What does the fossil record say?

[newhope101]

You just lied! You reject information or anything else coming from Biologist Behe! He has presented his findings. That, alone, gives the lie to your claim.
You? Who do you think you are? Why should anyone bring their findings to you? Can you really be unbiased? I don’t think so! You bias cuts through everything you write.

You may not have noticed, but they are human beings, ALL biologists, not numbers.
You insist that only biologists, those working in the field, can adequately explain evolution. I present you a long list of biologists who do not agree with it, whose findings refute it adequately, and you reject even them. Talk about hard-headed!

Are you blind or something? Who’s talking to you? Did you not see the (pl) every time the words “you” or “yours” is used? What did you think that meant? I had the feeling that you would take it that way and that is why I added the (pl).

You? Who do you think you are? You cannot dictate policy for anyone!
At this point, I must repeat this:
http://www.weloennig.de/literatur1a.html
Take a look at his peer-reviewed work. This man is eminently qualified, being an expert geneticist, yet, because he does not say what you want to hear, you dismiss him, too. How is Loennig disqualified?
Gonzalez was qualified also and dismissed for his beliefs.

Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Case of Iowa State University Professor​

Guillermo Gonzalez

​

​

Ph.D.

Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.

Introduction
In the spring of 2007 Iowa State University (ISU) President Gregory Geoffroy denied Dr.
Guillermo Gonzalez’s application for tenure, which means he was terminated. In contrast to
Gonzalez’s supporters, the president of Iowa State claimed that Gonzalez was not denied tenure
due to his research into the view that the earth holds a very special place in the universe, a
hypothesis called the Privileged Planet theory. A review of the e-mails from Gonzalez’s​

department colleagues, though, clearly proves otherwise.
http://www.rae.org/
I know Loennig did, for sure. Have you seen it? Here it is again:
​

​

http://www.weloennig.de/NaturalSelection.html
http://www.weloennig.de/DynamicGenomes.html
http://www.weloennig.de/Giraffe.pdf
http://www.weloennig.de/Dollo-1a.pdf
http://www.weloennig.de/Questions.html
http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf​

It IS an appeal to numbers!​

I repeat - YOU came up with these numbers:​

I presented Dissent From Darwinism. YOU came up with the numbers as stated above.​

ANYTHING stated by you is a FACT! Right? ​

Not!

b

NOT!N
(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson​

Here is more evidence of credentialed scientists that are skeptical of TOE. The applicable research is cited in Wiki at the end of the article.

Magnitude of the divide ​

The webmasters of the site titled Revolution Against Evolution maintain a list of "science academics, scientists, and scholars who are skeptical of Darwinism." As of May 29, 2008, that list had three thousand names on it.[13] Those names include many on hundreds of university faculties in America and throughout the world. Bergman[13] further quotes Gross and Simmons (2006) as estimating that 113,000 scientists currently exist in America alone who are skeptical of Darwinian claims.
Dissent from evolution - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science​

Wilsoncole..there is no point arguing with fools that cannot accept reality even when it smacks them in the face. You have proven the point that many scientists do not accept the status quo in relation to TOE. Skeptisism is not exclusively the domain of the uneducated nor creationists alone.​

Point proven Wilsoncole...despite the plethora of foolish and desperate replies. Well done!​

​

 

[wilsoncole]

Well, since we are discussing evolutionary biology and the fossil record, let's remove those in fields unrelated to the discussion.


Russell W. Carlson, Ph.D. Biochemistry (University of Colorado, Boulder), Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Technical Director of the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center, University of Georgia

• Timothy Hoover, Ph.D. Biochemistry (University of Wisconsin), Associate Professor and Associate Head of Microbiology, University of Georgia
• Joseph M. Lary, Ph.D. Biology (University of Alabama); Associate Professor, School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology
• A. Bruce Webster, Ph.D., Department of Animal and Poultry Science (University of Guelph, Canada);
• Mark G. White, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering (Rice University), Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology;

There, that's better.

Nope! Not better at all! What have you got against Georgia?


Index DAWKINS SAYS NO REPUTABLE SCIENTIST DISPUTES EVOLUTION
Since you have no reason to dismiss them as "reputable scientists," back they go!
Now - that's as it should be.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Here's an idea: how about either of you two cite a source with some actual credibility?

 

[Autodidact]

Oh - but it is and has!

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.....................

You know they lost, right? That means everything you quoted above is wrong.

 

[Autodidact]

I know where I got it from:
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.
(FAQ: Dissent From Darwinism)

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

Do you understand the difference between doubt and skepticism?

There is virtually no controversy within Biology about the Theory of Evolution. There is more controversy within physics about the Theory of Relativity than there is about ToE w/in Biology.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You just lied! You reject information or anything else coming from Biologist Behe! He has presented his findings.

And a big area he and Loennig contend as fact is (Irreducible Complexity). They both go as far as to cite the Bacterial Flagellum. Basically stating that it's so complex that if you remove a part it ceases to function so basically it's so complex it must have been designed. This has been refuted and shown to be incorrect. They both continue to assert this falsehood.

Are you blind or something? Who&#8217;s talking to you? Did you not see the (pl) every time the words &#8220;you&#8221; or &#8220;yours&#8221; is used? What did you think that meant? I had the feeling that you would take it that way and that is why I added the (pl).

I may be unfamiliar as to what (pl) means. My apologies. I thought that when you replied to my post you were addressing me solely.

You? Who do you think you are? You cannot dictate policy for anyone!
At this point, I must repeat this:
http://www.weloennig.de/literatur1a.html
Take a look at his peer-reviewed work. This man is eminently qualified, being an expert geneticist, yet, because he does not say what you want to hear, you dismiss him, too. How is Loennig disqualified?

There's a lot that he presented I take issue with but off the back is (Irreducible Complexity)

I know Loennig did, for sure. Have you seen it? Here it is again:
http://www.weloennig.de/NaturalSelection.html

DOES NATURAL SELECTION EXIST AT ALL?
The remarks made so far, however, do not refute the occurrence of natural selection. In spite of the problems just mentioned, it is self-evident that physiologically, anatomically, and ethologically damaged mutants and recombinants (to speak again in the contemporary genetic language of these individuals) will be at a disadvantage in many situations (lame prey in relation to their predators and vice versa). It is only on islands with loss or diminution of stabilizing selection that processes of degeneration may occur quickly (for further discussion of the topic, see Lönnig, 1993, 1998; Kunze et al., 1997). Furthermore, survival of the fittest evidently takes place, for example, in cases of alleles and plasmids with strongly selective advantages, as in the cases of multiple resistance in bacteria and resistance to DDT in many insect species. After pointing out that Darwin knew hardly any cases of natural selection, Mayr asserts (1998, p. 191): "Now, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of well-established proofs, including such well-known instances as insecticide resistance of agricultural pests, antibiotic resistance of bacteria, industrial melanism, the attenuation of the myxomatosis virus in Australia, the sickle-cell gene and other blood genes and malaria, to mention only a few spectacular cases."

:sad:

 

[newhope101]

What is the problem with you lot?

Do you all truly believe that no credentialed scientist in the whole world is skeptical about TOE as an explantion for life? Is this the best level of refute you can provide, idiocy?.

You are all kidding yourselves.

I think you all feel incredibly threatened by this notion. Wilconsole has more than made this point. You lot are going to demand more and more and more info on an neverending basis.


What do you want? Do you expect Wilsoncole to go get these researchers to the forum to talk with you. How up yourselves can anyone be? That would not even satisfy you. Many of you are pathetic and incredible excuses for defenders of TOE to the point where you cannot even envisage controversy or dissent, nor discuss it openly and honestly. So many here are true fanatics, blinded by your own insular ideas and unable to comprehend reality. Congratulations... many here are not even fit to walk in a scientists shadow.! True science heads can discuss this stuff openly. All you lot are capable of is denial.

Stay in denial then!. It is a very comfortable world, regardless of having no basis in reality or science.

 

[Autodidact]

What is the problem with you lot?

Do you all truly believe that no credentialed scientist in the whole world is skeptical about TOE as an explantion for life? Is this the best level of refute you can provide, idiocy?.

I believe that very few Biologists dispute that ToE is the correct explanation for the diversity of species in the world.

Prove me wrong. Name 100 working Biologists who assert that ToE is incorrect--out of the thousands of Biologists in the world today.

What do you want? Do you expect Wilsoncole to go get these researchers to the forum to talk with you. How up yourselves can anyone be? That would not even satisfy you. Many of you are pathetic and incredible excuses for defenders of TOE to the point where you cannot even envisage controversy or decent, nor discuss it openly and honestly. So many here are true fanatics, blinded by your own insular ideas and unable to comprehend reality. Congratulations... many here are not even fit to walk in a scientists shadow.! True science heads can discuss this stuff openly. All you lot are capable of is denial.

I expect him to name 100 working Biologists who deny that ToE is correct.

I can name thousands just named Steve who accept it..

 

[Gunfingers]

Do you all truly believe that no credentialed scientist in the whole world is skeptical about TOE as an explantion for life? Is this the best level of refute you can provide, idiocy?.

It's not that no scientists doubt evolutionary theory, it's just that they are so few, so obviously biased, and so lacking in evidenciary support, that they're not worth taking seriously. Not when weighed against the massive popular and evidenciary support evolutionary theory has.

 

[painted wolf]

How about those fossils?

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

How is a genetic deformity any proof of a beneficial mutation?

So would this be "bad design by your designer"?

Are you suggesting the human/chimp ancestor had 6 digits?

Nope.

Mutation can result in several different types of change in DNA sequences; these can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely. Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.[4] Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to remove mutations.[1]

Mutation is generally accepted by biologists as the mechanism by which natural selection acts, generating advantageous new traits that survive and multiply in offspring as well as disadvantageous traits, in less fit offspring, that tend to die out.
Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree...but further on it still supports Beneficial Mutation in that citation of yours.

Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Beneficial mutations

Although most mutations that change protein sequences are neutral or harmful, some mutations have a positive effect on an organism. In this case, the mutation may enable the mutant organism to withstand particular environmental stresses better than wild-type organisms, or reproduce more quickly. In these cases a mutation will tend to become more common in a population through natural selection.
For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-&#916;32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes. The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-&#916;32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased. This theory could explain why this mutation is not found in southern Africa, where the bubonic plague never reached. A newer theory suggests that the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague. Another example, is Sickle cell disease which is a blood disorder in which the body produces an abnormal type of the oxygen-carrying substance hemoglobin in the red blood cells. One-third of all indigenous inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa carry the gene, because in areas where malaria is common, there is a survival value in carrying only a single sickle-cell gene (sickle cell trait). Those with only one of the two alleles of the sickle-cell disease are more resistant to malaria, since the infestation of the malaria plasmodium is halted by the sickling of the cells which it infests.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

How about those fossils?

wa:do

I don't think you ever got a proper response from this either....

:sad:

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What is the problem with you lot?

Do you all truly believe that no credentialed scientist in the whole world is skeptical about TOE as an explantion for life?

I've asked this about three or four times already, but:

Can you quote a single example of anybody here saying that?

 

[tumbleweed41]

What is the problem with you lot?

Do you all truly believe that no credentialed scientist in the whole world is skeptical about TOE as an explantion for life?

I to am skeptical of the ToE as an explanation of life.
I am, however, confidant in the ToE as an explanation for the diversity of life.

 

[wilsoncole]

Here's an idea: how about either of you two cite a source with some actual credibility?

http://www.weloennig.de/NaturalSelection.html
http://www.weloennig.de/DynamicGenomes.html
http://www.weloennig.de/Giraffe.pdf
http://www.weloennig.de/Dollo-1a.pdf
http://www.weloennig.de/Questions.html
http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf​

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[ImmortalFlame]

http://www.weloennig.de/NaturalSelection.html
http://www.weloennig.de/DynamicGenomes.html
http://www.weloennig.de/Giraffe.pdf
http://www.weloennig.de/Dollo-1a.pdf
http://www.weloennig.de/Questions.html
http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf​

Do you not know what "credible" means?

 

[waitasec]

Do you not know what "credible" means?

lets help him out

qualified as being true,
having gained merit of independence for support

 

[Dirty Penguin]

http://www.weloennig.de/NaturalSelection.html
http://www.weloennig.de/DynamicGenomes.html
http://www.weloennig.de/Giraffe.pdf
http://www.weloennig.de/Dollo-1a.pdf
http://www.weloennig.de/Questions.html
http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf​

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

:spam:

 

[wilsoncole]

So would this be "bad design by your designer"?
Nope.
I agree...but further on it still supports Beneficial Mutation in that citation of yours.

Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Beneficial mutations

Although most mutations that change protein sequences are neutral or harmful, some mutations have a positive effect on an organism. In this case, the mutation may enable the mutant organism to withstand particular environmental stresses better than wild-type organisms, or reproduce more quickly. In these cases a mutation will tend to become more common in a population through natural selection.
For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-&#916;32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes. The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-&#916;32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased. This theory could explain why this mutation is not found in southern Africa, where the bubonic plague never reached. A newer theory suggests that the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague.

This is really stretching it! "A positive effect" is by no means enough to cause dramatic physical changes in any organism.
I see nothing but speculation here.

Another example, is Sickle cell disease which is a blood disorder in which the body produces an abnormal type of the oxygen-carrying substance hemoglobin in the red blood cells. One-third of all indigenous inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa carry the gene, because in areas where malaria is common, there is a survival value in carrying only a single sickle-cell gene (sickle cell trait). Those with only one of the two alleles of the sickle-cell disease are more resistant to malaria, since the infestation of the malaria plasmodium is halted by the sickling of the cells which it infests.

There is nothing "positive" about sickle-cell anemia and there is no improvement in the organism. They might be immune to malaria - nothing else, but the suffering is intense and the patients rarely live beyond their 40s.
Sickle Cell Anemia : Life Expectancy, Hydroxyurea Studies

"A typical sickle-cell crisis results in excruciating pain in bones and joints. Crises are unpredictable; they can occur rarely or as often as every month. When they do occur, they are distressing to both child and parent. Ihunde is a nurse who works at the sickle-cell center.
“It is not easy to manage a sickler child,” she says. “I know, because my daughter has the disorder. The pain comes suddenly. She screams and cries, and I cry. Only after two or three days, maybe after a week, will the pain subside.”​

(Sickle-Cell Anemia—Knowledge Is the Best Defense AW 96 10/8 p. 23)​

Those "Beneficial mutations" kill people because they die from the disease! If those are the best examples you've got - Nah!
Nowhere nearly enough to effect physiological changes that result in improvements.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Do you not know what "credible" means?

You insist on "peer-review" - don't you?
In your twisted world, does that not spell "c-r-e-d-i-b-i-l-y?"

Well - check it out!
** means peer-reviewed work.
Pay careful attention to # 12 and 24 - OK?

http://www.weloennig.de/literatur1a.html

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