A Scientific Descent From Darwinism

[Vincent]

https://dissentfromdarwin.org/

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

More than 1,000 highly influential scientists from around the world have gone on record with their doubts about Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

The concept never gelled in my mind. You throw an old fridge into a field. It doesn't evolve into a Buick. Primordial ooze doesn't evolve into intellects that can create artificial intelligence in 1956 or fly to the Moon in 1969 or build high speed rail to Tokyo in... oh wait, that's devolution. The fridge will, however, return to the ores from which it was made.

 

[SteelChip]

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Interesting subject Vinnie, including refrigerators as a species is a novel concept.

 

[Vader]

I'm a science teacher and have been in the field for years. Many scientist know the truth but Darwinism is the holy grail and few would dare touch it. Natural selection enhances a quality already present in the species. It can cause loss of information but never the gain of information. Mutations are copying errors in DNA and are either benign or harmful for the species. Neither of these can add information to an existing species and certainly can't change one species into an entirely new species.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Global warming is trying to be like evolution - a premise accepted without question. Not science.

 

[Vader]

Global warming is trying to be like evolution - a premise accepted without question. Not science.

Exactly. Darwin thought cells were simplistic by nature. Many scientists loved the premise of evolution because it did away with God and made everything a "natural" process. Everything about Darwinism was either wrong and extremely oversimplified. That's why they came up with Neo-Darwinism. Evolution must be true so they see everything through that lens.

 

[deljzc]

I've been on this side of the website for about 4 years and you've made me skeptical of the ecowarriors and climate change.

But you're not going to change my mind about evolution and vaccination science. Those are truths to me that can not be disputed. But it is always fair to disagree on some things.

I think that's what I like most about being conservative. I might disagree with you guys on some things, but at least we can discuss it. I'm pretty sure my science and reason holds up on those issues and I'm willing to debate them.

The leftist world however just seems void of any type of disagreement or debate on anything. The crazier the ideas (see AOC), the more rewarded they seem to be. It's completely *** backwards over in that world.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

I've been on this side of the website for about 4 years and you've made me skeptical of the ecowarriors and climate change.

But you're not going to change my mind about evolution and vaccination science. Those are truths to me that can not be disputed. But it is always fair to disagree on some things.

I think that's what I like most about being conservative. I might disagree with you guys on some things, but at least we can discuss it. I'm pretty sure my science and reason holds up on those issues and I'm willing to debate them.

The leftist world however just seems void of any type of disagreement or debate on anything. The crazier the ideas (see AOC), the more rewarded they seem to be. It's completely *** backwards over in that world.

Just curious why so attached the theory of evolution. It has never come close to being proven and it totally fails to explain a lot. It certainly is not a truth that cannot be disputed. That is why it is called a theory.

 

[Vincent]

I think that's what I like most about being conservative. I might disagree with you guys on some things, but at least we can discuss it. I'm pretty sure my science and reason holds up on those issues and I'm willing to debate them.

And that's the point of the thread. Discussion. Those folks that signed onto that site have merely said that the science behind Darwinism should be examined. That's healthy.

Its when discussion is shut down by the dogma of a position that things go toxic. The left, who espouse blah, blah, blah, cannot withstand any discussion, scrutiny, or questioning of 'the narrative'. That IS totalitarianism.

As long as we agree to bedrock truths (eg - the team from Boston cheats, the stains, bungholes, etc, etc suck), we can discuss anything productively. That's America.

 

[Vader]

Just curious why so attached the theory of evolution. It has never come close to being proven and it totally fails to explain a lot. It certainly is not a truth that cannot be disputed. That is why it is called a theory.

They don't see it as just a theory as used in other sciences. Evolution is a fact that can't be disputed or proven wrong. There is never evidence against evolution. There maybe evidence that changes the way evolution is seen but the basic fundamental part of evolution never changes. So no matter what you find it can't prove evolution wrong. Which is one of the many problems with the theory. God could tell them that evolution was wrong and they still wouldn't believe it because it can't be wrong.

 

[Steel Ballin]

So what's the debate wanted here???

Does evolution of living creatures occur?

I mean eventually it all comes back to, did Man evolve from "monkey' I know.

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

I am with Del on this even as a Christian I have seen plenty of scientific basis for Evolution. While we have not discovered every variable and nuance we do know that sometime mutations do enhance and add new things to species. Adaptation can create new species with enough time and or environmental push. It is also why we can adapt to climate change within reason and for all the things that do go extinct new variations will rise out of the few survivors to compensate for the changes. Maybe what we are missing in the theory is the part we won't find because it is God pushing those changes and jumps in Evolution. Just because the bible says a day does not meant it was literally a day of our time. What does a day really mean to God? If he made all things from dust isn't that pretty much what the theory of life's beginning on this planet describe? TO me the beauty of the Theory is it can really go hand in hand with God and his creating everything. Science to me does not disprove God it just paints a clearer picture of his genius.

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

So what's the debate wanted here???

Does evolution of living creatures occur?

I mean eventually it all comes back to, did Man evolve from "monkey' I know.

The actual theory is Man and Monkey evolved from a common ancestor but diverged from each other.

 

[Steel Ballin]

The actual theory is Man and Monkey evolved from a common ancestor but diverged from each other.

Yeah I know. The last line was a bit of sarcasm. That's why I use the quotes.

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

Yeah I know. The last line was a bit of sarcasm. That's why I use the quotes.

Sorry I don't do "sarcasm" ever not once never. /sarcasm

 

[SteelChip]

So what's the debate wanted here???

Does evolution of living creatures occur?

I mean eventually it all comes back to, did Man evolve from "monkey' I know.

I believe that there are several thoughts and two stand out as the most diametrically apposed.

Natural evolution

or religion.

 

[jitter77]

My one ex was greek orthodox and I was like the Devil in that church. They took everything in the Bible 100% literal....I was a science major so that did not go over well. My argument was why cant go give creatures the power to evolve. Evo + God can co-exist in my opiion.

 

[Steeltime]

My one ex was greek orthodox and I was like the Devil in that church. They took everything in the Bible 100% literal....I was a science major so that did not go over well. My argument was why cant go give creatures the power to evolve. Evo + God can co-exist in my opiion.

Yep. And examples of natural selection and evolution, both long and short term, are innumerable.

For example, human eye color. Blue eyes developed maybe 10,000 years ago. The differing eye colors are simply an indication of the amount of melanin in the eye. The lesser the amount on the iris, the lighter the eye color.

As another example - this time of natural selection - in an island in the Bahamas, travelers added a predatory lizard called Leiocephalus carinatus, and the results were immediate. The predator liked to feed on Anolis sagrei, a smaller lizard. Males among the lizard's favorite prey soon became longer-legged, so as to better flee after drawing predatory attention during mating displays. In contrast, more sedentary females became larger, making them harder to ingest — a display of sex-specific selection pressures.

Further, the theory that mutations are inevitably harmful is not true. No doubt, mutations are very often deadly - cancer cells, or an extra chromosome - but many are not. As one example, when researchers adjusted the color frequencies of wild guppy populations in Trinidad, they found that unusual variants — regardless of color — had higher survival rates. Why? Because the predators likely did not recognize the unusual color variations as prey, and let them live more frequently. This is called frequency-dependent survival: selection favoring the rare and disfavoring the common, preventing a long-term homogeneity that — no matter how beneficial in the short term — might someday prove disastrous.

Also, look at some species well-known characteristics for further support. Why do horses have such long snouts? Answer: horses are prey. They run so fast to escape being a meal. Horses graze. The longer a horse's snout, the longer his legs. The longer the legs, the faster the horse. So the horses with shorter snouts and shorter legs were more likely to be meals ... and less percentage of the population. After many, many generations, the species favored the horses with longer snouts and longer legs, and voila! There you have it.

So examples of evolution and natural selection exist all around us. And I agree completely with del and jitter - evolution and a powerful, knowing being are not antithetical.

 

[Vader]

Yep. And examples of natural selection and evolution, both long and short term, are innumerable.

For example, human eye color. Blue eyes developed maybe 10,000 years ago. The differing eye colors are simply an indication of the amount of melanin in the eye. The lesser the amount on the iris, the lighter the eye color.

As another example - this time of natural selection - in an island in the Bahamas, travelers added a predatory lizard called Leiocephalus carinatus, and the results were immediate. The predator liked to feed on Anolis sagrei, a smaller lizard. Males among the lizard's favorite prey soon became longer-legged, so as to better flee after drawing predatory attention during mating displays. In contrast, more sedentary females became larger, making them harder to ingest — a display of sex-specific selection pressures.

Further, the theory that mutations are inevitably harmful is not true. No doubt, mutations are very often deadly - cancer cells, or an extra chromosome - but many are not. As one example, when researchers adjusted the color frequencies of wild guppy populations in Trinidad, they found that unusual variants — regardless of color — had higher survival rates. Why? Because the predators likely did not recognize the unusual color variations as prey, and let them live more frequently. This is called frequency-dependent survival: selection favoring the rare and disfavoring the common, preventing a long-term homogeneity that — no matter how beneficial in the short term — might someday prove disastrous.

Also, look at some species well-known characteristics for further support. Why do horses have such long snouts? Answer: horses are prey. They run so fast to escape being a meal. Horses graze. The longer a horse's snout, the longer his legs. The longer the legs, the faster the horse. So the horses with shorter snouts and shorter legs were more likely to be meals ... and less percentage of the population. After many, many generations, the species favored the horses with longer snouts and longer legs, and voila! There you have it.

So examples of evolution and natural selection exist all around us. And I agree completely with del and jitter - evolution and a powerful, knowing being are not antithetical.

Are you serious? Scientist "adjusting" the color is not a natural mutation. Also it did not change the animal into a difference animal. It simply injected an unknown DNA replication into the pool. It introduced an unknown into the equation. Almost all mutations are harmful and some can't even be pass on. That's why thousands of PhDs across the world are starting to question the theory. Also you horse analogy is bologna. Natural selection occurs WITHIN the species and has nothing to do with evolution because the information is already there (long snouts). It doesn't have any new information. It didn't grow wings.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Not worth arguing.

 

[Vincent]

Not worth arguing.

A flawed premise that is paramount to the left's rejection of all things 'God', and tangential to the rest of their BS isn't worth arguing. Do I have that right? Or are you saying that like arguing about the existence of God is a complete waste of time? Which I agree. Its entertaining, but its a waste of time.

 

[Superman]

I'm a science teacher and have been in the field for years. Many scientist know the truth but Darwinism is the holy grail and few would dare touch it. Natural selection enhances a quality already present in the species. It can cause loss of information but never the gain of information. Mutations are copying errors in DNA and are either benign or harmful for the species. Neither of these can add information to an existing species and certainly can't change one species into an entirely new species.

wtfever. I'm waiting on my motorcycle to evolve into an airplane.
tick tock tick tock

 

[Vincent]

wtfever. I'm waiting on my motorcycle to evolve into an airplane.
tick tock tick tock

I too wait for my accounts to evolve into $Billions. Ergo, I reject 'evolution'.

 

[Steeltime]

Are you serious? Scientist "adjusting" the color is not a natural mutation.

The point was what Darwin actually wrote about - natural selection. The process of "natural selection" focuses on the selection part. Artificial changes simply mimic nature and give us a view of natural selection in action.

Moths changing from gray to all-black in London is another example. The black moths blended in better due to the residue left by fires and coal burning, and prospered. The gray moths did not, and became quite rare.

The natural selection theory spawned the theory of evolution, i.e., that species change, develop, and mutate and survive or don't and die off. You are focused on the mutation portion of the equation. If you accept the natural selection portion, then the abundance of species and their incredible variations - some slight, some incredible - make sense.

Finally, our rock formations are littered with millions of plants and animals that have died off, and have been gone for millions of years ... to the point the life turned into rock. The denial of the timeless process of natural selection and its progeny, evolution, is simply not credible.

 

[Steeltime]

The concept never gelled in my mind. You throw an old fridge into a field. It doesn't evolve into a Buick.

Because unlike living organisms, it is unable to change its essential nature, and have nature reward or punish such changes to see if it will survive. Living organisms can, and do, change with great regularity, and nature decides if the change is for the good or detriment.

Primordial ooze doesn't evolve into intellects that can create artificial intelligence in 1956 or fly to the Moon in 1969 or build high speed rail to Tokyo in... oh wait, that's devolution.

Primordial ooze better change. The oceans change based on how much Ph the atmosphere puts into the ocean, and based on ocean temperature, and based on food sources.

It is a fact that given enough time, any life form will change. Some changes benefit the creatures, some don't. Those that benefit the life form remain and become more dominant. Those changes - called "mutations" in living organisms - then become part of the new and improved life form.

The primordial ooze that develops - "mutates" - into having small growths that catch water movement and allow it to travel to a better feeding ground prevails. The ooze that then "selects" the better travel pattern for its feeding prospers. The ooze which then survives hotter or colder temperatures, or increases the food it can process, survives and becomes the new and improved ooze.

So over the course of millions of years, the ooze now can move, select its feeding location, survive greater temperature variations, and increase the food it can eat. It's the same ooze ... yet it isn't. (I was going to write, "but it's not," and then realized you boogers would point out that I had posited that ooze was the same because "it's snot.")

 

[Vincent]

The denial of the timeless process of natural selection and its progeny, evolution, is simply not credible.

The 'natural selection' piece can be argued. How else do you explain the races? We all descend from Africans. How do we get the Swedish Bikini team?