|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,870 Year: 4,127/9,624 Month: 998/974 Week: 325/286 Day: 46/40 Hour: 1/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is evolution so controversial? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
My gut feeling is that Kimberly Berrine does not exist. There may have been someone with a similar name with some sort of a scientific degree, but I doubt it was a person by this name. A search for "Berrine" at Pubmed turns up zero hits, which is actually quite surprising given all of the authors in the database. I would have expected at least one Berrine that was not Kimberly. But anyway . . . we are told that there are ELITE scientists who are abandoning evolution. We are given the name "Kimberly Berrine" as one of those elites. Turns out, Kimberly Berrine doesn't produce a single hit as an author of a single peer reviewed paper on Pubmed. For someone looking for the "truth", Cedre sure seems to avoid it. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
In a nutshell; Shapiro denies random mutation and natural selection, and postulates natural genetic engineering. His findings confirm his theory that evolution is not random, that the genetic engineering of the cells is driven by sentient changes in answer to the environmental events that occur. I have shown you in extensive threads that Shapiro is indeed invoking random mutations and natural selection. He just tries to rename them in a bit of showmanship. That's it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Like these guys you mean: That is not what I meant since that is not what I said. Here it is again. You count the number of scientists who reject evolution, have a degree in the biological sciences, and whose first name is Steve (or a derivation thereof, such as Estaban or Stephanie). I will do the same for the number of scientists who do accept evolution as the best explanation for biodiveristy in biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
[Faith]"You're forgetting that this is an immense flood and would behave differently than normal floods. It would sort sediment into different layers, and it would also sort animals and plants into these layers in a way precisely resembling an evolutionary progression (which is what huge floods do), and it would also transport entire burrows and egg clutches and even footprints intact. The flood will create both marine and terrestrial layers (no, it isn't contradictory, you just have no idea what a flood this big can do), and it will keep land animals from being deposited in marine layers, and marine animals from being deposited in terrestrial layers. "The sediment carried and deposited by the flood was eroded from the Earth's surface during the flood, or it wasn't, I can change on a dime on this point. Some canyons were carved by catastrophic releases of water from high altitude lakes left over from the flood, some weren't, but you can't tell which are which, you have to ask me and I'll tell you, though I'll be so vague you'll never know what I'm actually saying, and then I'll accuse you of misrepresenting what I say."
[/Faith] --Percy
To think that Faith has the audacity to accuse others of adhering to unfalsifiable claims. Her ultimate explanation is, "The Flood acted against every known geologic and physical process in order to produce a fossil record that exactly matches the known and observed processes of evolution acting over millions of years".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Fossils are always tough to find. Indeed. However, when you fail to find a single mammal, from a cat to a gopher to a rabbit, in the Devonian or anything below it . . . I think a light bulb should go off. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
You are implying (at the minimum) that all the scientists of the "Project Steve" list have biology related degrees. Actually, I never mentioned Project Steve in any of my posts, although those in the know would have jumped to that conclusion.
I think that Bolder-dash had indeed made a valid point, to counter anyone who promotes the "Project Steve" list as being made up of only biological scientists. I agree. The NCSE should edit that list. Just by a quick skim, I would say that around 70% of the Steve's on that list would fit my criteria. If we cut the list in half, I would also suspect that we would have 100 fold more Steve's that support evolution than the number Steve's who reject it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
A sudden moment of endarkenment? Or do you mean "on"? "On" would be better, but "off" sadly still works in twisted American vernacular. It is one of those cases where words take on the opposite meaning, such as "setting an alarm off" means that you triggered it on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Yes, following someone else's characterization of my argument, even if Earth is only 6000 years old the cow in the Precambrian is not to be expected because that's too deep for the burial of land animals in the Flood. It's not impossible on Flood theory but it is highly unlikely. And yet you can't tell us why it is unlikely that we would find a single mammal species anywhere in the Pre-cambrian through the Devonian. It is just something you have made up. The falsification stands.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Land animals got buried in the higher levels of the strata, that's the explanation and there's nothing wrong with it. That's not an explanation. That is an empty assertion. We find tons of land animals (e.g. amphibians, arthropods) in the Carboniferous, and yet not a single mammal. How do you explain that?
Certainly no more wrong with it than the idiotic idea that flat slabs of rock represent time periods of millions of years each. A lot less crazy than that as a matter of fact. It appears you are the one who can't think outside the box.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Summary: Evolution is "controversial" only to those who won't accept it for religious reasons, and who do their best to generate "controversy" because of that. Among those actually doing science the only controversy is over the details, as they try to learn more about how it all works. The few real scientists who dispute evolution do so for religious reasons, not scientific ones. And finally, those who dispute evolution for religious reasons try their best to make it appear that they accept scientific methods and findings, while twisting both in an effort to convince themselves that their religious beliefs are supported by science. That should get the thread back on topic--for a moment or two. If we limit this to scientists with doctorates and published papers in a field of biology, way less than 1% voice claim that the theory of evolution is completely wrong, and that ID/creationism is a better explanation. If we used the criteria above, my guesstimate would be 0.005% of scientists fit those criteria. I only know of 2: Behe and Kurt Wise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Except my understanding is that Michael Behe accepts the bulk of old Earth evolution, including man and the (other) great apes having a common ancestor. I got this from Kennith Miller's "Finding Darwin's God". I consider Behe to be a theistic evolutionist. Kurt Wise is sort of on record as conceding that the evidence supports old Earth evolution, but that he is a young Earth creationist because of what the Bible says. But this is not the sort of information you find at creationist site. I think I will have to agree with you on both. Behe seems to believe in a type of theism where God's hand is invisible and would look exactly like natural evolution. Wise doesn't dispute that evolution is supported by evidence and is the most consistent scientific explanation. What about Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger? They had to invent a journal through the Discovery Institute just to get published, but at least they gave their pipette thumbs a work out in the process. Better than I can say for most anti-science types.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The fact of the matter in my case is that years before I became a Christian, when I still considered myself an atheist, I read the usual popular accounts of evolution and at times tried to track down the evidence for it. It always seemed to disappear into assertions and assumptions. That didn't keep me from continuing to believe in it, I had no religious objections to it, but it was frustrating, and once I did become a Christian and read some books on creationism I could see why it's so frustrating: the evidence for it IS only assertions and assumptions. Can you give us examples of these assertions and assumptions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
I've made case after case based on various observations of such things as the strata, the fossils and the decrease in genetic diversity that is the necessary result of microevolution. You have made your case based on fantasy, not observation. It is entirely made up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Well, it's a thoroughly ossified thoroughly accepted not-to-be-questioned principle of modern biological science, assumed and embellished at every turn, but "bedrock" in the sense that it actually contributes any meaningful knowledge of biology? No. All it contributes is more fleshing out of the evolution assumption. It hangs on biology like a parasite getting fatter all the time but biology benefits not a whit. Source: Intelligent observation.
Observation of what? When was the last time you read a peer reviewed article from a scientific journal on the topic of evolution? Did you understand it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The "effective population (Ne)" is approximately 10,000 in the current population of ~ 7 billion. This could not be if there was not a recent origin or a recent bottleneck in human ancestry. Large populations of organisms drift by polymorphisms over large timespans, increasing the "effective population" unless they have experienced the above mentioned. You answered your own question. The reason for the low effective population is genetic bottlenecks.
Since the acceptance of indels as percentage divergence between humans and chimps, evolution can not maintain a 5.6 million year split between humans and chimps. Paleoanthropology can not accommodate the new similarity percentage of 95%. Since the acceptance of indels? We have known about indels since we were able to sequence DNA which has been decades. Also, why do 5 million indels in addition to 35 million substitutions pose a problem for the 5 million year estimated time since divergence?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024