fossil record or on the biochemical level, and this is why the Altenberg 16 summit was held, because they knew that the theory could not support the assertion and assumptions, and that is why these men and women are calling for a relaxing of the assumptions of the current theory while trying to extend the synthesis. Even these people I speak of who represent other scientist from all around the globe and who are evolutionist themselves have come under fire for merely admitting that the Neo Darwinian synthesis is limited and has to be extended. You can still believe in macro evolution if you wish, but if you don't have a cohesive theory, then all you have is a bunch of ideas.

Not everybody on the Dissent from Darwinism list is religious, and in fact there are many people on the list who are atheist and agnostic. I believe I strongly implied this in my first thread.

[Goat]

It never ceases to amaze me that the argument that macro evolutionist have used for many years has been that all scientist in all fields prove that evolution occurred therefore confirming the neo Darwinian synthesis/modern synthesis, yet when a group of hundreds of scientist sign a list entitled "Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", all of a sudden the story changes, and now only biologist are somehow qualified to speak on the issue. What is even more interesting is that the list has many biologist on there.

Many??? When asked, many of those biologists where surprised that the institute that gave them that list to sign thought 'evolution' was in crisis. I see you didn't bother to read the discussion with several of them.. they totally accepted the fact of evolution, they were just disagreeing that we perfectly know all the mechanisms. ... in other words, the Discovery institute was deceptive in their intentions and motivations.

The list was not meant as a spitting contest. The list was put forth to show that it wasn't just religious fundamentalist that were critical of the neo Darwinian synthesis as if all Christians just decided to park their brains at the church door. Again it was to demonstrate that there is a growing minority of scholars including some from major universities and from National Academy's here and abroad, including the late Phillip Skell from the American National Academy of Sciences. To my knowledge only one person has asked to have his name removed, and per his request it was.

Well, the list was to promote a lie. There are extremely few biologists in that list, and at least a few of them were surprised to learn that the D.I. was using that list to say 'Evolution was in crisis'. Most of those people are mathematicians, engineers, pharmacists, etc etc that have nothing to do with the study of Biology.

I include the members of the Altenberg 16 summit who are all evolutionist themselves but at least some of them are honest enough to admit that the theory that has been taught as a fact and an adequate explanation for the last 80 years is indeed inadequate, limited and needs to be reformulated and extended. Stewart Newman who was one of the main members blames some of his own evolutionary colleagues and admits that the public has been told to believe things that are simply untrue. In fact MIT published a report on the Extended Synthesis confirming that these particular evo devos I'm speaking of are calling for a relaxing of many of the assumptions of the modern synthesis. I think this is very telling.

I find it amusing that you bring up that conference as trying to 'refute' evolution. All the attendees of that conference accept the notion of a common ancestry They just wanted to come up with a different mechanism other than neo-darwinism (unsuccessfully I might add)..

[Haven]

I admit my mistake on "macroevolution" not being a scientific term. I apologize.

Still, that doesn't mean that macroevolution is false. In order to debunk this theory, one must raise serious scientific doubts (through the peer-review process) as to its incorrectness.

Additionally, even if evolution were proven false, it would not be replace with Biblical creationism, but another scientific theory based upon the scientific method. It would be just as naturalistic as the theory of evolution, and would certainly also appeal to the common descent of all life on earth because the evidence for it is overwhelming.

[THEMAYAN]

Many??? When asked, many of those biologists where surprised that the institute that gave them that list to sign thought 'evolution' was in crisis. I see you didn't bother to read the discussion with several of them.. they totally accepted the fact of evolution, they were just disagreeing that we perfectly know all the mechanisms. ... in other words, the Discovery institute was deceptive in their intentions and motivations.

I am not sure why the DI should be accused of being deceptive for merely choosing their words carefully. The fact that the list has grown several fold in the last few years demonstrates that the theory is indeed crisis and has been for many years. The DI has never claimed the list to be more than what it is, which is a scientific dissent from Darwinism by 800+ scientist and growing. Everyone knew what they were signing and who was putting out the list. Anyone that wants to be taken off only has to make a request. Again so far, I only know of one person Robert C. Davidson who was asked to be taken off the list, and as I said before his request was honored. I'm not sure what you mean by "they totally accept evolution". First off, can you name the names of "they" and can you please show me the citation to confirm this? Secondly, what do you mean by evolution? I already stated what I meant very clearly. Are you speaking of prokaryote to man evolution or micro evolution and adaption which almost no one disputes.

Well, the list was to promote a lie. There are extremely few biologists in that list, and at least a few of them were surprised to learn that the D.I. was using that list to say 'Evolution was in crisis'. Most of those people are mathematicians, engineers, pharmacists, etc etc that have nothing to do with the study of Biology.

All you have to do is go to the website and you will see that there are many biologist including biochemist, ecologist and other sub disciplines of biology.
This rumor seems to come from a youtube video made by a person called Don Exodus who claims that he spoke with some of these people and that they were surprised, but it's based on hearsay and some semantic phrasing from Don. When I asked Don to reveal the names of all these supposed people who were surprised or upset, he couldn't seem to answer. He went on a campaign of harassing many of these signatories and even admitted that he sent them vollies of emails. What is really the kicker is that this rumor he started was based on the 2001 list which only contained 100 signatories. Since then the list has grown eight fold and is much more widely known among the science community.

I find it amusing that you bring up that conference as trying to 'refute' evolution. All the attendees of that conference accept the notion of a common ancestry They just wanted to come up with a different mechanism other than neo-darwinism

(unsuccessfully I might add)..[/quote]

This is not true, and in fact common ancestry is one of the assumptions that they want to relax and I can provide the keynoted taken at the meeting. In fact, even the out spoken Massimo Pigliucci has never been married to idea of universal common descent, however I do agree with you on one point, it really is based on a notion or assertion, and not on any empirical phylogenetic tree.
I am not really sure why you think there is something wrong or deceptive in bringing up the Altenberg meeting. I mentioned that they were all evolutionist but that at least some like Stuart Newman were honest enough to admit that some of his own evolutionary colleagues have tried to get the general public to believe things that are not true. He is also critical of the Neo Darwinian synthesis and is trying to extend the evolutionary synthesis. The reason being is that it is not the smoking gun that everyone has been told it was.

He's skeptical of neo Darwinism and openly questions natural selection, random mutation and especially gradualism and gene centrism as being a major role. He even criticizes the Dover trial and says that it gives people the wrong impression that neo Darwinism is the way evolution actually works, but he doesn't believe that neo Darwinism can explain life as we know it. Again I make the point that this is the theory that we were taught and assured that neo Darwinian synthesis was sound and had the explanatory powers needed.

I never tried to be dishonest or portray the members of the Altenberg 16 summit as creationist or ID'ers. Again, if you read carefully, I said that these men and women were evolutionist who are publicly challenging the modern synthesis. My point is that based on modern 21 century data, the theory is now known to be non cohesive and limited in its explanatory powers by many, and especially in the field of evolutionary development biology/evo devo. Some are just more honest and vocal about it than others. Ill say it again. You can still believe in macro evolution and of course many do, but without a cohesive theory, all you have is a bunch of ideas.

[Autodidact]

It never ceases to amaze me that the argument that macro evolutionist have used for many years has been that all scientist in all fields prove that evolution occurred therefore confirming the neo Darwinian synthesis/modern synthesis, yet when a group of hundreds of scientist sign a list entitled "Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", all of a sudden the story changes, and now only biologist are somehow qualified to speak on the issue. What is even more interesting is that the list has many biologist on there.

I find it more effective to respond to the arguments that people actually make, but that's just me.

So the new term for a person who accepts science is "macro-evolutonist?"

They are not hundreds of scientists, let alone biologists. They are a few hundred scientists, engineers, and various other people. Why would you expect them to be knowledgeable or authoritative on the subject of Biology? Of course only Biologists are the most knowledgeable about Biology. That's what it means to be a Biologist.

Would you be swayed by an engineer's opinion on vaccination efficacy?
What about a mechanic's opinion on enzyme activity--does it impress you? Well, neither does a mechanical engineer's opinion on the Theory of Evolution impress me.

The list was not meant as a spitting contest. The list was put forth to show that it wasn't just religious fundamentalist that were critical of the neo Darwinian synthesis as if all Christians just decided to park their brains at the church door.

Oh, I see. So you shouldn't have any trouble then naming just 100, out of the thousands of Biologists int he world, of Biologists who are not religious fundamentalists, and who reject the Theory of Evolution.

Again it was to demonstrate that there is a growing minority of scholars including some from major universities and from National Academy's here and abroad, including the late Phillip Skell from the American National Academy of Sciences. To my knowledge only one person has asked to have his name removed, and per his request it was.

The chemist? That Phillip Skell? Well, I suppose he knows about as much about Biology as Biologists do about chemistry, i.e., not much. btw, was he a religious fundamentalist?

I include the members of the Altenberg 16 summit who are all evolutionist themselves but at least some of them are honest enough to admit that the theory that has been taught as a fact and an adequate explanation for the last 80 years is indeed inadequate, limited and needs to be reformulated and extended.

Uh, yeah, that's because it's science. That's how science is. [qutoe]Stewart Newman who was one of the main members blames some of his own evolutionary colleagues and admits that the public has been told to believe things that are simply untrue. In fact MIT published a report on the Extended Synthesis confirming that these particular evo devos I'm speaking of are calling for a relaxing of many of the assumptions of the modern synthesis. I think this is very telling.[/quote] Yes, it tells us that ToE is science.

[Goat]

Many??? When asked, many of those biologists where surprised that the institute that gave them that list to sign thought 'evolution' was in crisis. I see you didn't bother to read the discussion with several of them.. they totally accepted the fact of evolution, they were just disagreeing that we perfectly know all the mechanisms. ... in other words, the Discovery institute was deceptive in their intentions and motivations.

I am not sure why the DI should be accused of being deceptive for merely choosing their words carefully. The fact that the list has grown several fold in the last few years demonstrates that the theory is indeed crisis and has been for many years. The DI has never claimed the list to be more than what it is, which is a scientific dissent from Darwinism by 800+ scientist and growing. Everyone knew what they were signing and who was putting out the list. Anyone that wants to be taken off only has to make a request. Again so far, I only know of one person Robert C. Davidson who was asked to be taken off the list, and as I said before his request was honored. I'm not sure what you mean by "they totally accept evolution". First off, can you name the names of "they" and can you please show me the citation to confirm this? Secondly, what do you mean by evolution? I already stated what I meant very clearly. Are you speaking of prokaryote to man evolution or micro evolution and adaption which almost no one disputes.

"Choosing their words carefully' ?? Is that another phrase as 'misrepresenting my motivations to people to get them to sign something they otherwise would not?"?

Well, the list was to promote a lie. There are extremely few biologists in that list, and at least a few of them were surprised to learn that the D.I. was using that list to say 'Evolution was in crisis'. Most of those people are mathematicians, engineers, pharmacists, etc etc that have nothing to do with the study of Biology.

All you have to do is go to the website and you will see that there are many biologist including biochemist, ecologist and other sub disciplines of biology.
This rumor seems to come from a youtube video made by a person called Don Exodus who claims that he spoke with some of these people and that they were surprised, but it's based on hearsay and some semantic phrasing from Don. When I asked Don to reveal the names of all these supposed people who were surprised or upset, he couldn't seem to answer. He went on a campaign of harassing many of these signatories and even admitted that he sent them vollies of emails. What is really the kicker is that this rumor he started was based on the 2001 list which only contained 100 signatories. Since then the list has grown eight fold and is much more widely known among the science community.

Was it?? I can back that up. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientif ... _Darwinism

... First.. from the statement being misleading

Other criticisms

Critics have also noted that the wording and advertising of the original statement was, and remains, misleading,[11] and that a review of the signatories suggested many doubt evolution due to religious, rather than scientific beliefs.[12] Robert T. Pennock notes that rather than being a "broad dissent", the statement's wording is "very narrow, omitting any mention of the evolutionary thesis of common descent, human evolution or any of the elements of evolutionary theory except for the Darwinian mechanism, and even that was mentioned in a very limited and rather vague manner." He concludes that it is not in fact a "radical statement".[39]

The claims made for the importance of the list have also been called intellectually dishonest because it represents only a small fraction of the scientific community, and includes an even smaller number of relevant experts.[40] The Discovery Institute has responded to some of these criticisms.[41][42]

Next.. from individuals that are biologists who signed

Defections and disagreements

The National Center for Science Education interviewed a sample of the signatories, and found that some were less critical of "Darwinism" than the advertisement claimed.[11][48] It wrote to all of them asking whether they thought living things shared common ancestors and whether humans and apes shared common ancestors. According to Eugenie Scott of the NCSE, a few of the signatories replied saying that they did accept these principles but did not think that natural selection could explain the origins of life. However, the replies ceased when, according to Scott, the Discovery Institute found out and advised signatories not to respond. She concluded from this that "at least some of the more knowledgeable scientists did not interpret this statement the way that it was intended [by the Discovery Institute] to be interpreted by the general public."[39]

For example, Stanley N. Salthe, a visiting scientist at Binghamton University, State University of New York, who signed but describes himself as an atheist, said that when he endorsed a petition he had no idea what the Discovery Institute was. Salthe stated, "I signed it in irritation", and said that evolutionary biologists were being unfair in suppressing competing ideas. He said that "They deserve to be prodded, as it were. It was my way of thumbing my nose at them", but was unconvinced by intelligent design and concluded "From my point of view, it's a plague on both your houses".[12]

At least one signatory of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism has abandoned the list, saying he felt misled. Robert C. Davidson, a Christian, scientist, doctor, and retired nephrology professor at the University of Washington medical school said after having signed he was shocked when he discovered that the Discovery Institute was calling evolution a "theory in crisis". "It's laughable: There have been millions of experiments over more than a century that support evolution," said Davidson. "There's always questions being asked about parts of the theory, as there are with any theory, but there's no real scientific controversy about it. ... When I joined I didn't think they were about bashing evolution. It's pseudo-science, at best. ... What they're doing is instigating a conflict between science and religion."[49]

So, it seems your statement is from someone who is misrepresenting things.

I find it amusing that you bring up that conference as trying to 'refute' evolution. All the attendees of that conference accept the notion of a common ancestry They just wanted to come up with a different mechanism other than neo-darwinism

(unsuccessfully I might add)..

This is not true, and in fact common ancestry is one of the assumptions that they want to relax and I can provide the keynoted taken at the meeting. In fact, even the out spoken Massimo Pigliucci has never been married to idea of universal common descent, however I do agree with you on one point, it really is based on a notion or assertion, and not on any empirical phylogenetic tree.
I am not really sure why you think there is something wrong or deceptive in bringing up the Altenberg meeting. I mentioned that they were all evolutionist but that at least some like Stuart Newman were honest enough to admit that some of his own evolutionary colleagues have tried to get the general public to believe things that are not true. He is also critical of the Neo Darwinian synthesis and is trying to extend the evolutionary synthesis. The reason being is that it is not the smoking gun that everyone has been told it was.

He's skeptical of neo Darwinism and openly questions natural selection, random mutation and especially gradualism and gene centrism as being a major role. He even criticizes the Dover trial and says that it gives people the wrong impression that neo Darwinism is the way evolution actually works, but he doesn't believe that neo Darwinism can explain life as we know it. Again I make the point that this is the theory that we were taught and assured that neo Darwinian synthesis was sound and had the explanatory powers needed.

I never tried to be dishonest or portray the members of the Altenberg 16 summit as creationist or ID'ers. Again, if you read carefully, I said that these men and women were evolutionist who are publicly challenging the modern synthesis. My point is that based on modern 21 century data, the theory is now known to be non cohesive and limited in its explanatory powers by many, and especially in the field of evolutionary development biology/evo devo. Some are just more honest and vocal about it than others. Ill say it again. You can still believe in macro evolution and of course many do, but without a cohesive theory, all you have is a bunch of ideas.[/quote]

No... but it appears that the ID and the Creationist camps misrepresent what happened in that conference. Here is a little overview from P.Z. Myers

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008 ... s_over.php

hat's a little soft — there are no grand reformulations of the neo-Darwinian synthesis in there, nor is anyone proposing to overturn our understanding of evolution — but that's what I expected. It's saying that there are a lot of exciting ideas and new observations that increase our understanding of the power of evolution, and promise to lead research in interesting new directions.

Unfortunately, one reporter has produced an abominably muddled, utterly worthless and uninformed account of the Altenberg meeting that has been picked up by many crackpots to suggest that evolution is in trouble. This not only ignores a fundamental property of science — that it is always pushing off in new directions — but embarrassingly overinflates the importance of this one meeting. This was a gathering of established scientists with some new proposals. It was not a meeting of the central directorate of the Darwinist cabal to formulate new dogma.

Where one ignorant kook dares to assert her inanity, you know the Discovery Institute will stampede after her. Both Paul Nelson and now Casey Luskin have cited her lunatic distortions favorably. Luskin's account is egregiously incompetent, as we've come to expect — he even thinks Stuart Pivar was an attendee. Pivar is an eccentric New York art collector, heir to a septic tank fortune, who has no training in science and whose "theory" is a nonsensical bit of guesswork that is contradicted by observations anyone can make in a basic developmental biology lab. He was not at the meeting. No one in their right mind would even consider inviting him to such a serious event. Maybe if it was a birthday party and they needed someone to make balloon animals, he'd be a good man to have on hand.

Now we can move beyond the garbled hype of the creationists. Pigliucci lists several concepts up there that have promise for further research, and that may help us understand evolution better. That's the productive result of the meeting, and the only part that counts. Those concepts are also going to be discussed by many other scientists at many other meetings — even I talked about some of them recently — but don't let the liars on the creationist side confuse you into thinking that the fact that scientists are talking about new ideas is a sign that evolution is in crisis. Talking about new ideas is normal science.

[Shermana]

", and said that evolutionary biologists were being unfair in suppressing competing ideas."


Regardless if the guy didn't know what he was signing or not, I do find this quote quite interesting....would go well on my Peer Review thread. I wonder why they'd be suppressing competing ideas...

What's going on here exactly? What kind of competing ideas are being suppressed? Do the Peer Review Journals know about this suppression? How widespread is it? Is there in fact some kind of Elitist cabal who are afraid their ideas might be wrong and are trying to stamp out fellow Macro-Evolutionists (not necessarily Creationists) from showing data that may be different from theirs? If anything, I can truly appreciate this piece even if it may or may not undermine a bit of the integrity of the list, this part is even better. Who knows what kinds of things are being suppressed. Especially with all the fossil fraud that goes on, do we really know what the exact facts are? How do we know that most of what is being passed off is legitimate and not the result of withholding substantial information and theories and evidence from OTHER EVOLUTIONISTS?

[Alter2Ego]

[font=Verdana]OTSENG

I can't help you if you insist on becoming a disciple of the idiot Carl Linnaeus.

Moderator Comment

Do not all anyone (deceased or living) an idiot, despite what you might think of that person.

Please review the Rules.
______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

Keep in mind that the so-call scholars who come up with these ideas don't have any proof that this is what actually happened. This is just something their rotten minds came up with.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid using derogatory language to describe others. Just relate the facts without attacking others.

Please review the Rules.
______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

ALTER2EGO -to-OTSENG:
Telling me or anybody else on this forum that we can't make negative comments about people that aren't even part of this community—including people that have been dead for centuries—is not only ridiculous, it's restriction of free speech to the extreme. It borders on paranoia. If this is you all's idea of being "civil," which amounts to telling members of this forum they must walk on egg shells, you can have your website to yourselves.

I want no part of this insanity that you moderators are imposing here. I can see now why your membership is so low. Nobody in his or her right mind will put up with this nonsense in which you moderators--in your arrogance and vanity--are attempting to completely control how adults interact. You moderators are a joke! Your imagined power on this forum has gone to your heads.


MCCULLOCH

Since when did an ape, a chimpanzee, or any of those types of animals become HUMAN?

He [Carl Linnaeus] decided--based upon his personal opinions--that humans and apes are related.

It was not personal opinion but biological similarity. Humans are animals. We are alive and we are certainly not plants. Humans are vertebrates, we are animals which have a backbone. Humans are mammals; we have hair, warm blood and nurse our young. Humans are one of the Great Apes along with Gorillas, Chimpanzees and Orangutangs. We are primates with large brains (relative to the other primates) and little or no tail.

ALTER2EGO -to- MCCULLOCH:
According to you, it was not personal opinion on Linneaus' part that humans are animal. What else would I expect you to say? After all, you happen to agree with his opinion.

Looking at biological "similarities" and then using that to say humans are animals is an opinion. By restricting the division of life forms to plants and animals, you—like Carl Linneaus—have taken it upon yourself to opine that humans are animals. The classification of life forms is not just plants and animals, it includes a third classification called HUMAN.

In any event, I could care less if you agree with Carl Linneaus. That's not going to change the fact that Carl Linneaus was a fool for erroneously concluding--based upon his flawed opinion--that humans are animals, related to apes.


As for yours and OTSENG's extreme censuring in telling me that I can't refer to Linneaus as a fool--a man who's been dead more than 200 years and is not even a member of this debate community--you and OTSENG have proven how ridiculous people can get when they are vain enough to think they can establish what's considered "civil" conversation.

Nobody in the real world disagrees with other people without saying something negative about the authors of a reference source or about an opponent. So long as the negative comments are not foul and contain expletives, I see nothing wrong with making negative comments about an opponent who displays the qualities that I describe when I make the negative comment.


The people who own this website are completely unrealistic in expecting opponents to NOT express negative opinions about opponents and the reference sources of opponents. What you people are doing here is known as micro-controlling--which is as harmful as allowing the opposite extreme of no control at all. I've been to the debate forums on other websites and have never before come across one like this where blatant violation of free speech by moderators is the rule.


BTW: I notice that none of you moderators complain when the atheists on this forum attack the Bible writers and accuse them of inventing prophesies, meaning the Bible writers are liars—which amounts to "negative" comments about persons living or dead.

You established a double-standard for Carl Linneaus by restricting me from RIGHTFULLY referring to him as the COMPLETE FOOL that he was. Meanwhile, you placed no restrictions on the atheists who accuse Bible writers of dishonesty. So that's where you draw the line. The Bible writers can have their credibility attacked.


I made the mistake of inviting six people that I met at other forums to come here. I will be certain to warn them not to waste their time and join after all. This website is run like a police state.


DO ME THE FAVOR OF CANCELING MY ACCOUNT WITH ALL POSSIBLE DISPATCH. [/font]