"A scientific Dissent from Darwinism"

Shermana · Post by **Shermana** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 5:48 am

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:

â€œWe 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.â€�
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?

TheJackelantern · Post by **TheJackelantern** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:02 am

The wedge document is critical of scientific metaphysical naturalism as being the only paradigme.

And yet it provides nothing to support immaterial (nothing super naturalism).... Of course it's critical, from a position lacking any sort of credibility or empirical support. Basically Creationism is this:

Find a Gap and replace it with a bigger Gap assumption that doesn't explain anything at all

Btw, if you want to get into nit picking about discrimination, we can find plenty of that on both sides of the field.. However, it's interesting that creationists claim discrimination in the scientific community when their work gets rejected for making baseless assertions that they can neither provide actual data for, or support within their papers. Hence, putting "GOD DONE IT" in a paper will surely insure it's journey to the trash can in any reputable journal site or peer review. There are a lot of theists that get their papers published when they do good science and not pseudoscience.. You want to know why it's called pseudoscience? Because they try to conform science to their religion and beliefs vs sticking to the science. Hence, claiming X thing is of ID without establishing x thing actually had anything to do with ID.. Hence, posting your religious beliefs in a science paper is bad science.

This might also interest you:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA325.html

Another problem when creationists claim "GOD DONE IT", they really kind of need to prove the existence of such a thing prior to claiming by assertion that any such thing did anything. The dishonesty is the assumption to begin with. And when we actually take a look at the complexity of cognitive systems ect, or a conscious state, it's even more obvious why the GOD claim is far more of a fantastical claim than evolutionary processes and mechanisms that lead to higher complex giving that such a thing can't actually possibly exist or function without these same processes and mechanisms.

Show me the empirical evidence that neo Darwinism is an incontrovertible truth and I will have to concede your point. How can you believe in something that you dont even have the time or wont make the effort to research and understand for yourself?

Neo-Darwinism isn't.. it's a made up coined term. And is rather irrelevant to modern TOE. So you must mean TOE right? ok:

Cognitive systems... tell us how you design and create a cognitive system without requiring one.. And then tell us the complexity of them, and how such systems work, and what the driving force is that creates them, governs them, and produces the complexity necessary to support the most primitive cognitive systems and the most primitive cognitive functionality.

When you can do this, you can maybe begin to talk about how life magically needs "ID" since you believe life is too complex to have emerged from natural processes necessary to also support the most complex of all things..a cognitive system.

THEMAYAN · Post by **THEMAYAN** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:15 am

RESPONSE TO JACKELANTERN

Thanks for the tip. I was aware of Intelligent design articles getting published but I wasn't even aware of creationist articles getting published as per your Talk Origins citation....

Creationists do get published in reputable peer-reviewed science journals when they do real science. For example:
Steven A. Austin, Gordon W. Franz, and Eric G. Frost, "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." (International Geology Review 42: 657, 2000)
Leonard Brand on the Flood deposition interpretation of Coconino Sandstone (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 28: 25-38, 1979; Geology 19: 1201-1204, 1991; Journal of Paleontology 70: 1004-1011, 1996)
Harold G. Coffin on deposition environments of fossil trees (Journal of Paleontology 50: 539-543, 1976; Geology 11: 298-299, 1983)
Robert Gentry on polonium haloes (American Journal of Physics, Proceedings 33: 878A, 1965; Science 184: 62-64, 1974; Science 194: 315-318, 1976)
Grant Lambert on DNA error rates (Journal of Theoretical Biology 107: 387-403, 1984)
Jan Peckzis on mass estimates of dinosaurs (Journal of Theoretical Biology 132: 509-510, 1988; Journal of Paleontology 63: 947-950, 1989; Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 520-533, 1995)
Sigfried Scherer on ducks as a single kind (Journal fÃ¼r Ornithologie 123: 357-380, 1982; Zeitschrift fÃ¼r zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 24: 1-19, 1986)

Again thanks for tip.

Shermana · Post by **Shermana** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:42 am

THEMAYAN wrote:RESPONSE TO JACKELANTERN

Thanks for the tip. I was aware of Intelligent design articles getting published but I wasn't even aware of creationist articles getting published as per your Talk Origins citation....

Creationists do get published in reputable peer-reviewed science journals when they do real science. For example:
Steven A. Austin, Gordon W. Franz, and Eric G. Frost, "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." (International Geology Review 42: 657, 2000)
Leonard Brand on the Flood deposition interpretation of Coconino Sandstone (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 28: 25-38, 1979; Geology 19: 1201-1204, 1991; Journal of Paleontology 70: 1004-1011, 1996)
Harold G. Coffin on deposition environments of fossil trees (Journal of Paleontology 50: 539-543, 1976; Geology 11: 298-299, 1983)
Robert Gentry on polonium haloes (American Journal of Physics, Proceedings 33: 878A, 1965; Science 184: 62-64, 1974; Science 194: 315-318, 1976)
Grant Lambert on DNA error rates (Journal of Theoretical Biology 107: 387-403, 1984)
Jan Peckzis on mass estimates of dinosaurs (Journal of Theoretical Biology 132: 509-510, 1988; Journal of Paleontology 63: 947-950, 1989; Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 520-533, 1995)
Sigfried Scherer on ducks as a single kind (Journal fÃ¼r Ornithologie 123: 357-380, 1982; Zeitschrift fÃ¼r zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 24: 1-19, 1986)
Again thanks for tip.

I second that, thanks for the tip Jacke, I had no idea there were Creationists' peer reviewed articles that got published. I guess this kind of throws a stick in the wagon wheel of those saying Creationists don't have any. I'll try to find them and give them a read this week.

TheJackelantern · Post by **TheJackelantern** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:44 am

THEMAYAN wrote:RESPONSE TO JACKELANTERN

Thanks for the tip. I was aware of Intelligent design articles getting published but I wasn't even aware of creationist articles getting published as per your Talk Origins citation....

Creationists do get published in reputable peer-reviewed science journals when they do real science. For example:
Steven A. Austin, Gordon W. Franz, and Eric G. Frost, "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." (International Geology Review 42: 657, 2000)
Leonard Brand on the Flood deposition interpretation of Coconino Sandstone (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 28: 25-38, 1979; Geology 19: 1201-1204, 1991; Journal of Paleontology 70: 1004-1011, 1996)
Harold G. Coffin on deposition environments of fossil trees (Journal of Paleontology 50: 539-543, 1976; Geology 11: 298-299, 1983)
Robert Gentry on polonium haloes (American Journal of Physics, Proceedings 33: 878A, 1965; Science 184: 62-64, 1974; Science 194: 315-318, 1976)
Grant Lambert on DNA error rates (Journal of Theoretical Biology 107: 387-403, 1984)
Jan Peckzis on mass estimates of dinosaurs (Journal of Theoretical Biology 132: 509-510, 1988; Journal of Paleontology 63: 947-950, 1989; Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 520-533, 1995)
Sigfried Scherer on ducks as a single kind (Journal fÃ¼r Ornithologie 123: 357-380, 1982; Zeitschrift fÃ¼r zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 24: 1-19, 1986)
Again thanks for tip.

Just keep in mind though that it doesn't make their papers right..It's to show that they have been able to publish papers. For example, the kinds argument really is a mess that has to keep goal posting to correct its constant contradictions and lack of actual definition and methodology in establishing a coherent understanding ..

Here are some more notable ones:

â€œInertial confinement fusion with light ion beamsâ€�, (Multiple-author) International Atomic Energy Agency, 13th International Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research, Washington D.C., 1â€“6 October 1990.

â€œProgress toward a superconducting opening switchâ€�, (Principal author), Proceedings of 6th IEEE Pulsed Power Conference (Arlington, VA June 29 â€“ July 1, 1987) pp. 279â€“282.

â€œRimfire: a six megavolt laser-triggered gas-filled switch for PBFA IIâ€�, (Principal author), Proceedings of 5th IEEE Pulsed Power Conference (Arlington, VA June 10â€“12, 1985) pp. 262â€“2265.

â€œUranium logging with prompt fission neutronsâ€�, (Principal author) International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 34(1):261â€“268, 1983.

â€œThe 1/gamma velocity dependence of nucleon-nucleus optical potentialsâ€�, (Only author) Nuclear Physics, A182:580â€“592, 1972.

They produce a lot of non-creationist work.. To get published work for further review, you can't place creationistic dogma, conclusions, or assertions in the papers. This doesn't prevent someone from writing up a paper how the data that seems to show a duck as being a unique kind of animal.. Heck, they could have done that with the hammerhead shark. The problem is that you can't assume "GOD DONE IT", or rule out mutation or others possibles. Hence, you can't make a conclusion by putting a blank in with a blank and say the blank did it.

TheJackelantern · Post by **TheJackelantern** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:50 am

Shermana wrote:
THEMAYAN wrote:RESPONSE TO JACKELANTERN

Thanks for the tip. I was aware of Intelligent design articles getting published but I wasn't even aware of creationist articles getting published as per your Talk Origins citation....

Creationists do get published in reputable peer-reviewed science journals when they do real science. For example:
Steven A. Austin, Gordon W. Franz, and Eric G. Frost, "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." (International Geology Review 42: 657, 2000)
Leonard Brand on the Flood deposition interpretation of Coconino Sandstone (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 28: 25-38, 1979; Geology 19: 1201-1204, 1991; Journal of Paleontology 70: 1004-1011, 1996)
Harold G. Coffin on deposition environments of fossil trees (Journal of Paleontology 50: 539-543, 1976; Geology 11: 298-299, 1983)
Robert Gentry on polonium haloes (American Journal of Physics, Proceedings 33: 878A, 1965; Science 184: 62-64, 1974; Science 194: 315-318, 1976)
Grant Lambert on DNA error rates (Journal of Theoretical Biology 107: 387-403, 1984)
Jan Peckzis on mass estimates of dinosaurs (Journal of Theoretical Biology 132: 509-510, 1988; Journal of Paleontology 63: 947-950, 1989; Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 520-533, 1995)
Sigfried Scherer on ducks as a single kind (Journal fÃ¼r Ornithologie 123: 357-380, 1982; Zeitschrift fÃ¼r zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 24: 1-19, 1986)
Again thanks for tip.
I second that, thanks for the tip Jacke, I had no idea there were Creationists' peer reviewed articles that got published. I guess this kind of throws a stick in the wagon wheel of those saying Creationists don't have any. I'll try to find them and give them a read this week.

You will note that none of them say GOD done it in those published papers.

THEMAYAN · Post by **THEMAYAN** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:51 am

RESPONSE TO SHERMANA

Shermana I would start with Robert Gentry on polonium haloes (American Journal of Physics, Proceedings 33: 878A, 1965; Science 184: 62-64, 1974; Science 194: 315-318, 1976)

If you want to know more about his findings and views on the subject of polonium haloes then you can also watch

Remember Jackelanterna admits that this is real science.
As per his statements......

there are a lot of theists that get their papers published when they do good science and not pseudoscience.

THEMAYAN · Post by **THEMAYAN** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:23 am

RESPONSE TO JACKELANTERN

You will note that none of them say GOD done it in those published papers.

Jackel lantern maybe you should take the time to read your on citation. After Talk origin list the creationist peer review articles that got published, right underneath the list it says this...

In addition, many creationists have published science articles not related to creationism.

Now lets take a look at some of your other contradicting comments. First you said this .......

There are a lot of theists that get their papers published when they do good science and not pseudoscience

When you were called on it you then changed it to this......

Just keep in mind though that it doesn't make their papers right..It's to show that they have been able to publish papers. For example, the kinds argument really is a mess that has to keep goal posting to correct its constant contradictions and lack of actual definition and methodology in establishing a coherent understanding

..

So again either you changed your tune you are saying that a ......

mess that has to keep goal posting to correct its constant contradictions and lack of actual definition and methodology in establishing a coherent understanding

is good science. You cant have it both ways.

TheJackelantern · Post by **TheJackelantern** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:19 am

THEMAYAN wrote:RESPONSE TO SHERMANA

Shermana I would start with Robert Gentry on polonium haloes (American Journal of Physics, Proceedings 33: 878A, 1965; Science 184: 62-64, 1974; Science 194: 315-318, 1976)

If you want to know more about his findings and views on the subject of polonium haloes then you can also watch

Remember Jackelanterna admits that this is real science.
As per his statements......

These don't actually disprove TOE btw..

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... _YTF8YwYTQ

Basically:

If you really looked on the profile you will noticed that it didn't have a profile because it lack information. Other words Some chemicals listed in this database or not pure chemical compounds, rather they are mixtures/solutions of chemicals. It is not uncommon for wide range of molar ratios of a mixture to be lumped together as "synonyms" of the same "chemical". In some instances chemicals that are very similar from a health & safety and/or regulatory standpoint also may have been lumped together.
CAS Number: 15735-67-8
Synonyms/Related:

214Po
Polonium 214
Polonium, isotope of mass 214
Polonium-214

None of this disproves evolution and now to meat of the subject.Gentry is unfortunately wrong on his deceptive studies that he claims about Polonium 214 and you can read about this at this link:

http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/polfac.htm

And you have these:

"Polonium Haloes" Refuted A Review of "Radioactive Halos in a Radio-Chronological
and Cosmological Perspective" by Robert V. Gentry http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gent...
Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery" J. Richard Wakefield http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm
The Continuing Saga of the Po Halos "Mystery" By J. Richard Wakefield, Oct. 1988 http://www.skepticfiles.org/evo2/saga.htm
Evolution's Tiny Violences: The Po-Halo Mystery An Amateur Scientist Examines Pegmatitic Biotite Mica
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/viol...
"Polonium Haloes" Refuted A Review of "Radioactive Halos in a Radio-Chronological
and Cosmological Perspective" by Robert V. Gentry
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gent...
Creation Science Book Review Thousands...Not Billions - Chapter 5 Radiohalos in Granite Review by Greg Neyman
http://www.answersincreation.org/bookreview/t...
Creationist Claims about Polonium Radiohalos DRAFT (C) Glen Kuban, 2006-2007
http://paleo.cc/ce/halos.htm
POLONIUM HALOS AND MYRMEKITE IN PEGMATITE AND GRANITE Lorence G. Collins
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm
Tetrapod Fossil Footprints, Polonium Halos, and the Colorado Plateau Stephen J. Godfrey page 8
http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/ar ... 1_2003.asp

Links incomplete above but here they are in order:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm
http://www.skepticfiles.org/evo2/saga.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/violences.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
http://www.answersincreation.org/bookre ... apter5.htm
http://paleo.cc/ce/halos.htm
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm
http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/ar ... 1_2003.asp
No he tried to do actual science, he got his paper published, but it did not survive the peer review process unfortunately.

THEMAYAN · Post by **THEMAYAN** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:22 am

RESPONSE TO JACKELKANTERN

This is pretty odd. Now your trying to refute your own citations that just an hour ago or so you said was real science. Furthermore none of the links you provided were peer reviewed in any reputable Journal and in fact one was from a self admitted amateur. Aren't you tired of shooting yourself in the foot? Maybe you should think about what you post before you do.

Unbelievable man. Go run to talks origin again. I would caution you to actually read your citations first, but since I have told you this before, I dont think it would really even matter. I seriously doubt whether you actually understand Gentry's work, or the implications of it. You dont even understand that neo Darwinism referes to the modern synthesis

Neo-Darwinism is the 'modern synthesis' of Darwinian evolution through natural selection with Mendelian genetics, the latter being......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism
Kutschera U, Niklas KJ (2004). "The modern theory of biological evolution: an expanded synthesis". Naturwissenschaften

If you really looked on the profile you will noticed that it didn't have a profile because it lack information. Other words Some chemicals listed in this database or not pure chemical compounds, rather they are mixtures/solutions of chemicals. It is not uncommon for wide range of molar ratios of a mixture to be lumped together as "synonyms" of the same "chemical". In some instances chemicals that are very similar from a health & safety and/or regulatory standpoint also may have been lumped together.
CAS Number: 15735-67-8
Synonyms/Related:

214Po
Polonium 214
Polonium, isotope of mass 214
Polonium-214

What does this have to do with Gentry's paper? And what does this have to do with you on one hand saying that this is real science, and now you say........
.

Gentry is unfortunately wrong on his deceptive studies that he claims about Polonium 214 and you can read about this at this link:

Again none of your links are peer review. Furthermore Thomas A. Baillieul who wrote the paper criticizing Gentry could not even get his criticisms published in a reputable scientific journal.

Explain to me in your own words why Gentry is being deceptive or why he is wrong? Are you capable of doing that.

The oddest thing I found was that after citing article about creationism published in peer review, you go on to say that.......

You will note that none of them say GOD done it in those published papers.

Your a trip man.

â€œOh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceiveâ€�

THEMAYAN · Post by **THEMAYAN** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:59 am

It seems tals origins left these out also.

Gentry, Robert V. 1968. Fossil Alpha Recoil Analysis of Variant Radioactive Halos. Science 160, pp. 1228-1230.
Gentry. Robert V. 1971. Radiohalos: Some Unique Pb Isotope Ratios and Unknown Alpha Radio Activity. Science 173, pp. 727-31.
Gentry, Robert V. 1973. Radioactive Halos. Ann. Rev. Nuc. Sci, 23, pp. 347-362.
Gentry, Robert V. 1974. Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective. Science 184, pp. 64-66.
Gentry, Robert V. 1975. Response to J.H. Fremlinâ€™s Comments on "Spectacle Haloes." Nature 258, p. 269.
Gentry, Robert V. 1979. Time: Measured Responses. Eos 60, p. 474.
Gentry, Robert V. 1984. Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective. Proceedings of the Sixty Third Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Volume 1. Part 3. pp. 38-65.
Gentry, Robert V. et al.. 1973. Ion Microprobe Confirmation of Pb Isotope Ratios and Search for Isomer Precursors in Polonium Radiohaloes. Nature 244, pp. 282-283.
Gentry, Robert V. et al.. 1974. "Spectacle" Array of 210Po Halo Radiocentres in Biotite: A Nuclear Geophysical Enigma. Nature 252, p. 564.
Gentry, Robert V. et al.. 1976. Radiohalos in Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification. Science 194, pp. 315-318.