What does the fossil record say?

[ImmortalFlame]

Now you're resorting to lying.
Show me where I said that.

ME: "... people like you and newhope will never understand anything unless we force-feed it to you and make you sit up and take notice."
YOU: "Then why do you keep trying? It will NEVER work!"

Lying again.

"Believe what you like!
At least, I'm not dumb enough to be taken in by Darwinian evolution!
And that's a big plus!"

Now, are you going to apologize for accusing us of ignoring the petition, or am I going to have to reiterate those two pages again?

 

[Amill]

He doesn't trust peer reviewed journals. What's odd though is that he cited a peer reviewed journal to show why.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

YOU SHOUTED.
See what I mean?

Correct...this is a perfect example of shouting...but his was not because while it was a larger font and even a darker font...it was not in all caps. We have plenty of people at RF that use larger, bold and even a combination of the two along with coloring their font but it is in no way....shouting.

OK....now back to what the fossil record says....

 

[wilsoncole]

No.

What does that have to do with anything?

Take a look at the list of signers and tell me how many of them are actually scientists - OK?

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Here's what he isn't: A Biologist. Therefore he is no more qualified to speak on evolution than a plumber.

FAQ:
1) What is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement?

The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a short public statement by scientists expressing their skepticism of Neo-Darwinism&#8217;s key claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the primary mechanism for the development of the complexity of life. The full statement reads: "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." Prominent scientists who have signed the statement include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe; quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia; U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov; and geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, Editor Emeritus of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum and discoverer of genetic recombination in antibiotic-producing Penicillium and Streptomyces.
2) When and why was the statement created?

The statement was drafted and circulated by Discovery Institute in 2001 in response to widespread claims that no credible scientists existed who doubted Neo-Darwinism. Discovery Institute subsequently took out an ad in The New York Review of Books and elsewhere showcasing over 100 scientists who were willing to publicly express their scientific skepticism of Neo-Darwinism. Since 2001 the signatories of the statement have grown to over 700 scientists, both in the United States and around the world.
3) Who is eligible to sign the statement?

Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine. Signers must also agree with the following statement: "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." If you meet these criteria, please consider signing the statement by emailing [email protected].

If you are a medical doctor who is skeptical of Darwinian evolution, please visit Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity at www.doctorsdoubtingdarwin.com and join their statement by doctors who dissent from Darwinism.

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/faq.php

 

[wilsoncole]

Here's what he isn't: A Biologist. Therefore he is no more qualified to speak on evolution than a plumber.

4) Why is it necessary to have such a statement?
In recent years there has been a concerted effort on the part of some supporters of modern Darwinian theory to deny the existence of scientific critics of Neo-Darwinism and to discourage open discussion of the scientific evidence for and against Neo-Darwinism. The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement exists to correct the public record by showing that there are scientists who support an open examination of the evidence relating to modern Darwinian theory and who question whether Neo-Darwinism can satisfactorily explain the complexity and diversity of the natural world.
5) By signing the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, are signers endorsing alternative theories such as self-organization, structuralism, or intelligent design?
No. By signing the statement, scientists are simply agreeing with the statement as written. Signing the statement does not indicate agreement or disagreement with any other scientific theory. It does indicate skepticism about modern Darwinian theory&#8217;s central claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life. Signing the statement also indicates support for the careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory.
6) Is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism a political statement?
No. It is a professional statement by scientists about their assessment of the scientific evidence relating to Neo-Darwinism and an affirmation of the need for careful examination of the evidence for modern Darwinian theory.
7) Are there credible scientists who doubt Neo-Darwinism?
Yes. Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines from such institutions as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Dartmouth, Rutgers, University of Chicago, Stanford and University of California at Berkeley. Many are also professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as Cambridge, Princeton, MIT, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania, University of Georgia, Tulane, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, and Ben-Gurion University in Israel.
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/faq.php

(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Correct...this is a perfect example of shouting...but his was not because while it was a larger font and even a darker font...it was not in all caps. We have plenty of people at RF that use larger, bold and even a combination of the two along with coloring their font but it is in no way....shouting.

OK....now back to what the fossil record says....

You shouted!
See what I mean?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Take a look at the list of signers and tell me how many of them are actually scientists - OK?

Right....but Who cares if they're ("All") scientist...?

It would be like a plumber critiquing the work of an electrician.

The list you displayed, that's been around for years, has very few actual scientist who work in the field of biology on it. Once you break down the list and sift out those who work in that field you're only left with a couple of names.

But in retrospect it really means little because even if all of them were biologist it would hardly be enough to get ones panties in a bunch over their dissent. For every "scientist" on that list (should they all be classified as "Biologist") who disagree with evolution there's 30+ thousand that accepts the fact of evolution. So the ratio would be something like 35,000 to 1.

It's hardly a numbers game worth playing with you. Additionally considering the default statement at the top of that declaration page I would hope all scientist from every field question their findings. In fact..this is exactly how science works.....even if the findings lead to the Theory, there's nothing wrong with falsifying the theory...but know that when the theory is falsified it may not mean that theory is "dead" rather the theory itself evolves and is encompassed by the new findings. This is part of the (Scientific Method)....and this is how all of science works.

 

[camanintx]

Chris Williams, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University

"Clearly the origin of life -- the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact."

And yet he doesn't question evolution itself.

While many people, scientists included, will admit that there is little known about the origin of life (called abiogenesis), it is by no means the foundation of evolution. The Theory of Evolution stands on it's own perfectly well whether the first living organism came to be by chance or design.

BTW - it is only considered shouting if you use ALL CAPS.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You shouted!
See what I mean?

That's not shouting......THIS IS SHOUTING..!!!!!

See what I mean?

See the definition for (Internet Shouting)
SHOUTING - NetLingo The Internet Dictionary: Online Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms, Acronyms, Text Messaging, Smileys ;-)

See, this is what I mean by ("you don't know that you don't know")... You're arguing about something off topic and you're totally wrong on it but you want to fight tooth and nail to the very end in order to get the last word....even though you've been shown to be incorrect.

So now that you have been shown to be incorrect as to what constitutes as "shouting"...let's get back to the thread topic and debate because there is no debate concerning the definition of shouting....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And yet he doesn't question evolution itself.

While many people, scientists included, will admit that there is little known about the origin of life (called abiogenesis), it is by no means the foundation of evolution. The Theory of Evolution stands on it's own perfectly well whether the first living organism came to be by chance or design.

BTW - it is only considered shouting if you use ALL CAPS.

It's pretty much another quote mind. I searched through Google that scientist and came up with the site wilson linked as well as another that had the exact same statement....but nothing else was found. Maybe wilson can produce the actual web link for that professor...but I won't hold my breath.

 

[Amill]

The full statement reads: "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."

The statement was drafted and circulated by Discovery Institute in 2001 in response to widespread claims that no credible scientists existed who doubted Neo-Darwinism.

The problem is that the statement is not an admittance to doubting the theory of evolution. Many take it to mean that they are skeptical that those 2 mechanics are the only mechanics that played a part in the diversity of life. And of course the evidence should be critically examined. Scientists do that every day. Skepticism also does not equal doubt. Skepticism is something that is valued within science, many would say they are skeptical of all claims.

It was a dishonest attempt to make the point that there are credible scientists doubting evolution. They wanted to make sure they got signatures so they wussied out of being direct about it and created a statement that even someone who believed evolution to be a fact could agree with.

 

[wilsoncole]

Right....but Who cares if they're ("All") scientist...?

Apparently YOU do! Since any dissenter of evolution is not a biologist, seems like only those are the ones who count.

It would be like a plumber critiquing the work of an electrician.

No big deal! That has been done. I, for one, am proficient at both, including HVAC and welding technology, besides my other business.
The list you displayed, that's been around for years,[/quote]
Yeah - MILLIONS of years! "The statement was drafted and circulated by Discovery Institute in 2001...."

has very few actual scientist who work in the field of biology on it. Once you break down the list and sift out those who work in that field you're only left with a couple of names.

I asked ElDante - I have not seen his response, now I'm asking you:
Are you telling me that only biologists are able to understand and adequately explain evolution?

But in retrospect it really means little because even if all of them were biologist it would hardly be enough to get ones panties in a bunch over their dissent. For every "scientist" on that list (should they all be classified as "Biologist") who disagree with evolution there's 30+ thousand that accepts the fact of evolution. So the ratio would be something like 35,000 to 1.

Except for one thing:
Just 1 (one) biologist is enough to put the lie to your (pl) efforts at convincing the gullible public that there are NO qualified scientific dissenters to evolution.
"There really is no debate," you (pl) keep bleating. Poor thing!
Well - there is - a debate that you (pl) try so diligently to squash, by insulting, name-calling, browbeating, insisting, denigrating, villifying, slandering, dismissing, lying, word-twisting, trick-questioning, falsely assigning motives and, yes - even shouting! Anything to promote the BIG lie - evolution. It is your (pl) religion and you (pl) are proselytizing.

It's hardly a numbers game worth playing with you.

You forget:
I already told you that I will not play that game with you because you play with loaded dice. NOW you realize that I was right.

Additionally considering the default statement at the top of that declaration page I would hope all scientist from every field question their findings. In fact..this is exactly how science works.....even if the findings lead to the Theory, there's nothing wrong with falsifying the theory...but know that when the theory is falsified it may not mean that theory is "dead" rather the theory itself evolves and is encompassed by the new findings. This is part of the (Scientific Method)....and this is how all of science works.

That is all bulloney! You are simply seeking a face-saving way out, and I know it. Now you know that I know it.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

It's pretty much another quote mind (sic). I searched through Google that scientist and came up with the site wilson linked as well as another that had the exact same statement....but nothing else was found. Maybe wilson can produce the actual web link for that professor...but I won't hold my breath.

Robert Crowther is the man who published it and you can contact him here:
[email protected]
Since you are so diligent for detail and truth, ask him where he got it.
(Somehow, I don't think you will.)


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[tumbleweed41]

Just 1 (one) biologist is enough to put the lie to your (pl) efforts at convincing the gullible public that there are NO qualified scientific dissenters to evolution.

Just one?
What happened to your "plethora"?

If I can find one Physicist who thinks ghosts leave ectoplasm trails, can I use that to prove it?

Get a grip.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Chris Williams, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University

"As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic ...

Fail...
Chris Williams, Ph.D., is Chemist in Ohio States Department of Chemistry.
His work and papers are not on Biochemistry, but rather Atmospheric Chemistry.
Particularly water clusters and electronic structure methods.
Here are links to his only two publications. One of which has been accepted through peer review. Both deal with water chemistry and the atmosphere. (PDF files)
http://www.chemistry.ohio-state.edu/~herbert/members/jcpaccepted.pdf
http://www.chemistry.ohio-state.edu/~herbert/members/cpl_431_261.pdf

Now I wonder why Mr. Crowther would misrepresent Chris Williams as a Biochemist?
Or why Wilson would take it even further and describe him as a Biologist?
Of course it doesn't help that Mr. Williams seems to have exaggerated his credentials himself, if the statement posted is actually from him.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Take a look at the list of signers and tell me how many of them are actually scientists - OK?

There doesn't seem to actually be a petition on the page you linked me to - just a donation page.

Again, I ask, what is your point? What do petitions by the CFI have to do with anything?

 

[newhope101]

The problem is that the statement is not an admittance to doubting the theory of evolution. Many take it to mean that they are skeptical that those 2 mechanics are the only mechanics that played a part in the diversity of life. And of course the evidence should be critically examined. Scientists do that every day. Skepticism also does not equal doubt. Skepticism is something that is valued within science, many would say they are skeptical of all claims.

It was a dishonest attempt to make the point that there are credible scientists doubting evolution. They wanted to make sure they got signatures so they wussied out of being direct about it and created a statement that even someone who believed evolution to be a fact could agree with.

I think you are purposely misrepresenting people to bolster your stance. No one ever claimed any decending scientists are doubting evolution, they are doubting the current identified mechanisms as not being sufficient to explain the diversity of life. Creationists agree, the difference being these researchers are looking for more or different mechanisms, creationists say there are no mechanisms and that adaptation is limited within kind.

That is the beauty of it. These are very well credentialed scientists that have a problem with the status quo. I suppose they are expecting much more to be involved that just random mutations and natural selection. They have already been proven correct anyway as there are many environmental and social factors that affect traits and genes not to mention horizontal gene transfer in proKaryotes.

You all can jump up and down as much as you wish. You can hate these researchers for signing anything, you can belittle them and have your personal attacks. You can not accept the data, you can put your own spin on what they are saying, you can disagree with them, you can have a meltdown.

What you cannot do is erase the list of researchers that say they have a problem with the status quo. The other thing you cannot do is claim they are all uncredentialed in the evolutionary sciences and related fields.

What amazes me most about so called educated evolutionists is that many either see none of the controversy showing an incredible lack of education or feel too threatened to even go there or acknowledge any of it........

 

[camanintx]

Now I wonder why Mr. Crowther would misrepresent Chris Williams as a Biochemist?
Or why Wilson would take it even further and describe him as a Biologist?
Of course it doesn't help that Mr. Williams seems to have exaggerated his credentials himself, if the statement posted is actually from him.

Either way, Mr. Williams never expressed any doubt in Evolution. He is merely questioning what may have started life in the first place. Even Darwin himself admitted that one could be an ardent theist and believe in Evolution.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think you are purposely misrepresenting people to bolster your stance. No one ever claimed any decending scientists are doubting evolution, they are doubting the current identified mechanisms as not being sufficient to explain the diversity of life. Creationists agree, the difference being these researchers are looking for more or different mechanisms, creationists say there are no mechanisms and that adaptation is limited within kind.

That is the beauty of it. These are very well credentialed scientists that have a problem with the status quo. I suppose they are expecting much more to be involved that just random mutations and natural selection. They have already been proven correct anyway as there are many environmental and social factors that affect traits and genes not to mention horizontal gene transfer in proKaryotes.

You all can jump up and down as much as you wish. You can hate these researchers for signing anything, you can belittle them and have your personal attacks. You can not accept the data, you can put your own spin on what they are saying, you can disagree with them, you can have a meltdown.

What you cannot do is erase the list of researchers that say they have a problem with the status quo. The other thing you cannot do is claim they are all uncredentialed in the evolutionary sciences and related fields.

What amazes me most about so called educated evolutionists is that many either see none of the controversy showing an incredible lack of education or feel too threatened to even go there or acknowledge any of it........

Except for the fact that upon researching the list, very few of the scientists are actually credentialed. On top of that, most of the ones that are credentialed do not doubt evolution, mutations or natural selection as the explanation for the complexity of life. Most of the scientists who signed the petition have no issue whatsoever with evolution theory, and many have also repeatedly asked to be removed from the list because it is being used to misrepresent their point of view. At$ no point does the petition state that anyone who has signed it has any "problem" with evolution theory, nor the "current status quo" as you call it.

Also, honestly, stop calling it that. It's mind-numbingly stupid. Is gravity just "the current status quo" as well? Should we give ear to people who doubt the theory of gravity on the basis that they are "brave enough" to "challenge the status quo"?