National Academies book on evolution

[SpiritMeadow]

Plunged back into the dark age. I’ve seen that vague non-responsive response many times. It reminds me of the quote from Casablanca: He’s as honest as the day is long. The earth will not stop spinning on its axis if more people ignore materialistic, naturalistic evolution. Give me a break
Ed

Ed that is the point. If you feel that way, for sure, ignore it. Just stop trying to convince people its not true. As soon as you get off that bandwagon, we have nothing further to discuss do we?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I would certainly hope so because this particular forum has done an abysmal job in defending Darwinism.

Seems we’re basically down to you and Ed to me. And Ed has 18 times now admitted to evolution, so don’t count him either…Its just you…and you provide zero facts…just a lot of rhetoric.

I’ve seen radical contradictions from Darwinists. Then when asked for an explanation they say that I should read an 800 page book.

Care to be specific? There are several scientists here. I’m sure they will give you an answer.

This is proof that they don’t know what they’re talking about. There is no evidence and proof to support Darwin’s theory. He has been discredited and his theory has been refuted by his own followers. That’s why we have “neo-Darwinism” now. Or we have “theistic evolution” which is a refutation of Darwin’s theory (and an imaginative re-writing of it).

How is citing you to a book proof they don’t know what they are talking about. How did they find the book? A statement that there is no evidence is NO EVIDENCE. I think you have little knowledge of what neo-darwinism is. And theistic evolution is not a refutation at all…patently false. You must have proof dear…not just wild accusations.

Darwin did not even know what DNA was. He claimed everything evolved by natural causes without knowing how the biochemistry worked. His theory is absurd and laughable – since it was based on visual inspection of animals and bizarre conjectures on how one creature supposedly evolved from another

No he didn’t. We do, and it of course backs up evolution perfectly. Amazing that he “guessed” right huh? .

Even the National Academies book admits that “experiments” have not been successful. I found this after an ardent-Darwinist-atheist here claimed that scientists don’t conduct experiments to try to replicate evolution. Then he reversed his position and claimed, in just as emotional terms, that yes after all scientists do experiment and that they are successful in demonstrating evolution as a “fact”.

I might be wrong, but I’d assume off the bat that most experiments are not successful. Such is the work of science. I’ll leave the rest to a scientist. to answer.

The National Academies book contradicts this by pointing out that there is no consensus on the results of the experiments.

You will of course have to be specific as to the book and page number?

As in every case with these contradictions – some Darwinists might be correct while others might be wrong – or they all might be wrong. But they can’t all be correct because they claim opposite “facts”.

Again, we can’t argue in a vacuum. You must provide proof of this. Examples? No one can refute a exampleless claim.

We are then told to “trust Darwin’s theory”.

I can see with my own two eyes that it is untrustworthy. I can see the people defending it here – their tactics are transparent. There cannot be any substance to the theory or we would have heard it by now.

But you said that was why Darwins work was absurd and laugable…because he just looked at stuff, and “saw”. But somehow you can just see that its untrustworthy…? I don’t think that will work. “We would have heard it by now”??? Ummmm…you really don’t mean this I assume. ? Just travel to Amazon and type in evolutionary biology.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

con’t

Here again, you site “peer reviewed papers”. These same “peers” refute what they claimed as “fact” just 10 years ago. Every year we hear new “re-thinking of evolution”.

I’m no scientist but I sure know that science builds on science and most of that consists of discarding old theories for one’s that work better. So far, this one has lasted over 150 years because no one has yet to come up with a better way of explaining the evidence. The first cars we built were pretty silly looking and didnt work well. We’ve undoubted discarded a lot of designs over the last 100 years of making cars. Do that make the car worthless as a concept?

So the authorities are basically useless. What they claim today can and probably will be overturned tomorrow.

tell that to plato and aristotle. They would really agree that most of what they thought scientifically turned out to be wrong. We seem to be progressing quite nicely however. You just want certainty in an uncertain world.

There are so many holes in Darwinist theory that it does take religious belief to accept it.

Please tell us what they are? Oh we are gonna try to turn evolution into a religion again? Now exactly why would anyone do that?

Meanwhile, I look first at the evidence – of God’s existence. The evidence is abundant. I then look at the evidence of God’s creative power in the world – again abundant evidence. God exists and he has created and shaped the world. His work can be seen in the beauty, order, symmetry, fine-tuning, paradoxes, laws, impossible occurences, intelligence, magnificence, scope and mysteries of the universe and the human soul (and life itself).

Very well said, but that is no indictment against evolutionary science. None. You have stated perfectly what you believe. You can prove exactly none of it. I believe it too. The difference is I don’t claim it proves God exists. I know that I must come to God in faith, not because scientifically its proven. You destroy all religion with that notion.

These things are supported with more evidence than evolution can muster.

No what you call evidence is personal belief. I see God in darn near everything, but its not evidence that one can reproduce in a lab or offer as a prediction of anything tomorrow. Your’re mixing theology and science again.

So, when I see a theory that eliminates any role for God as it attempts to explain the origin of species, life itself and all things in the universe – I can see by merely looking at the evidence that the theory is completely false, and totally inhuman. It’s blindness.

Therein lies your error. The theory of evolution does not speak to God. Some scientists do, but that is their personal belief, not science talking. You must learn to distinguish between the two.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Could someone please clear up the differences between:

darwinism
neo-darwinism
darwinian postivism
evolution

I’ve been apparently mislead by ID proponents that neo darwinism was some branch of darwinism that directly and by statement denies any theistic element in evolution, either pre or present. This is I take it incorrect. I’m not making correct statements I see, so could someone tell me ?

I have been assuming that neo-darwinism was some unholy blending of science and theology used by some “scientists” to negate any Creator.

 

[Sideline]

It’s the way God did it. And you shouldn’t be afraid of it. A Christian should never be afraid of the truth.

I’d go even farther. No one should be afraid of the truth. If it is true, what is there to be afraid of?

 

[The_Barbarian]

“Neodarwinism” seems to be an informal term for “The Modern Synthesis”, a theory that includes Darwin’s theory, but adds the findings of genetics. It clears up at least one major difficulty in Darwin’s theory, i.e. how new variation can spread in a population.

 

[Orogeny]

Hi Tim,
Evolution makes very little sense to me. The more I read here, the less sensible it appears.

That’s because you reject it based on your faith, not on the science.

The idea that radiation, mutation, environmental pressures and genetic drift causing modern life, is a bit out of the realm of possibility.

Thanks for making my point.

Have scientists gained a greater understanding of disease, of course. But evolution - most people forget about it after high school. Most will not need to use it at work or home.

Same with the theory of plate tectonics. Doesn’t mean it isn’t either science or true.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

How many people argue emotionally, to the point of using sarcasm, ridicule and insults, about linguistics, forensics, particle physics, astronomy, geology, cartography, seismology, neurology, osteology, organic chemistry, fluid dynamics, or quantum mechanics?

How many people will question other’s faith simply because they accept science and you don’t?

Peace

Tim

 

[Aramis]

As to Darwin being “discredited” by later evolutionists:

Darwin, lacking knowledge of the means of heredity, postulated that selection acts for the good of the organism. This results in a failure to account for both altruism in primates and colonial behavior of non-breeders in bees, ants, termites, and certain species of mole.

Richard Dawkins postulates in the 20th century that selection acts for the benefit of the individual genetic meme, commonly called a gene. His theory is not a refutation, but a refinement of Darwin’s theory. It does explain altruism, colonial behavior in ants, bees, termites, and moles, many genetic disorders, and also recessive genes.

So, Saying Dawkins is right and Darwin was wrong is like saying Jesus is Right and Moses is wrong… Moses taught truth, but not the whole truth, and Jesus brings the rest of the truth, by being Truth.

All that matters is that, at some point, God added a soul to humans.

 

[edwest2]

One can always hope that clouded minds may finally see. What are you gonna do Ed? The church will no doubt formally adopt some form of evolutionary statement. Then you will be caught won’t you? No denying the Church’s teachings you know, if you really are the faithful Catholic you so accuse us of not being.

I do not have the power to predict the future. You perceptions of my statements are yours alone. The Church clearly combines science and theology all the time. You can believe what you like.

The evolution/science is my new God idea will fail in the end. Without God, neo-Darwinism makes little sense.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

The evolution/science is my new God idea will fail in the end.

Already has. It was merely a failed strawman from the ID/creationist camp. No one ever actually believed it, least of all scientists.

 

[edwest2]

Ed that is the point. If you feel that way, for sure, ignore it. Just stop trying to convince people its not true. As soon as you get off that bandwagon, we have nothing further to discuss do we?

So now I’m trying to convince people? In Human Persons Created in the Image of God, it’s Cardinal Ratzinger that is trying to convince people that evolution that excludes divine providence cannot exist. Read it.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Already has. It was merely a failed strawman from the ID/creationist camp. No one ever actually believed it, least of all scientists.

You are obviously involved in politics to some degree. It appears to not have occurred to you that individual people can arrive at individual conclusions. Your rhetoric has been used all over the internet and amounts to sloganizing. I believe in ID (stealth creationism) not because of politics or because some middleman told me to, but because it is sensible and consistent. It raises worthwhile questions that are worth investigating.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

You are obviously involved in politics to some degree.

I vote. But I’m not a member of any party, and I’ve never voted in a primary. I usually vote libertarian.

It appears to not have occurred to you that individual people can arrive at individual conclusions.

I don’t know why you think that; I’ve never said it or suggested it. Like your political guess, you’ ve projected a lot of things on me that are entirely in your head.

Your rhetoric has been used all over the internet and amounts to sloganizing. I believe in ID (stealth creationism) not because of politics or because some middleman told me to, but because it is sensible and consistent.

I know you want us to believe that, but the evidence won’t support your assumption.

It raises worthwhile questions that are worth investigating.

The question of God as limited designer or omnipotent Creator, for example. But this has nothing whatever to do with science. If IDers would just admit that their religion was not a science, there would be no problem.

 

[reggieM]

When you see the word “evolution,” you should ask yourself, “Which definition is being used?”

Proponents of Darwinism, commonly pull this “Evolution” Bait-and-Switch, using evidence for small-scale changes, such as changes in the sizes of bird beaks and then over-extrapolating from such modest evidence to claim that it proves Darwin’s grander claims.

Leading biologist Lynn Margulis, who opposes ID, also criticizes the standard Darwinian mechanism by stating that the “Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric.” She further observes that “new mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”

Stanley Salthe, author of an evolutionary biology textbook, proclaims, “I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’s origination myth.” Evolutionary philosopher Jerry Fodor recently wrote that “at a time when the theory of natural selection has become an article of pop culture, it is faced with what may be the most serious challenge it has had so far.” National Academy of Sciences member Phil Skell also questions the explanatory utility of natural selection:
“Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery. Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”

Indeed, over 700 doctoral scientists have signed a public statement proclaiming their agreement that, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.”

 

[edwest2]

Thank you for posting that.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Sideline]

Indeed, over 700 doctoral scientists have signed a public statement proclaiming their agreement that, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.”

I’m going to just skip the quote mining and just ask what makes you think that the 700 critics are right? The entire mainstream of biology supports evolution. Some wing nuts disagree. What makes you think that they know anything?

It still leaves you having to justify your position. Which, I notice, you haven’t.

By the way:

700 is a drop in the bucket.

Salthe has said he didn’t realize what he was signing, and said it was a mistake.

Most of the people on the list have no expertise in the field at all.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Ah, the quote-mining game.

, “Which definition is being used?”

In science, it’s “change in allele frequency over time.” This covers a lot of ground, just as “interaction of valence electrons” covers a lot of ground in chemistry.

Proponents of Darwinism, commonly pull this “Evolution” Bait-and-Switch, using evidence for small-scale changes, such as changes in the sizes of bird beaks and then over-extrapolating from such modest evidence to claim that it proves Darwin’s grander claims.

No, and that’s a dishonest mischaracterization. Common descent is demonstrated by a number of things, including the nested hierarchy of taxa, which happens only in common descent, DNA analyses, the existence of numerous transitional forms, and a great deal more.

Leading biologist Lynn Margulis, ”

Margulis thinks that evolution is a fact, but wants to add more endosymbiosis to the theory than most scientists think is true. But notice that she accepts common descent as a fact. You want to take her POV, then?

She further observes that “new mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”

We know that’s not right, because it’s been directly observed. Would you like an example?

Stanley Salthe, author of an evolutionary biology textbook, proclaims, “I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’s origination myth.”

Stanley has a political axe to grind:

**Its derivation from classical capitalist economic theory
This is not just ad hominem because we live in a sociopolitical system that itself derives from classical capitalist ones. This throws suspicion on the theory… **

This is the old Marxist criticism of evolutionary theory; it fits too nicely with capitalism. So what? Reality fits nicely with capitalism, too. Nature is not politically correct.

and…

**Postmodernism: by this I mean a viewpoint critical of the realist pretensions of any universalist, totalizing discourse, including science, natural philosophy, and the Abrahamic faith religions. It takes seriously the dichotomy: actual / real. That is, while the actual world is that which you can bump into, or feel as a toothache, or as a frisson during a ritual, the real world is a global product of discourse, and consists in texts, inscriptions, models (like MEP and hierarchy theories), films, equations, experimental setups, simulations, computer software, symbols, etc. It is the home of the laws of Nature and the laws of matter, as well as of the gods. **
nbi.dk/~natphil/salthe/Critique_of_Natural_Select_.pdf

OK, one of them. You can do this sort of thing, too. Do a search on “postmodernist generator” and you can create similar blather.

Evolutionary philosopher Jerry Fodor recently wrote that “at a time when the theory of natural selection has become an article of pop culture, it is faced with what may be the most serious challenge it has had so far.”

Too bad your source didn’t identify what the philosopher thought it was. Let’s take a look… ah, here:
uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jerry-fodor-natural-selection-has-gone-bust/

Your “evolutionary philosopher” is an IDer, touted by the likes of William Dembski. Did you know that, or did someone else pull the wool over your eyes?

 

[The_Barbarian]

National Academy of Sciences member Phil Skell also questions the explanatory utility of natural selection:
"Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery. "

Phil is a chemist, and a creationist. And not very knowledgable about biology. He does spend a lot of time on various forums, but drops out when a scientist appears and engages him.

And he’s not very well-read on the theory. For example, we can show the reasons why some species and environments favor promiscuous males, and why some others favor those who stick around and nurture offspring. We can also show the relative fitness of aggression vs. cooperation for various species and environments, and even make accurate predictions about which will be most fit in a given case.

Would you like to learn about this?

Indeed, over 700 doctoral scientists have signed a public statement proclaiming their agreement that, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.”

If you’re referring to the Discovery Institute’s list of “scientists” (philosophers, software developers, “safety specialists” and lawyers), we have a way to compare that. Project Steve is a list of people named “Steve” or some variant, like “Stephanie”, who have PhDs in biology or a related field, and who accept evolutionary theory. There are, um… about 810 on the list. If we apply the same criteria to the Discovery Institute’s list of scientists, we come up with maybe one.

Doubters are about 0.3% of those accepting evolutionary theory. Which puts things nicely in perspective.

 

[reggieM]

October 6, 2006

Polish member of the European Parliament, Maciej Giertych, retired head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Science, and father of Polish Deputy Prime Minister, Roman Giertych, introduced a public seminar on the General Theory of Evolution to fellow MEP’s.

Professor Giertych questioned the value of teaching a continually falsified hypothesis - macroevolution - to students throughout Europe, as well as pointing out its lack of usefulness in regard to scientific endeavour.

Professor Giertych introduced the subject by relating how his children had returned home from school having been taught about the theory of evolution. They were told that the proof of macroevolution - the common ancestry of biological life - was to be found in the science of genetics. This was news to Professor Giertych who had spent his life working at the highest level of genetic research. He revealed to the meeting that such proof does not exist in genetics, only disproof.

This was reinforced by the speech of Professor Emeritus Joseph Mastropaolo who had travelled from the USA to participate in the Brussels hearing. He explained that the biological sciences offer no empirical proof of macroevolution, just insurmountable problems. The theory of evolution consists merely of interpretational evidences which by their very nature could be interpreted in many different ways. He told the audience that the theory, after more than 150 years, still lacked any empirical proof.

Dr. Hans Zillmer, a German Palaeontologist and member of the New York Academy of Sciences, told the meeting that the fossil record holds no proof for evolution theory either. Instead of showing gradual change from one species to another, as is often claimed in the classroom, it actually reveals the stasis and stability of life forms.

Amongst those helping to organise the historic seminar were Dr. Dominique Tassot, Director of Centre d’Etude et de Prospectives sur la Science (C.E.P). C.E.P. is an organisation consisting of 700 French speaking scientists, intellectuals and representatives of other professions, all of whom oppose evolutionary theory on scientific grounds.