It's normal to question the dogma of natural selection

[outhouse]

Lev Berg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lev Semyonovich Berg (also known as Leo S. Berg) (Russian: Лев Семёнович Берг; March 14, 1876


That is #3 on your list


Any chance you could find any modern scientist to deal with instead of these DEAD ones.



This is like fighting aids with a pitchfork and then claiming there is no cure possible [FACEPALM}


and by the looks of your post your very simular to a previously banned member

 

[Skwim]

I did construct the list myself, for an essay at college.

So what's the deal with this "ghost" person who posted part of "your" list HERE?

Please see the first post:

I said mostly not all. And I never said all of them have rejected natural selection, the majority have downgraded the role of NS and questioned the role of NS in evolution, most have claimed NS is not the main driving force in evolution.

Sure you did. You said ". . . mostly non-religious scientists . . ." Your "mostly" modifies "non-religious." which implies that some of the scientists are not religious. You then went on and said "who have all spoken out against . . . ."

the majority have downgraded the role of NS and questioned the role of NS in evolution, . . .

And as I pointed out, questioning, and even disagreement, with ideas is SOP in science, and that I do not consider it to be on par with "speaking] out against the Darwinian mechanisms of evolution." This is why I dismissed it as a valid point.

. . . most have claimed NS is not the main driving force in evolution.

Ah, moving the goal posts isn't allowed either. :tsk:


Also, in as much as this was part of a college essay, I assume fact checking wasn't material to the worth of the paper.

 

[jarofthoughts]

This is a list of mostly non-religious scientists who have all spoken out against the Darwinian mechanisms of evolution - natural selection and random mutation and have questioned the role of it in evolution:

James A. Shapiro,
Alfred Russel Wallace,
Lev Berg,
Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger,
Michael Denton,
Michael Pitman,
David Berlinski,
Periannan Senapathy,
Chandra Wickramasighe,
Murray Eden,
Stanly Salthe,
Christian Schwabe,
Gerald Kerkut,
Lime-De-Faria,
Pierre Grasse,
Soren Lovtrop,
Fred Hoyle,
Stuart Pivar,
Guy Berthault,
Roberto Fondi,
Giuseppe Sermonti,
Edward Sisson,
Richard Sternberg,
Frank Tipler,
Brian Goodwin,
Peter Saunders,
Richard Milton,
Robert Wesson,
Francis Hitching,
Frank Ryan,
Gordon Rattray Taylor,
James Lovelock,
Lynn Margulis,
Rhawn Joseph,
Henry Fairfield Osborn,
Charles Otis Whitman,
Austin Hobart Clark,
Theodor Eimer,
Erwin Schrödinger,
Hans Dreisch,
John Scott Haldane,
James Le Fanu,
Johannes Reinke,
Guy Coburn Robson,
Rupert Sheldrake,
Robert Broom,
Thomas Hunt Morgan,
William Bateson,
Edward Drinker Cope,
Richard Owen,
George Henslow,
Carl Von Nageli,
Karl Von Baer,
Wilhelm Haacke,
William Lang,
Hans Prizibram,
Otto Schindewolf,
Daniel de Rosa,
Paul Davies,
Robert Lanza,
George Greenstein,
Mae-Wan Ho,
JohnJoe McFadden,
Bruce Lipton,
Ervin Lazlo,
Amit Goswami,
Hubert Yockey,
David Stove,
Jerry Fodor,
James N. Gardner,
Jean Staune,
Lee Spetner,
Antony Flew,
Bradley Monton

As you can see, it is perfectly normal to question natural selection and random mutation as the mechanisms of evolution, you do not have to be a creationist, religious etc. Don't just accept it at face value, explore the other theories of evolution.

This nonsense again?
Time to bring out Project Steve once more...

Project Steve | NCSE


EDIT: Damn! freethinker44 beat me to it.

 

[McBell]

Also, in as much as this was part of a college essay, I assume fact checking wasn't material to the worth of the paper.

To be fair, the grade received was never revealed....

 

[painted wolf]

This is a list of mostly non-religious scientists who have all spoken out against the Darwinian mechanisms of evolution - natural selection and random mutation and have questioned the role of it in evolution:

Every working biologist does this... random mutation and natural selection are not the only mechanisms in evolution.

but let's look at your list... how many are "non-religious scientists" I'll explain each and mark the ones that are the opposite in red.
The non-biologists in blue
Doesn't belong on the list

James A. Shapiro,

is not anti-darwinian... but for a new "modern synthesis" that accounts for modern genetic knowledge. He want's to update evolution.

Alfred Russel Wallace,

A very religious man... who was pro-natural selection... except for his three interventions

Lev Berg,

Was trying to pitch his own theory... Darwin was forbidden in the Soviet Union in favor of Lamarck, who Berg didn't agree with. His theory was a blend of Darwin and Lamarck. It was enough to keep him out of the gulag and reinvigorated Soviet biology.

Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger,

Mathematician

Michael Denton,

Religious proponent of ID

Michael Pitman,

Religious creationist

David Berlinski,

Religious creationist... not a scientist.

Periannan Senapathy,

Proposes his own theory.

Chandra Wickramasighe,

Astronomer, religious, panspermia proponent.

Murray Eden,

religious chemist.

Stanly Salthe,

would be very annoyed at being on this list... he has publicly denounced the "decent from Darwin" list he was tricked into signing.

[qutoe] Christian Schwabe, [/quote] The first really genuine example!

Gerald Kerkut,

Wrote a book sadly misunderstood by creationists.

Lime-De-Faria,

Proposes his own theory

Pierre Grasse,

Early 19th century Neo-Lamarckian. Pre-genetics.

Soren Lovtrop,

Proponent of saltationism.

Fred Hoyle,

Astronomer, proponent of Panspermia.

Stuart Pivar,

pseudoscientist

Guy Berthault,

YEC

Roberto Fondi,

Religious creationist

Giuseppe Sermonti,

Religious creationist

Edward Sisson,

Architect... religious creationist

Richard Sternberg,

religous... supporter of creationism and ID

Frank Tipler,

Cosmologist...religious ID supporter

Brian Goodwin,

doesn't belong on this list.

Peter Saunders,

Mathematician... works with biologists modeling eppigenetics and is misused by creationists.

Richard Milton,

Engineer/writer... on "alternative science"

Robert Wesson,

Political Scientist
[/quote]Francis Hitching,[/quote] doesn't belong on this list.

Bah... this list is too long... but you get the general idea of how flawed it is.

Frank Ryan,
Gordon Rattray Taylor,
James Lovelock,
Lynn Margulis,
Rhawn Joseph,
Henry Fairfield Osborn,
Charles Otis Whitman,
Austin Hobart Clark,
Theodor Eimer,
Erwin Schrödinger,
Hans Dreisch,
John Scott Haldane,
James Le Fanu,
Johannes Reinke,
Guy Coburn Robson,
Rupert Sheldrake,
Robert Broom,
Thomas Hunt Morgan,
William Bateson,
Edward Drinker Cope,
Richard Owen,
George Henslow,
Carl Von Nageli,
Karl Von Baer,
Wilhelm Haacke,
William Lang,
Hans Prizibram,
Otto Schindewolf,
Daniel de Rosa,
Paul Davies,
Robert Lanza,
George Greenstein,
Mae-Wan Ho,
JohnJoe McFadden,
Bruce Lipton,
Ervin Lazlo,
Amit Goswami,
Hubert Yockey,
David Stove,
Jerry Fodor,
James N. Gardner,
Jean Staune,
Lee Spetner,
Antony Flew,
Bradley Monton

As you can see, it is perfectly normal to question natural selection and random mutation as the mechanisms of evolution, you do not have to be a creationist, religious etc. Don't just accept it at face value, explore the other theories of evolution.

It is perfectly normal... but the list isn't a good example of that.

Again... natural selection and mutations are not the only mechanisms of evolution and anyone who says they are clearly doesn't understand evolution.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

awe man I took to long with my post! scooped! :sad4:

and here I was thinking... "who else would waste their time fact checking this thing".

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

and by the looks of your post your very simular to a previously banned member

And now currently

 

[Skwim]

To be fair, the grade received was never revealed....

Well, if I had posted such a sloppy list I wouldn't tell anyone it was a college essay unless I got a decent grade on it. But that's me.

 

[painted wolf]

I'd have gotten slapped by my professors.

...and I would have deserved it...

wa:do

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Indeed, I would content that our current understanding of evolution is limited; but that does not mean that it is completely incorrect.

I would however point out that evolution in humanity has not been very remarkable since the dawn of civilisation and that this is typically used as one of the arguments against evolution. This is valid but limited, because human reproductive behaviours are unnatural (we have things like love, marriage and so forth which pervert natural selection).

 

[fantome profane]

To be fair, the grade received was never revealed....

...nor the name of the institution he attended. I think this kind of material would get an A+ from Patriot University.

 

[McBell]

...nor the name of the institution he attended. I think this kind of material would get an A+ from Patriot University.

A most excellent point.