Why is evolution so controversial?

I honestly belief that you can be a great doctor or surgeon despite knowing or caring nothing about evolution.It is not your attitude towards evolution that worries me. It is your position on research and peer review that I find troubling. We don't expect doctors to have expert opinions on every biological topic, but we do trust them to make informed decision about the state of the art for on the diseases, treatments and medical procedures.Your attitude does not cut it, and God forbid if you ever had to cut on me or a family member, because I cannot trust you to keep up with medical research. I might just as well get medical advice from Kevin Trudeau as you.

Go get one of your medical text books off of your shelf, go to the back, look at all the journal references.They are all peer reviewed. You would not be able to be a doctor if you ignored the peer reviewed literature.How did you get through your first year if you do not know how important journal articles are? Which is STILL an argument from incredulity. The onus is on you to provide evidence that evolution is too complex. If you can't why should anyone agree with you?Edited by Larni, : No reason given.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Hi Cedre,Because you employ fallacies of the most transparent sort there is an air of the troll about you, but I'll play along for a while explaining the obvious. Which of these books is scientific, if any: Obviously just writing a book doesn't make it scientific, does it. Anyone can write a book.That's why science has peer review, and it takes place on a couple levels. There's the initial peer review conducted by the journal or conference, and once published or presented there's another form of peer review as other scientists attempt to understand and replicate the work.It all comes down to how stiff you're going to make the criteria for deciding what is true about the world and what isn't. The criteria of science are pretty stiff: peer review, replication, theory building, consensus. Science is how we know that creationism, the Maya apocalypse and homeopathy are bunk, and that relativity, quantum mechanics and evolution are not. I didn't notice his scientific reasons because he didn't give any. If you thought he provided scientific reasons then please tell us what they are. Here's the link again: In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in CreationBut you'll be searching in vain for scientific reasons. The reason the article appears at Answers in Genesis and not in a scientific journal is because it contains no scientific reasons. What it contains is fallacies dressed up to sound scientific to those unknowledgeable and unfamiliar with science. Well, yes, that's the way creationist websites work. When something apparently convincing appears at one creationist website then it gets cut-n-pasted to many other creationist websites. I don't think the creationist willingness to cut-n-paste crap makes the crap any less crap then it already is. How do you know he even exists? How would you distinguish between "Prof. Vladimir Betina" and a fictional person? Same question for "Dr. Kimberly Berrine." You quoted what I said, so why are you asking me where he says he rejects evolution because he is religious? I never claimed that he said that, so why ask me where he said that?What I did say was that he's a member of the Creation Research Society, and I concluded from this that he lets his religion interfere with his science. I didn't say he rejects evolution for religious reasons. The most relevant portion of what I said is that he's not a scientist. You claimed to be giving us a list of scientists, remember? People who reject evolution for scientific rather than religious reasons. His chapter in the book is a personal story describing the role spirituality plays in his daily life. There's nothing scientific in it. What makes you think he rejects evolution?To conclude, you claimed that evolution is controversial within scientific circles and that increasing numbers of scientists are rejecting evolution for scientific reasons. But there's no evidence of any controversy within science greater than those over relativity or quantum theory, and legitimate peer-reviewed scientific reasons appear in scientific journals, not in popular press books or articles at creationist websites. So far you've been unable to support either claim.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo, minor clarification in final paragraph.

Thanks again for your reply RAZDOk let's get to it!You said: Why on earth should I do that? At least show that everything I know about evolution is false!You said:Uphold this please! Thanks.You said: I’m not studying to become a pharmacologist. My job’s to diagnose/treat with available treatments. In any case I already pointed out that although touched upon in Medical School evolution is not given front page and centre treatment.You said: What’s not quite right about what I said? Are you disputing that phyla are based on body plans? Or is your issue with claim that different body plans evolved at Cambrian explosion and later in the Palaeozoic?You then stray with this straw man: Not my claim! Body plans are sufficiently different to lay the blueprint of the phyla of animals we see around us today.You then say: Hmm Not sure what you are driving at. Organisms under Chordata obviously have body plans with general specializations that allow them to be classed under one phylum. However Chordata body plan very different for example from Echinodermata body plan and so on.You say: Perhaps you shouldn't be looking under one phylum if you want to see differences. Major body plan differences exist between different phylum, say Chordata which have bilateral body plan and Echinodermata which have radial body plan, in addition to symmetry there are many other differences that add up to allow for sufficient grouping of organism into different phyla.You show more confusion Erm (scratching my head) they both Chordata, obviously they have similar body plan. Do bats and snails have same body plan? Nope quite different!You said: And What evidence? Until you can show evidence that unguided changes are capable of generating new, viable body plans all you have is another just so story. Something else could account for the homologies.If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, shoulder to shoulder, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious.Homology can tell you nothing about how a system could have evolved by numerous, successive, slight modifications. In other words, homology doesn’t necessarily imply evolution. Evidence for common ancestry is not evidence for the mechanism of Neo-Darwinism. Common ancestry can stand independent of Neo-Darwinsim and is readily accepted by those who reject Neo-Darwinism such as Michael Behe.Finally yes I screwed up with my careless use of morphogenesis, believe it or not I knew what it means, but carelessly applied it. Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

First, of course the changes are unguided. That's why we call them random mutations. But random change is acted upon by selection, and selection is guided - by the environment. Selection is what explains adaptation.Second, why the doubt that small changes can accumulate into large changes? Do you doubt that stringing a few million tiny steps together one after another can transform your location from New York to San Francisco? Do you doubt that welding one little girder at a time can transform a pile of steel into a skyscraper? Do you doubt that Haymarket Square in Boston was created by filling in a mill pond one little cart full of dirt at a time (this was in 1807 in case you're wondering why they used carts)?So why do you doubt that tiny mutations acted upon by selection can accumulate into significant change? Science observes tiny mutations causing tiny changes upon which selection operates, and there are no barriers to the degree to which these changes can accumulate. Were there any barriers to change (beyond selection) then science would observe them.--Percy

Hello Percy, thanks for the response!Ok so you say:Obviously! However as pointed out Dr. Sanford gave his scientific reasons in Genetic entropy & The Mystery Of The Genome! Whether or not you think they are scientific reasons is a different question.See:

quote:

---

Dr. John Sanford, a retired Cornell Professor, shows in Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome that the "Primary Axiom" is false. The Primary Axiom is the foundational evolutionary premise - that life is merely the result of mutations and natural selection. In addition to showing compelling theoretical evidence that whole genomes can not evolve upward, Dr. Sanford presents strong evidence that higher genomes must in fact degenerate over time. This book strongly refutes the Darwinian concept that man is just the result of a random and pointless natural process. Amazon.com

---

Peer review process is loaded with problems and may even be Fatally FLAWED in the words of Tom Jefferson, who after investigating the effectiveness of peer review found little to no evidence of its effectiveness.You say

quote:

---

Taking a factual and scientific look at the evidence for evolution, physicists, biologists, and chemists conclude that evolution may offer no more evidence than traditional religion, and factually, it may lag behind. -- In Six Days | Answers in Genesis

---

So yes Dr. Zuill presents his scientific reasons for rejecting evolution in this book. I don't care if you think his reasons are scientific or not.You say: Funny how you equate peer review with science. Sorry mate, these things are not synonymous.You say: Proof Please!You say: He has written books! Look you are advocating a conspiracy theory, you are saying this person was made up! Prove he was made up! Otherwise I won't take you seriously.You say: Well fine if that is what you want to infer, do so, no one else has to follow your lead.Yo say What's make me think he's a creationist? Hmm I don't know maybe because he wrote a chapter in a creationist book aimed at rejecting Evolution and uplifting design in nature, and is known in creationist circles as a creationist and has not come out and say he is not a creationist. What makes you think he is not a creationist but an evolutionist? All the available evidence, points to the conclusion that he is in fact a creationist.Now, where did you get the idea from that he only talks about spirituality in the book did you read the book? From the preface of the book it's clear that this is a heavily antievolution and pro-creation book. He certainly doesn't seem like a evolutionist just by looking at what the preface of the book says the book's aim is.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

I am not interested in speculation, and analogies, science is about showing, observing, and facts. Analogies are not the same thing as proving a scientific claim. So I stand by what I said, where and when has it ever been observed that Neo-Darwinsim produces new, viable body plans?Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

Perhaps Cedre could answer my question. Why is evolution so uncontroversial? Its enemies, after all, are impelled by religious fanaticism, a force that has built and destroyed empires; they have powerful political forces on their side, such that they can make mere congressmen jump through hoops; they have vast financial resources (which they put into building "museums" and amusement parks, but that's their choice); and they have had a hundred and fifty years to find a flaw, however minor, in evolution; and yet as we have seen among scientists they have stirred nothing but the faintest flickering ember of controversy, which needs constant nurturing to ensure that it doesn't go out.Why, then, is evolution so uncontroversial among scientists despite the best efforts of a powerful, determined, and well-funded lobby to make it so?

Contradiction bliss!!If creationists are as powerful as you claim then shouldn't evolution be more controversial not less controversial (you say its not controversial at all)? If what you're saying is true Creationism should be taught in universities and science classes across the nation. Creationists should be winning hearings and court cases! Creationists should be able to publish in peer review using their powerful connections! This is not what we see, more often than not creationism is derided by the president no less. What power do they really have? I don't see it! Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

I'll tell ya why it's so "uncontroversial" as you put it. It's because it's unfalsifiable, being built out of hot air to explain past events that can't be observed. Through this whole silly thread the only examples given of evolution are of microevolution which supports creationism better than evolution, being basically what Mendel observed about how species vary within their own gene pool.Cedre is of course right that complexity can't be explained by evolution, which is self evident to anyone who can think, but the hot air aficionados call that the argument from incredulity and that's all it takes to keep the hot air balloon aloft. Golly gee such cleverness on behalf of the biggest fraud ever foisted on the scientific community and the human race.Oh but do carry on. I know you will anyway.

Hello there. Welcome to the thread, hope you can stick around and contribute!

What I asked you explicitly to do was:

quote:

---

Give us some examples of biologists who claim we did not evolve from a common ancestor with the chimps.

---

I also asked you to:

quote:

---

Try it without the labels

---

so I definitely did not want you to name critics of "Neo-Darwinism". It pretty much is. All life-forms evolve and there is no limit to how far they can evolve, so common ancestry is inevitable. Remember Darwin's book, The Origin of Species. The origin of species is other species. A real bus driver is somebody who actually drives a bus, not just anybody with a driver's license. A real scientist is somebody who actually does science. If your examples are real scientists, we'd all be happy to see the peer-reviewed papers they've published that question the theory of evolution.

Arguably (though I've never been able to get a creationist to address the argument) a mountain is more complex than the human body. Nobody suggests that mountains need an intelligent designer.

Thanks rigno for your response!You said Oh boy! Neo-Darwinism claims that we did evolve from a common ancestor with the chimps. so yeah you did ask me for critics of Neo-Darwinism which I provided. Pretty much! What does that mean? Are you arguing that Neo-Darwinism and common ancestry are the same thing? Are you trying to tell me that if there is no common ancestry then there is no evolution? A bus driver does not have to drive a bus to be a bus driver! Clearly someone can be employed as a bus driver and still not drive buses, a teacher can be a real teacher and still not teach. A doctor can be a real doctor and till not treat. Your are a little confused here.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

I keep asking you to stop using the term "Neo-Darwinism". I'm arguing that the theory of evolution and common ancestry are essentially the same thing. That's a bizarre claim. Does a walker have to walk? It's possible to be a nominal bus driver and not drive a bus; it's not possible to be an actual bus driver and not drive a bus. Your examples are nominal scientists, not actual scientists.There used to be a commercial that said, "I'm not a real doctor but I play one on TV." That's what your examples are.