Posted on 05/03/2010 6:22:25 AM PDT by Need4Truth
A major storm of protest against the myth of evolution has been building for many years, as proved by almost a thousand major scientists, all with doctorates who have signed on to the following statement as of 2010: “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.”
Those scientists threw down the gauntlet to evolutionists by publishing a two-page ad in a national magazine with the heading, “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.” Fevered, fanatical, and foolish evolutionists will charge that those dissenting scientists were backwoods yokels (maybe even a few snake handlers and flat earthers mixed in) dug up by pushy creationists to promote their cause. Not so, I have gone over the list and if certification and accreditation are so important, impressive, and indispensable, then those people will give evolutionists a perpetual heartburn.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
I’m not a scientist. And this issue isn’t critical to my faith. I mean, it’s possible that God put in place evolution. It’s also likely that God was responsible for the variety of life on this planet without evolution.
I have noted a couple of things. While we can breed animals for desired traits, we have yet to breed a dog and yield a cat. Or a snake. This makes me wonder about the supposed mechanism to yeild multiple species from a single origin, without God’s help.
Secondly, in the variety of life, there are quite sophisticated adaptations. So many, that it makes me doubt that it all could be some huge accident.
I’m firmly in the camp of this being God’s will, and God’s design. But, those that believe in evolution don’t bother me. We’ll all find out what the answer is, one day.
Now me, I am an evolutionist, interested in the maths of evolution. Species species interaction leads quickly to complexity and non-linear differential equations, meaning that the future can not be predicted.
Global warming pretends to be able to predict the future far in advance, and to do so would require solving non-linear differential equations (Navier Stokes, for example) to an infinite precision.
Hence Global warming is bunk. Evolution which always responds to the present is interesting and useful.
We did breed carp and yielded goldfish
Dissent is a tendentious word. We’ve had 130 years of unprecedented discoveries in biology since his day. Not surprising we’ve moved way past Darwin. That’s a sign of health not decay.
“We did breed carp and yielded goldfish”
Goldfish are carp.
goldfish are carp.
“We’ve had 130 years of unprecedented discoveries in biology since his day. Not surprising we’ve moved way past Darwin”
Amazing that scientists who do not toe the party line on politicized issues are treated much the same way as they were 500 years ago.
beat ya :)
“We did breed carp and yielded goldfish”
That’s a little along the lines of breeding terriers to get Yorkshire terriers.
When they breed carp and get an iguana, or a cardinal, then I’ll have to reconsider my beliefs.
For example:
"Michael Pitman, (died 2000) former chemistry professor at Cambridge, confessed, “Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ.”
is obviously unaware of research that has proven precisely that, in species from bacteria to foxes.
"Professor N. H. Nilsson of Lund University who said, “There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species.” Nilsson added, “It is therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations.”"
"Higher vitality" What the **** does "vitality" have to do with evolution? The only factor is that the specific mutation provide improved survivability under current environmental circumstances.
"Mutations are the catalyst for defects, deformity, disease, and death; yet evolutionists scream that they are the explanation for all the varieties we see in the animal and plant kingdoms. They teach that the many changes in combination with the pressure of the environment over billions of years have produced the differences between one-cell amoeba and complicated humans; however, mutations never create; they corrupt. Thus, the results of all mutations: disorder, defects, disease, deformity, and death.
Again, flatly and completely wrong. A mutation can be negative, neutral or positive. I'm a mutant. I was born without wisdom teeth. Today that is NOT a survival characteristic, but in the days before antibiotics and dentistry, infections caused by wisdom teeth could be fatal.
But you folks keep on reading, posting, and believing this claptrap. It's your prerogative. Just don't try to teach it in science classes.
So can you formulate a lab experiment that reproduces the alleged evolution of some early one-celled organism into a fish? Scientists keep claiming that if you can’t test your hypothesis and reproduce results, then it’s junk science ... like cold fusion and global warming.
How many "major scientists" are there on the other side of the debate, by that same criteria?
Don't make decisions based on half of the information.
It doesn't do much for the conservative cause, though.
Not exactly a peer reviewed article. What is there to debate really?
“Again, flatly and completely wrong. A mutation can be negative, neutral or positive. I’m a mutant. I was born without wisdom teeth. Today that is NOT a survival characteristic, but in the days before antibiotics and dentistry, infections caused by wisdom teeth could be fatal.”
Survival of the fittest in that manner is pretty uncontroversial, based on observations, what we know of genetics and sexual reproduction, and the logical consequences of them.
That’s within a species though. There’s no evidence of one species “evolving” into another. That’s purely a matter of faith, yet liberals want one faith to take precedence over another in the classroom.
Typical concern troll tactics, trying to weaken our principles simply so that the far-left/atheists won’t laugh at us. (hint: the far left don’t vote for conservatives anyway, laughing or otherwise)
They had a show on years ago that I think Buckley hosted. The majority if not all of those scientists opted for God.
Peer Review isn't what it used to be.
When the Global Warming fraud started coming out last fall, I waited for pro-Evolution people to stand up and defend "real science" against the fake scientists who had tainted the peer review process. I heard crickets.
I see the two topics as very similar -- both push a politcal agenda, both seem to say exactly what their financial backers want them to say, both have a peer review process which excludes anything that thinks outside the box, and both seem to establish their conclusion up front and then adapt all incoming evidence to fit that pre-determined conclusion.
Evolution, as its practiced today, is junk science.
Evolution appears to be God’s method of creation. Why would whales have non-functional hip bones unless they evolved from land animals. With God anything’s possible, even the beneficial mutation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.