YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Can you cite the names of those that asked to be removed?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent
- Thread starter usfan
- Start date
- Status
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Because it's valid. What is the claim refuting the concept of irreducible complexity?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I could provide a video for you to watch that goes over that. But that is besides the point. The petition itself was dishonest since it was about "Darwinism", evolution has gone last just the work of Darwin. The reason that so few of the signers were biologists was that most of them recognized a bogus source. But some were tricked.
Tell me, do you think that using dishonest sources is a proper way to debate?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, it is not. It was another bogus claim. The burden of proof was upon the person making the irreducible complexity claim and That was never done, and then it was refuted later even without him trying to support it.
Jim
Nets of Wonder
No. It has never been about testing separate ancestry, for me.
Jim
Nets of Wonder
No. I’m calling it a crusade against some religious factions.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Can you cite the names of the signatories that have relevant research backgrounds?
tas8831
Well-Known Member
What are the legitimate claims FOR it? And how do you know they are legitimate?
Jim
Nets of Wonder
If you’re insinuating that what I’m doing here is dishonest or irresponsible, I disagree.
You have claimed that scientists wer ebing professionally dishonest or irresponsible and 'desperate' to support a particular viewpoint.
Now, in everyday life that may not be a serious charge. But in the scientific community it is. And it is wrong to accuse someone of such without having a solid reason for doing such. That you cannot support your accusation means that you were at least irresponsible here.
Now, I reasonable response is to say you were wrong and apologize OR substantiate your claims. Either would be acceptable behavior.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I have been a bit busy so could not respond more fully earlier. Behe's claim was more of a "because I said so" than anything else. He chose several topics that were on the cutting edge of science and said that they could not be solved. This is not a wise move since topics on the cutting edge are usually also being heavily researched. His favorite example was shown to be wrong almost immediately:
Evolution of the bacterial flagellum
That is a long paper with over two hundred links to peer reviewed articles that support it. Or you could watch this rather simplified video:
He also made a public embarrassment of himself at the Dover trial where he was shown to be wrong about the evolution of the immune system as well. I could dig up a dramatization of that for you if you would like.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
I can't, but I did come across this -
One of the signatories, a microbiologist listing her affiliation as U of Minnesota. is actually a high school biology teacher at a Christian school:
https://dissentfromdarwin.org/2019/02/01/dr-yvonne-boldt-ph-d-microbiology-univ-of-minnesota/
"“When Darwinian proponents claim there is no controversy regarding the cohesiveness of the scientific evidence for evolution as creator, they are merely expressing a heartfelt desire. … There is a growing contingent of scientists who have found the evidence for Darwinian evolution wanting, and who are ready and willing to debate Darwinists on scientific grounds.”"
Sure - 'debate' but not actually do any research into her own 'beliefs'...
So, googling her up:
"Dr. Boldt teaches Biology at Providence Academy. She earned a doctoral degree in Microbiology from the University of Minnesota. She was awarded a postdoctoral fellowship at Stanford University and worked as a lead scientist for a biotechnology company, Incyte Genomics, in Sunnyvale, California. She has taught microbiology at the University of St. Thomas and the University of Minnesota, and brings special professional interests in contemporary questions of science and religion. Dr. Boldt has long been active with church youth groups, and has also taught religious education in her parish."
I have to wonder how many of those amazing Darwin-doubting scientists pulled that sort of antic....
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Say it ain't so
Jim
Nets of Wonder
I have no objection to evolution research being done with a premise of common ancestry. I would want that to continue. I agree with teaching common ancestry in public schools. I’m opposed to everything that I’ve seen creation factions promoting for what to teach in public schools.
I’ve read a few more articles about reasons for thinking that all life on earth has a common ancestor, as a historical fact, and I see nothing but fallacies. I see three kinds of arguments:
- Fossils.
- Similarities between species.
- How well it works to think that way.
It looks to me like the argument from fossils is that there’s nothing in the fossils that conclusively disproves common ancestry. Is anyone claiming that there is something in the fossils that conclusively disproves separate ancestry?
The similarities argument looks to me like a reflex to think of common ancestry as an explanation for similarities. Other explanations have been found for similarities, at all levels from life chemistry to external appearances, so I see no reason to consider any similarities of any kind as an argument against separate ancestry.
I see the argument from how well it works to think that way as a good reason to keep doing it, but not a reason at all to stigmatize people who don’t believe it. In electricity and electronics it works very well to think of the electricity as flowing from the positive terminal of the source to the negative, but I don’t think anyone would think of stigmatizing people who think that the flow of particles is actually in the other direction, or objecting to that as a premise for some research.
I’ll explain my reasons for thinking that it’s unlikely that all life on earth has a common ancestor. However life first appeared, it seems unlikely to me that it only happened once, in one single organism. It seems more likely to me that it happened in many places all around the world, possibly thousands or even millions of places. For various reasons, I think that there would be variations from one first life organism to another that would lead to different paths of evolution. Out of all the thousands or millions of different first life organisms It seems unlikely to me that the lines of ancestry of all life today all go back to the same one. Possible maybe, but unlikely.
I’ve read a few more articles about reasons for thinking that all life on earth has a common ancestor, as a historical fact, and I see nothing but fallacies. I see three kinds of arguments:
- Fossils.
- Similarities between species.
- How well it works to think that way.
It looks to me like the argument from fossils is that there’s nothing in the fossils that conclusively disproves common ancestry. Is anyone claiming that there is something in the fossils that conclusively disproves separate ancestry?
The similarities argument looks to me like a reflex to think of common ancestry as an explanation for similarities. Other explanations have been found for similarities, at all levels from life chemistry to external appearances, so I see no reason to consider any similarities of any kind as an argument against separate ancestry.
I see the argument from how well it works to think that way as a good reason to keep doing it, but not a reason at all to stigmatize people who don’t believe it. In electricity and electronics it works very well to think of the electricity as flowing from the positive terminal of the source to the negative, but I don’t think anyone would think of stigmatizing people who think that the flow of particles is actually in the other direction, or objecting to that as a premise for some research.
I’ll explain my reasons for thinking that it’s unlikely that all life on earth has a common ancestor. However life first appeared, it seems unlikely to me that it only happened once, in one single organism. It seems more likely to me that it happened in many places all around the world, possibly thousands or even millions of places. For various reasons, I think that there would be variations from one first life organism to another that would lead to different paths of evolution. Out of all the thousands or millions of different first life organisms It seems unlikely to me that the lines of ancestry of all life today all go back to the same one. Possible maybe, but unlikely.
Jim
Nets of Wonder
I disagree.
It disappoints me to see you participating in that vilification campaign. I thought better of you than that.
Last edited:
Jim
Nets of Wonder
@Polymath257 Besides, I’ve already explained my reasons for saying that, more than once.
“Claim” and “accusation” are other people’s words, not mine. I have never presented my thoughts about the study as anything but my own personal impression, from reading the earlier abstract, and the blog post by the lead author. Do you want me to lie about what I think? This looks to me like thought policing.
Have you read the blog post by the lead author?
“Claim” and “accusation” are other people’s words, not mine. I have never presented my thoughts about the study as anything but my own personal impression, from reading the earlier abstract, and the blog post by the lead author. Do you want me to lie about what I think? This looks to me like thought policing.
Have you read the blog post by the lead author?
Last edited:
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I'm not sure how far it went as far as disagreeing eventually, and why, but I might surmise that the reason some scientists dissented from the dissenters is that some of the dissenting scientists that agree that Darwinian concept of evolution is wrong is because they don't believe in God but realize the validity of the concept that there are elements that are irreducibly complex. In other words, doubtful that these things just came about by themselves in their apparently irreducible complexity.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Won't it be nice in my old-er age to study microbiology in reference to evolution.
But there are so many interesting things in life to explore, it's something I can look forward to I suppose.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I have a feeling that many claims of famous or not famous scientists turned out to be verifiable, while other claims of the same scientist were not. Not that it matters though.
Gould spoke at a meeting I attended in 1996. He was indeed an intelligent and compelling speaker, but also came fully loaded on arrogance. Still, I enjoyed the talk, since his 40 years of study were real.
Who would ever call you a narcissist. Look how kind you are with your estimate. I was thinking something like 1 in 3 and considered that charitable.
- Status