What does the fossil record say?

[Dirty Penguin]

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

If he or she is not doing work in the relevant fields then their ability to critique that area of science must be scrutinized.

No big deal! That has been done. I, for one, am proficient at both, including HVAC and welding technology, besides my other business.

So what..? Not only am I "proficient" in plumbing but I'm also "proficient" in electrical as well. Being (Mr. Harry the Home Owner)....I'm "proficient" at HVAC as well...But I'm a "Certified Network Engineer". I'm extremely knowledgeable of Microsoft, Linux and Apple networks.....While I'm "proficient" in the area (plumbing, electrical and HVAC) I'm hardly qualified to be hired to perform work on some ones (Plumbing, Electrical or HVAC).....But I have no problems getting contracts to work on home or office networks. Just because you're proficient in one area hardly qualifies you to do work in a field you have no business being in.

Again...It would be like letting a Brain surgeon do open heart surgery...Just because he or she went to MED School, is a doctor, and understands human anatomy does not give that doctor the right to perform such a procedure.

Yeah - MILLIONS of years! "The statement was drafted and circulated by Discovery Institute in 2001...."

Are you telling me that only biologists are able to understand and adequately explain evolution?

I stated it correctly. That tripe has been around for years and shown to be a dishonest creation piece of work. Look, you keep asking this silly, silly question....Would you let a podiatrist perform dentistry? Would you let a urologist perform an appendectomy? These fields of medicine, like other areas of science, are specialized. This is why we don't allow statisticians or mathematicians to perform biological research unless they are "qualified" to do so. This is why at least 98% of that list fails.

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.

I have more than one that says otherwise. This appeal to numbers on your part is ludicrous.

"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.

I can admit that I may have had a post or two where I may have shouted. I may have even dismissed most of the nonsense you and newhope have been peddling but I assure you the rest of the items you list I've done no such thing. I know for a fact a few of these are against forum rules so I try my hardest to be mindful of that. I suspect you're generalizing but expect nothing less from you. Again, for the record, shouting is not larger or bold font...it is specifically when one uses all caps.

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.

There's no numbers game to be played is what I'm telling you. So you're hardly "right" because it's you who contend that the list of "scientist" must be taken seriously...even though most of them don't do any work in the area of biology. You were wrong and you have been shown over and over how wrong you are..It's an epic fail on your part....but you still want to claim it as some sort of victory which makes you delusional.

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

(Originally Posted By Me) 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.

What I said is absolutely true. Falsify the statement or deal with it. If you can't do either then that's on you....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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

Thanks. I e-mailed Rob and patiently waiting his response....

 

[tumbleweed41]

I think you are purposely misrepresenting people to bolster your stance.

Perhaps you meant to address this to Wilson

 

[Autodidact]

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’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.

FAQ - Dissent from Darwin

Yes, I know all that. So you now know that:
Signing the statement doesn't mean you disagree with ToE. Many scientists who accept ToE agree that it's good to be skeptical. Skepticism = science.
As you can see, most of the signers are not Biologists, and many of them are not scientists. They are computer engineers or mathematicians. Which is of course, completely different from being a scientist, let alone a Biologist.

 

[Autodidact]

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

That's right. Do you see why?

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?

Not exactly. But certainly, Biologists by definition do understand it, while others may or may not.

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.

Really? Why? There's always a nut-job or two in any field.

So are you withdrawing your claim that many Biologists disagree with ToE? Still can't produce ten?

"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.

there is no debate within Biology, which is of course the only place that matters.

The only debate is between those who accept science and those who reject it. Which group are you in?

 

[Autodidact]

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

Robert Crowther holds a BA in Journalism with an emphasis in public affairs and twenty years experience as a journalist, publisher, and brand marketing and media relations specialist. [discovery Institute]

 

[outhouse]

Robert Crowther holds a BA in Journalism with an emphasis in public affairs and twenty years experience as a journalist, publisher, and brand marketing and media relations specialist. [discovery Institute]

exactly he doesnt know squat about evolution

and less about your creation myth. wilsoncole ,,,,,,,,,,, YOU pull your foul mythical material from a website that preaches the world is 6000 years old

are you not ashamed of yourself?????????????

 

[wilsoncole]

Just one?
What happened to your "plethora"?

You must have been talking to someone else. I have not used that word on this forum - yet. Or are you just cranking out another lie?

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

This is incredible! Please - read this again and see if you can get the sense of it - OK?

Originally Posted by wilsoncole
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.

If you cannot get the sense of what I'm saying here, I will just have to point it out to you. I don't mind taking the time.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Robert Crowther holds a BA in Journalism with an emphasis in public affairs and twenty years experience as a journalist, publisher, and brand marketing and media relations specialist. [discovery Institute]

I know all that. So what?
I never quoted HIM!
You seem to be operating automatically or according to the programming.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

Can you quote an example of anyone here saying that?

 

[tumbleweed41]

You must have been talking to someone else. I have not used that word on this forum - yet. Or are you just cranking out another lie?

My apologies, I seem to have confused your rants with Newhopes.
Newhope claims a plethora, you just need one....

This is incredible! Please - read this again and see if you can get the sense of it - OK?

If you cannot get the sense of what I'm saying here, I will just have to point it out to you. I don't mind taking the time.

Then clarify. You claimed that having just one biologist refuting evolutionary biology casts doubt on the entire biological fact.

Or did I misread you?

 

[wilsoncole]

Fail...

Now I wonder why Mr. Crowther would misrepresent Chris Williams as a Biochemist?

Mr Crowther did not write that list.
Williams' name is on the list as Biochemist. Page 14.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Or why Wilson would take it even further and describe him as a Biologist?

Show me where I did that!

Chris Williams’s Education

• The Ohio State University
  
  Ph.D. , Biochemistry
  Phi Beta Kappa
  National Merit Scholar
  National Science Foundation Fellow
  Summa cum laude graduate
  
• Chris Williams, Ph.D.
  
• Phone: 216-365-8104
  
• Chris Williams - LinkedIn
  

Chris Williams, Ph.D.Dr. Williams received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the Ohio State University in 1992. Although his research and dissertation were focused on mathematical methods to enhance Fourier Transform Mass Spectrometry, most of the past decade he worked in the area of human genetic and metabolic screening for the world's leading life sciences company in the area of newborn screening. Williams developed and implemented software used in dozens of laboratories worldwide to acquire and analyze mass spectral data in order to identify babies with treatable genetic disorders.

For more than twenty years, though, Dr. Williams has been concerned about human genetic damage caused by radiocarbon, and its implications for cancer, birth defects, and aging. This led to his decision in 2005 to patent targeted methods to reduce this damage, and to then devote full time to developing these methods starting in early 2007.
Radiocarb Genetics: Founder and President

Of course it doesn't help that Mr. Williams seems to have exaggerated his credentials himself, if the statement posted is actually from him.[/quote]

Nasty, man. Very nasty.

You should find this interesting reading.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=619

Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?: Why Much​

of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong (2000).

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

My apologies, I seem to have confused your rants with Newhopes.
Newhope claims a plethora, you just need one....




Then clarify. You claimed that having just one biologist refuting evolutionary biology casts doubt on the entire biological fact.

Or did I misread you?

You sure did and I did not!
I said we only need one biologist to give the lie to the position you take that no biologist doubts Darwin.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Of course it doesn't help that Mr. Williams seems to have exaggerated his credentials himself, if the statement posted is actually from him.

Nasty, man. Very nasty.

You should find this interesting reading.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=619

Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?: Why Much​

of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong (2000).

This is another epic fail.....

Selman v. Cobb County: The Textbook Disclaimer Case | NCSE

• In November 2004, Jeffrey Selman and 3 other parents brought suit against the school district on constitutional grounds.
• In January 2005, Federal District Court Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that the disclaimers are unconstitutional.
• In April, Cobb County School District filed an Appeals brief with 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
• In June 2005, Selman et al. filed a brief with 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
• In June 2005, NCSE submitted an amicus brief along with 7 others urging the Appeals Court to uphold the District Court ruling.
• In December 2005, a 3-judge panel heard oral argument in the appeal
• In May 2006, the Appeals Court remanded the case to the district court for clarification of the evidentiary record.
• On December 19, 2006, the lawsuit reached a settlement; the Cobb County School District agreed not to disclaim or denigrate evolution either orally or in written form.

No one cares about court cases that have been dismissed. This isn't the first of its type nor will it be the last. They all should be thoroughly dismissed as this one and others have. Funny how Behe keeps popping up on a lot of these though.

See, in (ALL) areas of science you're going to have one or more that don't share the same idea but that, once again, is where the (Scientific Method) comes into play. It's one thing to sign petitions and openly disagree with current theories. Who, but people like you, feel as though that is important? No one really, really cares unless those scientist working in the relevant field of science can falsify the current evidence.

To date the ToE has not been deemed false. You and newhope can disagree with the nuances of particular biological research but none of what either you have presented throughout the many threads going on disputes the ToE.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You should find this interesting reading.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=619

Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?: Why Much​

of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong (2000).

That idiot?

He isn't a scientist either.

 

[tumbleweed41]

You sure did and I did not!
I said we only need one biologist to give the lie to the position you take that no biologist doubts Darwin.

Speaking of lies.

When did I, or anyone else for that matter, claim the position that there are no biologists who doubt Darwin?

 

[ninerbuff]

This wilson is about as smart as the one on "Castaway".

 

[wilsoncole]

This is another epic fail…
To date the ToE has not been deemed false.

Oh - but it is and has!

You and newhope can disagree with the nuances of particular biological research but none of what either you have presented throughout the many threads going on disputes the ToE.

Oh! But it does!
Talk about missing the point!
You are so desperate for some kind of victory in this discussion that you have to drag up court cases where you think you are vindicated. Don’t tell me about court case victories. I don’t care about the efforts of so-called creationists. It is a waste of time. (See Reply # 100) That should keep you from doing it again.

I just read of this case, but everything brought up in this brief is what I have been emphasizing on this thread. I find that remarkable!

Well, let’s see:
I said this should be interesting reading! There is a great deal of controversy involved. You should have just read it and let it go at that. Now you have to read it in public and others will see that the claim of "No debate on evolution exists among scientists" is a big lie.
&#12288;
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Are there legitimate scientific issues as to whether life arose and developed by means of chemical and biological evolution?
2. May the legitimate scientific issues concerning chemical and biological evolution be discussed in the public school classroom without endorsing a religion?
Each of the individual signatories to the brief has earned a science-related doctoral degree. Amici include university professors, research scientists and scientists in private industry. All amici question biological or neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory (the modern Darwinian theory of evolution) from a scientific perspective, as well as evolutionary accounts of the chemical origin of the first life on Earth. That is to say, amici are scientists who are skeptical of the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the origin and complexity of life.
Amici are professional scientists who seek to inform the Court that there is a live and growing scientific controversy surrounding neo-Darwinian theory. This controversy, which is implicated in this case, is the subject of serious academic debate. Amici also seek to highlight the scientific controversy over whether chemical evolutionary theory can adequately explain the origin of the first life on Earth. Finally, Amici assert that the science education necessary to equip students for the 21st Century should not censor relevant scientific information about important scientific controversies (such as neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories), but should fully inform students about such scientific debates.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Amici scientists wish to bring to the Court’s attention the current debate within scientific disciplines over whether chemical and biological (i.e., neo- Darwinian) evolution can adequate-
ly account for the origin of life and the development of life into its current forms. This debate is scientific and not religious in nature.
In order for public school students to receive an adequate scientific education, they should be acquainted with the debate over chemical and neo- Darwinian evolution. This debate can be discussed without practicing religion or even referring to religion. Amici contend that the sticker placed by the Cobb County School Board sticker in certain science textbooks, to the extent it encourages students to think critically and grapple with the scientific debate, is not unconstitutional. Importantly, the sticker does not even endorse or mention religion.

ARGUMENT AND CITATIONS OF AUTHORITY
Scientific discoveries of the last few decades have led to greater skepticism over the ability of the mechanisms of biological or neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory to account for the complexity of life we see today. Amici represent a sampling of the growing number of scientists who are skeptical of neo-Darwinism’s claim that the undirected mechanisms of natural selection and random genetic variations can account for the complexity of life. Amici also represent a number of scientists who are skeptical of chemical evolutionary theory’s ability to account for the origin of life.
As the district court recognized, that there are scientists who continue to raise scientific challenges to neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories.1 Amici are doctoral scientists who are skeptical of neo-Darwinian theory and chemical evolutionary theory on scientific grounds. Neo-Darwinian theory is being re-examined by scientists in light of new scientific discoveries. Scientific discoveries of the past few years and the increasing body of scientific knowledge 1(R4-98-33) (“there are some scientists who have questions regarding certain aspects of evolutionary theory”) available today makes the claims of neo-Darwinian theory far less tenable than in the early part of the 20th Century. One biochemist has gone so far as to describe neo-Darwinian theory as “a theory in crisis.” An increasing number of scientific publications directly challenge neo-Darwin-
ian theory, or key aspects of it.3 Recent discoveries have also led to greater challenges for traditional chemical evolutionary scenarios for the origin of the first life from non-life.
Neo-Darwinian theory presently remains the dominant theory of origins in the scientific community, but serious debate now exists about its sufficiency.

More.....................

 

[wilsoncole]

This is another epic fail&#8230;
To date the ToE has not been deemed false.

Continuing&#8230;&#8230;.
Neo-Darwinian theory presently remains the dominant theory of origins in the scientific community, but serious debate now exists about its sufficiency.
In addition to amici and other scientists who are skeptical of neo-Darwinian theory, there are many scientists who still accept the theory but acknowledge some of its difficulties. Many such scientists have pointed to scientific problems surrounding aspects of neo-Darwinian theory.4
There are two main parts of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory: universal common descent and the power of natural selection. Scientific publications highlight neo-Darwinian theory&#8217;s problems related to pattern; i.e. the large-scale geometry of biological history.5 Questions remain as to how organisms are related to one another and how we can detect such relationships. An increasing number of scientists have raised questions about whether there is sufficient evidence for universal common descent.

Other scientific publications underscore Darwinian theory&#8217;s difficulties concerning process; i.e., the mechanisms of evolution.6 Questions persist as to whether microevolutionary processes can be extrapolated to prove macroevolutionary change. Still other scientific publications call into question the ability of neo-Darwinian mechanisms to generate novel genetic information, novel
organs, structures and body plans.

In addition, many scientific publications have questioned whether chemical evolutionary theory can explain the origin of the first life from non-living chemicals (the &#8220;origin-of-life&#8221; problem).7
Amici emphasize that standard high school and college biology textbooks routinely ignore scientific data challenging neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories, as well as scientific data that merely point to widely acknowledged scientific problems confronting those theories.
Furthermore, many textbooks contain alleged evidences for neo-Darwinian theory that have long been discredited by scientists, including neo-Darwinists.8

Amici assert that school boards should be able to take reasonable steps to ensure that students are fully-informed about the scientific controversy surrounding Darwin&#8217;s theory and that their curriculum is free from factual errors, including those that overstate the case for neo-Darwinian theory and chemical evolutionary theory.
(Why do you want to keep kids ignorant of the controversies and negatives of Darwinism?)
In some instances, it is likely that metaphysical preferences and presuppositions of some scientists have prevented students from learning about scientific challenges to neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories or prevented the correction of textbook errors that overstate the case for neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories.

The lack of public science classroom coverage given to the growing scientific controversy surrounding neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory and frequent inclusion of erroneous information about the subject in textbooks (without any corrective counter-balances) present a dilemma for many school board members, administrators and educators who wish to teach neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories&#8212;but also wish to do so in the fairest and most accurate manner possible.&#8221;
&#12288;
&#12288;
(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

&#12288;
Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Speaking of lies.

When did I, or anyone else for that matter, claim the position that there are no biologists who doubt Darwin?

Ask the man in the outhouse.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson