|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is evolution so controversial? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
I am not interested in peer review I am interested in the truth! End thread.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
Found this on Bosanquet
quote: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/pda/thread.php?topi... 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.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1519 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined: |
Thanks for the response Percy. Anyway let’s get to it.
Scientists who reject evolution don't publish their opinions in peer review journals because their rejections are based on religions beliefs and not scientific facts. This claim is proven false by just the fact that critics of evolution have written books arguing why evolution is scientifically false!
Sanford rejects evolution because of his religious beliefs. Dr. Sanford argued his scientific reasons for rejecting evolution in Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome.
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. http://www.amazon.com/...7243/ref=sr_1_1/102-3072546-5394504 As for your claims on the other scientists: Regarding Dr. Henry Zuill you write: It's safe to conclude his views derive from his religious beliefs. Why is it safe to assume that? Like you said He has articles posted at Answers in Genesis and guess what in those articles he gives his scientific reasons for rejecting evolution! How you didn’t notice that is beyond me. Regarding Prof. Vladimir Betina you write: What makes you think he rejects evolution? He is depicted on hundreds of creationist websites as a creationist that’s why, if he wasn’t a creationist he would have spoken out by now, the fact that he hasn’t makes me think that he is indeed a creationist. Regarding Dr. Kimberly Berrine you write: Other than her presence on this list, she appears to have no existence on the Internet whatsoever. I can find nothing about her. What makes you think she rejects evolution? She is depicted on hundreds of creationist websites as a creationist that’s why, if she wasn’t a creationist she would have spoken out by now, the fact that she hasn’t makes me think that she is indeed a creationist. Regarding Dr. Donald Baumann you write: He obviously lets his religion interfere with his science. Obviously? What do you mean obviously? Where does he say he rejects Evolution because he is religious? Regarding Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin you write: He's doesn't sound like a scientist at all, and he's definitely very religious. So what if he is religious, where is the proof he rejects evolution for religious reasons. Regarding Andrew Bosanquet you say Except that he's on the same list as Ms. Berrine and Mr. Betina, I can find nothing about him. What makes you think he rejects evolution? Andrew G. Bosanquet Ph.D., CBiol, MIBiol in Biology and Microbiology, is indeed the Director of the Bath Cancer Research Wolfson Center at the Royal United Hospital in Bath, England and the Department of Postgraduate Medicine at the University of Bath. He is in fact a creationist, and even wrote a chapter in a creationist book: On The Seventh Day: 40 Scientists and academics explain why they believe in God - Google and Edited by Cedre, : No reason given. Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
This claim is proven false by just the fact that critics of evolution have written books arguing why evolution is scientifically false! Books are not peer reviewed journal articles.
Dr. Sanford argued his scientific reasons for rejecting evolution in Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome. Books are not peer reviewed journal articles.
Why is it safe to assume that? Like you said He has articles posted at Answers in Genesis and guess what in those articles he gives his scientific reasons for rejecting evolution! How you didn’t notice that is beyond me. Websites are not peer reviewed journal articles.
He is depicted on hundreds of creationist websites as a creationist that’s why, if he wasn’t a creationist he would have spoken out by now, the fact that he hasn’t makes me think that he is indeed a creationist. Being a creationist is not peer reviewed journal articles.
Andrew G. Bosanquet Ph.D., CBiol, MIBiol in Biology and Microbiology, is indeed the Director of the Bath Cancer Research Wolfson Center at the Royal United Hospital in Bath, England and the Department of Postgraduate Medicine at the University of Bath. He is in fact a creationist, and even wrote a chapter in a creationist book: On The Seventh Day: 40 Scientists and academics explain why they believe in God - Google ... and Working for Bath Cancer research and writing a chapter in a non science book is not a peer reviewed journal article. Still no actual evidence to support your assertion. You need to provide some evidence that has been peer reviewed otherwise this is all simply your opinion. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1519 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined: |
Tag said: "That is an argument from incredulity.
"Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so. Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so. Conclusion: Not-P." Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki I didn't make that argument, I am not claiming evolution is wrong because I can't conceive of how it could have given rise to complexity. What I am saying is I cannot accept evolution because the human body is too complex to have come about by the mechanisms of the modern synthesis. What I am saying is Neo-Darwinism doesn't seem an adequate explanation for complexity. you said Again with the argument from popularity. If you say I made an argument from popularity you do not understand what the argument from popularity is.
Those scientists do not reject neo-Darwinism because of scientific reasons, but for religious reasons. The fact that a number of them have written books and articles outlining scientific reasons why they reject evolution exposes your above claim! Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1519 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined: |
Thanks for the response Larni
You say:Books are not peer reviewed journal articles. So what? The bottom-line is the authors of those books give their scientific reasons for rejecting evolution in those books? I already said I don't care about peer review, I care about the truth, knowledge and science flourished just fine in the decades prior to peer review, and doesn't depend on peer review to flourish. In fact peer review is loaded with its own problems. Little to no evidence of it's effectiveness or improvement of scientific knowledge.
quote:Trial by peers comes up short | Science | The Guardian Like I said I am after truth, unlike you I don't suck up to peer review, for which there is no evidence of its effectiveness according to researches like the above Tom Jefferson. Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I already said I don't care about peer review Then you are an extremely shitty hope-to-be "doctor". I hope for humanity's sake you fail medical school. No worries, though. You don't need a license to be a quack-opractor. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1519 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined:
|
"Then you are an extremely shitty hope-to-be "doctor". I hope for humanity's sake you fail medical school. No worries, though. You don't need a license to be a quack-opractor. Aww... how sweet and ethical of you! Luckily my destiny doesn't depend on you or on the acceptance of evolution, like Ben Carson I can reject neo-Darwinism and still become a world class surgeon. I also intend to be the best doctor I can because I value human life, and have every reason to value human life. Edited by Cedre, : No reason given. Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Books are not peer reviewed journal articles.
So what? The bottom-line is the authors of those books give their scientific reasons for rejecting evolution in those books? If your peers don't have to review your reasons as being scientific, then you can write a book saying whatever you want and call it scientific. If you can't pass your peers' reviews and publish an article, then you'd hafta write a book instead. If you were lying about your religious views by calling them scientific, then you'd have no articles and only books.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Psst. Don't feed the trolls.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
From cochrane.org:
quote: I see from Cochrane | Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. that they do not share your contempt for peer review. They do, in fact, advocate reforms of peer review to make it more effective: unlike you, however, they don't just want to shoot it in the head in order to let a thousand fools bloom. Did you read any further than the Guardian article? It appears to me that you didn't, that you simply ran a search engine for critiques of peer review, found one, cried Eureka! and your work was done. Is that your idea of how truth is found?"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Said the worst troll here..... Don't PM me asking me on a date then talk shit in the open.
Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
...I cannot accept evolution because the human body is too complex to have come about by the mechanisms of the modern synthesis And you know this how, exactly?
What I am saying is Neo-Darwinism doesn't seem an adequate explanation for complexity. And then instead of providing evidence supporting a competing theory, you accept a false dichotomy where your favorite belief is the only likely alternative. To borrow a phrase from James Randi: flimsy and quite transparent. KP
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I'm no first rate biologist like yourself, I am a medical student so I can be excused for misunderstanding evolution and for showing some ignorance, and so I invite any corrections were my understanding falters. Great. Start by discarding everything you think you know about evolution, no matter what the source of that information was. Then read from dependable sources that don't have any agenda other than teaching biology. One good source is Evolution 101, a high school level self directed course put out by Berkeley University. There are others, but this is probably the best set up imho.
Having said that, I did a college level basic course on evolution. ... and what you have said about it leads me to think that it was worse than useless, as it appears that the teacher was not that well informed ...
... As I already pointed out medical school doesn't concentrate on evolution, unfortunately -- I wish it did since I find it a fascinating subject, but I've tried to keep up with what the experts on both sides of the issue are saying. and I have some trouble with the concept of a high ranking medical program ignoring evolution, especially when it comes to diseases. Treating this years flu with last years inoculations won't take into account how the flu virus has evolved in that time, just for one example. Another example is that I have lymphoma cancer, I have had chemo therapy 6 or 7 times (I'm losing count), each time it is different chemicals because the cancer evolves to be immune to the last ones. Not understanding this would be fatal.
There are dozens of different phyla of animals, each with its own body plan, and according to Wikipedia a "phyla can be thought of as grouping organisms based on general specialization of body plan", so it goes without saying that new body plans arose to account for the phyla of animals we see around us today. ... Not quite right. Phylum - Wikipedia
quote: I've bolded your quoted section. The issue I take with your comments is that the body plans are not completely different, rather they have different specializations of a generally similar body plan. When we look at human beings we see our classification as:
quote: When we look at mammal skeletons there are many similarities in the order and type of bones -- the upper limbs have one bone, the lower limbs have two bones and the terminal paw/hand/foot/etc has many bones. There are rib bones off the spinal column and the skull is at one end of the spinal column while the tail is at the other. The bones from one mammal can be mapped to the bones of another. This is -- to my mind -- one basic body plan with variations (specializations) in length and thickness and such. Chordate - Wikipedia
quote: As with mammals, when you look at vertebrates ("mammals, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds; ...") you find the same general patterns of bones in the skeletons and the bones from one vertebrate can be mapped to the bones of another. This is -- to my mind -- still one basic body plan with different variations (specializations) in length and thickness and such. When we consider the whole tree of life we can trace these homologies back to common ancestors, and even when we go back to where many of the skeletal bones of mammals and reptiles and birds are missing, there are still common elements that show larger groups of related organisms -- there is no major difference that I can see in body plans beyond the development of specialized adaptations. Perhaps it is a matter of terminology again.
... so it goes without saying that new body plans arose to account for the phyla of animals we see around us today. ... Do birds and bats have different body plans or the same body plans with different specializations? The History of Evolutionary Thought - Understanding Evolution
quote: All those branches of organisms have spinal columns running from head to tail, with ribs and limbs branching off, but not all are tetrapods and not all tetrapods are mammals, yet they all share many aspects of a general body plan with different adaptations\variations\specializations. Homologies and analogies - Understanding Evolution
quote: Having wings is analogous rather than homologous, however the bones that are used are still homologous, they are just different variations\specializations of the bones used in different adaptations to form the wings.
Without providing any evidence that unguided changes are capable of generating new, viable body plans, you matter of factly declare that at some point in the past, body plans have been generated. ... But yes, and the evidence is in the parts of the body plans that are shared and how one branch develops generation by generation from that common basis to reach the specialized variation on the general body plans of their ancestors. Because the variations in body plans are not all new and completely different from anything seen before -- that would be astounding (and not evolution).
... This is the problem we've not observed new body plans and yet we are expected to believe that evolution accounts for body plan ... Curiously, what we have observe is the fossil record, and the development of the different branches by adaptations of previous forms: at no time is the difference between an organism and the previous generation greater than the difference observed within dogs, and we do see a lot of variations in dogs in the specialization of their various parts.
... morphogenesis... Please! Indeed, another confusion\conflation ... Morphogenesis - Wikipedia
quote: In other words morphogenesis is the embryological development of the individual organism and not the evolution of the species. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024