"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?

[THEMAYAN]

How does the act of manipulating DNA show it ain't made of chemicals?

I give up Joey. Tell me. Or was that a rhetorical question?

Maybe you meant someone else because I never said that DNA or life in general were not made of chemicals. Don't be in a hurry. Take the time to read the threads carefully so as to avoid confusion.

[THEMAYAN]

Reply to Bust Nak
edited

I didn't say he did it from scratch, I've spoken to enough creationists to know they will latch onto such words. I would say he made a living cell out of non-living material, whether you consider that to be from scratch is up to your interpretation.

No he did not make a cell out of non living material. The cell was a living bacterium and synthetic DNA (meaning a designed sequence of code), not designed nucleotides which already existed were placed into this living cell. Even he cites this in his work. Read the the study yourself.

If I jury rigging a working radio, using pre existing blue prints and spare parts, that would still be pretty good evidence that the radio worked through purely natural means, right?

If you consider that complex blue prints and radios aren't designed and grow on trees, i.e. created through the mechanism of physics and chemistry alone not requiring any intelligent agent. Then I would say yes, you could consider that. In fact you could consider anything you want, but in this situation I would put all my money on you being wrong.

[THEMAYAN]

Yeah, using nothing but physics and chemistry.

No you just dont seem to get it. These sequences were designed in a computer by intelligent agents. He never claimed that physics and chemistry alone could accomplish this and he makes it very clear how difficult it was even with intelligent agents manipulating the work and again he still required the use a living cell.

If you dont understand this then I am sorry. [/quote]

[Bust Nak]

No he did not make a cell out of non living material. The cell was a living bacterium and synthetic DNA (meaning a designed sequence of code), not designed nucleotides which already existed were placed into this living cell. Even he cites this in his work. Read the the study yourself.

First you have living phospholipids, and now DNA-less bacteria are living too?

If you consider an intelligent agent who knows how to draw up blue prints and can prove that radios aren't designed and grow on trees, i.e. created through the mechanism of physics and chemistry alone not requiring any intelligent agent. Then I would say yes, you could consider that. In fact you could consider anything you want, but in this situation I would put all my money on you being wrong.

Well there you go, physics and chemistry alone cannot explain radios because someone designed it.

[THEMAYAN]

Reply to Bust Nak


No he did not make a cell out of non living material. The cell was a living bacterium and synthetic DNA (meaning a designed sequence of code), not designed nucleotides which already existed were placed into this living cell. Even he cites this in his work. Read the the study yourself.

First you have living phospholipids, and now DNA-less bacteria are living too?

I'm not sure who told you that Bacteria dont have DNA or are not living organisms but this is not true. In fact one of the reasons why so many study bacteria is because they self replicate very fast.

Most bacteria do not go through a well-defined cell cycle but instead continuously copy their DNA; during rapid growth, this can result in the concurrent occurrences of multiple rounds of replication. In E. coli, the best-characterized bacteria, DNA replication is regulated through several mechanisms, including: the hemimethylation and sequestering of the origin sequence, the ratio of ATP to ADP, and the levels of protein DnaA. All these control the process of initiator proteins binding to the origin sequences.
PLoS Biology 4 (6): e185.

ScienceDaily (Aug. 27, 2007) — A research team has for the first time ever discovered DNA from living bacteria that are more than half a million years old. Never before has traces of still living organisms that old been found.

If you consider an intelligent agent who knows how to draw up blue prints and can prove that radios aren't designed and grow on trees, i.e. created through the mechanism of physics and chemistry alone not requiring any intelligent agent. Then I would say yes, you could consider that. In fact you could consider anything you want, but in this situation I would put all my money on you being wrong.

Well there you go, physics and chemistry alone cannot explain radios because someone designed it.

Yes thats right, but hey man your willing to try it to create an experiment that can prove it. Who knows? Maybe you'll get lucky and discover a tornado was somehow able to assemble a crude proto type from the chemical compounds of the earth. Then a flood and a few earthquakes came by and caused more pieces to come together and fall in place. After a few more cycles of this, some lightning came and soldered the important components created naturally by all the previous physical and chemical interactions. Radios are much less complex than humans and cant even self replicate. So if abiogenesis and macro evolution is correct, then it should be much easier to create and or evolve, but again I wouldn't put my money on it. Does this sound silly to you?

[pax]

As a Builder I use this analogy:

Suppose I showed you a house and told you that all the nails, screws, lumber, insulation, plaster, shingles, concrete, trim mouldings, doors, windows and whatever else were in that house, just happened to be in the right place at the right time and assembled themselves into the beautiful building you are now looking upon.

What would you say to that?

[Shermana]

As a Builder I use this analogy:

Suppose I showed you a house and told you that all the nails, screws, lumber, insulation, plaster, shingles, concrete, trim mouldings, doors, windows and whatever else were in that house, just happened to be in the right place at the right time and assembled themselves into the beautiful building you are now looking upon.

What would you say to that?

They usually say something like "In trillions of years, it's possible that all the nails and screws and boards and concrete will fall in the exact right spot with the right fit."

I'd place my bets that we'd be more likely to have a team of Monkeys with typewriters hammer out all of Shakespeare's works, which I've actually heard some say could likely happen.

[Bust Nak]

I'm not sure who told you that Bacteria dont have DNA or are not living organisms but this is not true. In fact one of the reasons why so many study bacteria is because they self replicate very fast.

Actually, I didn't say living bacteria don't have DNA or that they are not living organism; What I was saying is bacteria aren't living once they've had their DNA removed.

Yes thats right, but hey man your willing to try it to create an experiment that can prove it.

It's quite alright, it's already been proved to my satisifaction that physics alone is enough to explain radios, and that physics and chemistry is enough to explain life.

Who knows? Maybe you'll get lucky and discover a tornado was somehow able to assemble a crude proto type from the chemical compounds of the earth. Then a flood and a few earthquakes came by and caused more pieces to come together and fall in place. After a few more cycles of this, some lightning came and soldered the important components created naturally by all the previous physical and chemical interactions.

What's wrong with the physics only explaination that of electromagnetic waves?

Radios are much less complex that humans and cant even self replicate. So if abiogenesis and macro evolution is correct, then it should be much easier to create and or evolve, but again I wouldn't put my money on it.

Well, no. According to evolution, something that can't self-replicate, like a radio, cannot evolve.

Does this sound silly to you?

Yeah it sure does, very silly.

Suppose I showed you a house and told you that ... that house, just happened to be in the right place at the right time and assembled themselves into the beautiful building you are now looking upon.

What would you say to that?

I would say, that's crazy, I've seen builders build houses, they don't assemble themselves.

What would you follow up with?

They usually say something like "In trillions of years, it's possible that all the nails and screws and boards and concrete will fall in the exact right spot with the right fit."

I think you know that's not true.

I'd place my bets that we'd be more likely to have a team of Monkeys with typewriters hammer out all of Shakespeare's works, which I've actually heard some say could likely happen.

With selection and inheritance, where a monkey would randomly change a few letters from the previous iteration, after the passage have been filtered by resemblance to Shakespeare's works, it would likely happen.

[Goat]

As a Builder I use this analogy:

Suppose I showed you a house and told you that all the nails, screws, lumber, insulation, plaster, shingles, concrete, trim mouldings, doors, windows and whatever else were in that house, just happened to be in the right place at the right time and assembled themselves into the beautiful building you are now looking upon.

What would you say to that?

I would say that is called a 'very bad analogy'.

There is a difference between building a house, and a set of self catalyzing self replicating molecules.

[Autodidact]

As a Builder I use this analogy:

Suppose I showed you a house and told you that all the nails, screws, lumber, insulation, plaster, shingles, concrete, trim mouldings, doors, windows and whatever else were in that house, just happened to be in the right place at the right time and assembled themselves into the beautiful building you are now looking upon.

What would you say to that?

I would say, in what way is a house analogous to a universe, and how do you know?