Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 69

Thread: Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Saturday, January 3rd, 2015
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 8:36 PM
    Posts
    10,666
    Post Thanks / Like

    Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory

    Can't say as I blame them. There are so many things that don't add up. I don't believe in evolution or creationism. How we came about is really a mystery. Elon Musk is probably correct that we are all part of a computer simulation. Lol.

    Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a “Dissent” statement expressing skepticism about Darwin’s evolution theory, sparking fresh controversy over an idea that is at the core of many people’s worldview. The significant announcement, made last month, has been all but ignored by the establishment media. But it is making waves nevertheless.

    The dissenting scientists all united around one simple statement. “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life,” the Ph.D.s said. “Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.”

    The growing rebellion among scientists from a broad range of scientific disciplines suggests the science may not be as settled as evolution theorists claim, according to analysts. Despite enormous risks to their careers and reputations, the number of experts willing to speak out about their skepticism of Darwin’s theory is growing quickly.

    And many of the scientists speaking out about this are prominent and highly respected. More than a dozen of the signatories, for instance, are members of various national academies of science, including those in the United States, Russia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and other nations, as well as the Royal Society.

    More than a few come from America's most prestigious universities such as Harvard, MIT, Princeton, and Yale. Others come from prestigious foreign universities and research institutions such as the University of Cambridge, London’s Natural History Museum, Moscow State University, Hong Kong University, University of Stellenbosch in South Africa, Institut de Paléontologie Humaine in France, Ben-Gurion University in Israel, and more.
    https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...3752&vcid=3909


    Mark
    Race Card: A tool of the intellectually weak and lazy when they cannot counter a logical argument or factual data.

    "Liberals have to stop insisting that the world is what they want it to be instead of the way it is." - Bill Maher

    Political correctness is ideological fascism. It’s the antithesis of freedom. Dr. Piper

    Gender is not a "Social Construct", it is an outgrowth of biological reality.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:06 PM
    Posts
    17,515
    Post Thanks / Like
    Belief in this theory has become a touchstone for "real" science (as is belief in the wilder claims of climate change).

    In real actual science, both of these theories are largely irrelevant. Few people work in areas where this is a day-to-day concern. No engineers, physicians, or mathematicians require these beliefs to perform their skills. It just never comes up. Using technological tools to decode genetics or send machines into space simply doesn't depend on Darwin or Al Gore.

    Using the laws of physics doesn't especially require belief in the various ideas about natural selection or evolution. The history of science is full of completely wrong and completely accepted ideas about a lot of things - all of which had renowned advocates and often State-sponsored support at the time.

    Science has never been "pure". While some individuals have been solely motivated by knowledge alone, most are in it for a certain measure of fame and glory (and money naturally). Taking up whatever the party line is at the moment is just good business whether or not there is any real interest in it. It's a mostly meaningless signifier of being part of the club.

    I have no idea if God designed natural selection or if the whole thing is essentially wrong and I can honestly say that the issue never once came up in a long career of chemistry and analysis. Nobody ever said, "Hey wait a minute! Have you considered the impact of pleistocene era life forms in that ozone analysis?". Well, no....I didn't.
    "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 1:45 AM
    Posts
    12,174
    Post Thanks / Like
    As I understand it, in scientific circles, the best and most accepted theory is the one that best fits the available data. In order for a theory to become discredited, someone has to come up with an alternate theory that fits the data better. Until then, people can pile up a collection of data that doesn't fit the theory, and they can say, well, this theory doesn't explain everything, but it's the best we've got.

    A number of people, however credentialed, saying "Eh, I'm skeptical" doesn't really mean much of anything. What specific information doesn't fit the theory?

    Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.
    -George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 8:50 PM
    Posts
    8,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    As I understand it, in scientific circles, the best and most accepted theory is the one that best fits the available data. In order for a theory to become discredited, someone has to come up with an alternate theory that fits the data better. Until then, people can pile up a collection of data that doesn't fit the theory, and they can say, well, this theory doesn't explain everything, but it's the best we've got.

    A number of people, however credentialed, saying "Eh, I'm skeptical" doesn't really mean much of anything. What specific information doesn't fit the theory?
    True, pretty much.

    "Credible" and variations of the idea get a lot of circular use here. A theory that explains much is more credible than a theory that explains little, and the skepticism of credentialed scientists counts for something.

    The theory of evolution has gone through a few significant changes in recent years. As I recall it used to be thought that evolution was incremental, that organisms crept from mutation to mutation in tiny steps, tested along the way by experience.

    Then the idea arose that evolution happened in lurches, in fairly sudden great leaps we don't understand yet.

    Seems to me we've made some progress in acknowledging how much we don't understand. We've evolved, as Obama might say. Plenty of room for skeptics and devotees yet.
    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." —CNN's Don Lemon, showing how to stop demonizing people.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Saturday, January 3rd, 2015
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 8:36 PM
    Posts
    10,666
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    As I understand it, in scientific circles, the best and most accepted theory is the one that best fits the available data. In order for a theory to become discredited, someone has to come up with an alternate theory that fits the data better. Until then, people can pile up a collection of data that doesn't fit the theory, and they can say, well, this theory doesn't explain everything, but it's the best we've got.

    A number of people, however credentialed, saying "Eh, I'm skeptical" doesn't really mean much of anything. What specific information doesn't fit the theory?
    Sure, specific information fits. But the questions are numerous. You can start with, why did the first life "understand" that it needed to reproduce? And how did it know that it was going to die? And, how did the first life come into being with the capability of being able to reproduce?

    None of that can be answered by evolution.

    Mark
    Race Card: A tool of the intellectually weak and lazy when they cannot counter a logical argument or factual data.

    "Liberals have to stop insisting that the world is what they want it to be instead of the way it is." - Bill Maher

    Political correctness is ideological fascism. It’s the antithesis of freedom. Dr. Piper

    Gender is not a "Social Construct", it is an outgrowth of biological reality.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Wednesday, June 17th, 2015
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 7:30 PM
    Posts
    10,037
    Post Thanks / Like
    Taking up whatever the party line is at the moment is just good business whether or not there is any real interest in it. It's a mostly meaningless signifier of being part of the club.
    Best be when having tenure. Or best way to get tenure.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:06 PM
    Posts
    17,515
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    As I understand it, in scientific circles, the best and most accepted theory is the one that best fits the available data. In order for a theory to become discredited, someone has to come up with an alternate theory that fits the data better. Until then, people can pile up a collection of data that doesn't fit the theory, and they can say, well, this theory doesn't explain everything, but it's the best we've got.

    A number of people, however credentialed, saying "Eh, I'm skeptical" doesn't really mean much of anything. What specific information doesn't fit the theory?
    That's the theory - well, the rest of the theory is that people work pretty hard to disprove whatever the theory is at the moment. The point of the 'scientific method' is really to disprove any given hypothesis and then ask better questions.

    Sometimes it works exactly that way which is why you can be fairly certain that the alloys used in your airliner won't disintegrate in mid-flight.

    Sometimes other goals contaminate the process. Some are popular, some political, many are based in money, and some are driven by fame and glory nest-feathering. Infighting can be pretty brutal and it's not all simon-pure.

    Sadly.
    "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 1:45 AM
    Posts
    12,174
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 80zephyr View Post
    Sure, specific information fits. But the questions are numerous. You can start with, why did the first life "understand" that it needed to reproduce? And how did it know that it was going to die? And, how did the first life come into being with the capability of being able to reproduce?

    None of that can be answered by evolution.

    Mark
    Replication would have to come first. No consciousness is required on the part of the self-replicating molecule. But evolution explains quite nicely how a self-replicating molecule locks in any randomly occurring variation that improves its ability to replicate.

    Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.
    -George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 1:45 AM
    Posts
    12,174
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    That's the theory - well, the rest of the theory is that people work pretty hard to disprove whatever the theory is at the moment. The point of the 'scientific method' is really to disprove any given hypothesis and then ask better questions.

    Sometimes it works exactly that way which is why you can be fairly certain that the alloys used in your airliner won't disintegrate in mid-flight.

    Sometimes other goals contaminate the process. Some are popular, some political, many are based in money, and some are driven by fame and glory nest-feathering. Infighting can be pretty brutal and it's not all simon-pure.

    Sadly.
    But in this case, what is the information that conflicts with evolution theory?

    Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.
    -George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Saturday, January 3rd, 2015
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 8:36 PM
    Posts
    10,666
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    Replication would have to come first. No consciousness is required on the part of the self-replicating molecule. But evolution explains quite nicely how a self-replicating molecule locks in any randomly occurring variation that improves its ability to replicate.
    Sure, no consciousness is required. But why replicate? How does a life "know" it has to? It certainly cannot know that, eventually, it will cease to exist.

    And how does the ability to replicate come into being in the very first life? Because without it, life ends.

    I mean, you can get right down to basics. How come life developed eyes, when it could not "know" if there was something to see? How could it develop a sense of smell without first knowing there was something to smell?

    Mark
    Race Card: A tool of the intellectually weak and lazy when they cannot counter a logical argument or factual data.

    "Liberals have to stop insisting that the world is what they want it to be instead of the way it is." - Bill Maher

    Political correctness is ideological fascism. It’s the antithesis of freedom. Dr. Piper

    Gender is not a "Social Construct", it is an outgrowth of biological reality.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •