Do you mean, you haven’t done a quick search to see, if what I’ve said is true or not?
There are thousands of scientists who reject universal common descent.
And this has been a known issue for years. There’s even a growing list of scientists who have signed and stated they do not feel the evidence said to be supporting universal common descent, is sound scientifically.
Yawn. The “dissent from Darwin” list. As previously pointed out, most of the people on that list aren’t scientists, and the Project Steve list puts it to shame.
That statement makes no mention of universal common descent.
That article makes no mention of scientists doubting universal common descent. And it is quite critical of those scientists who propose an “update” of evolution. Did you even read it?
I have no idea what Bechly’s beliefs are on universal common descent, but that article also makes no mention of the issue. He’s just another DI shill, so hardly a great example to support your point.
Yes, I do claim that. What you show here isn’t evidence for your claim. The Dissent from Darwinism isn’t about common descent at all, if you actually read it. This is typical of your shoddy scholarship. If you want to establish any credibility you need to do much better.
OK, @rtmcdge. Let’s look at that petition and see if it even says what you think it says. “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” states:
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.
I too am “skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life” because scientists have known for a long time that additional processes are involved. Gene flow/migration, genetic drift, and non-random mating come to mind. Without these processes, random mutation and natural selection don’t tell the whole story. We’ve known that for many years now. If you had actually studied evolution as much as you claim, you would know that also.
As to “Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”, I am certainly fine with that as well. Indeed, I would think that careful examination of evidence should be encouraged with every scientific theory! Tell us the names of scientists who discourage examination of evidence? Who is anti-evidence other than those who deny the massively overwhelming evidence for evolutionary processes?
What a silly petition. If not for it being composed and posted solely for its propaganda potential with audiences who don’t understand how science works, I would have no hesitation signing the two statements of the petition. (The title of the petition is a lame propaganda tactic which has little to do with what the petition actually states.) And considering that scientists moved on long ago from Charles Darwin’s important but very introductory examination of “the origin of species”, the petition is hardly as profound as you think it is.
I am amazed that you think that such a lame petition somehow constitutes evidence of anything other than your unfamiliarity with evolutionary processes.
@rtmcdge I have pulled recent comment relating to the Dissent from Darwin list into (this) new thread). Splitting threads can sometimes be confusing for new members, but this should help to clean up the discussion in the original thread.
You will see a link here (above) indicating the original discussion. There will also be a link in that discussion indicating where to find comments that have been moved.
Perhaps I should post a website with an equally silly petition entitled:
“A Scientific Dissent from Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation”
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation to account for the complexity of the universe. Careful examination of the evidence for Newtonian physics should be encouraged.
As others have pointed out, this statement makes no mention of common descent:
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.
However, its problems don’t stop there.
As evolutionary mechanisms go well beyond “random mutation and natural selection”, it is a strawman of the scientific position.
Many of its signatories are not scientists – it includes philosophers, mathematicians, engineers, at least one economist, and at least one (deceased) museum butterfly collection photographer with no PhD whatsoever.
Even of the scientists, most do not have expertise in a relevant area – see this section of the Wikipedia article on the petition. I would note that this lack of relevant expertise also covers James Tour.
Addendum: as to “thousands of scientists” – I would point out that the petition only contains about a thousand signatories in total – so probably less than a thousand “scientists”.
Bechley’s article, which he probably wrote himself, was deleted because it relied too heavily on sources that weren’t independent of the subject, and so couldn’t establish that subject’s notability under Wikipedia’s rules.
You are forgetting, the, " Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." part of the quote you provided.
You see, they are talking about Darwinism.
And from the from the following quote you can see that universal common descent is Darwinism.
" Darwin proposed that species can change over time, that new species come from pre-existing species, and that all species share a common ancestor . In this model, each species has its own unique set of heritable (genetic) differences from the common ancestor, which have accumulated gradually over very long time periods."
Source: Darwin, evolution, & natural selection (article) | Khan Academy.
So either you don’t understand what evolution actually is supposed to say, or you are just refusing to reject the error you are cherishing more than the science you claim to accept.
In what way? Support it with facts.
Darwin was not a diploma carrying scientist. He didn’t even finish his theology degree.
And you are going to make the claim the scientists that are from some of the most prestigious there are, would not have the understanding to distinguish between sound science and not?
Plus in this group, there are biologists, and microbiologists, and chemists, and some of them hold more than one degree in the sciences.
Add to this the many scientists who had at one time accepted universal common descent evolution but who now accept instead, the Intelligent design or Creation model.
There are more than these who stand against evolution. But, the numbers do not make the science.
You have every opportunity to verify Bechly’s qualifications.
No. The statement contains nothing about “Darwinism”, but about the ability of natural selection and random mutation to explain all the complexity of life. Nothing about common descent is in the statement.
You really have issue with reading comprehension, don’t you?
It is you who is “forgetting” that stating that “Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged” is not the same as rejecting all aspects of “Darwinism”.
When you make such basic errors of logic, you should hardly be surprised that people treat you as “some child”, “or teenager”, or “some illiterate person” (to use your own words).
If you want a more specific rebuttal of your claim:
Michael Behe is a signatory of aSDfD
Michael Behe explicitly rejects Darwinism.
Michael Behe explicitly accepts Common Descent.
Evolutionary mechanisms beyond “random mutation and natural selection” include Genetic Drift (aka ‘Neutral Theory’), Recombination and Gene Flow.
The fact that you do not know this is further evidence what you have not in fact been stydying evolution for “years”.
Whether or not Darwin was or was not “a diploma carrying scientist” is irrelevant to my point that your claim that your claim that there are “thousands of scientists who reject universal common descent” is not substantiated by the petition.
The substance of your claim has already been rebutted by @Royhere. That you are repeating this debunked claim is further evidence of your dishonesty.
Prestige is no guarantee that all a scientist’s claims have scientific merit. There have been a number of even Nobel Prize-winning scientists who have advocated scientifically disreputable ideas.
And you have provided no evidence that any great number of the scientists on that petition are “prestigious”, let alone that their prestige is in a relevant field of expertise.
How many “biologists, and microbiologists”? “Chemists”, unless they are biochemists, and those who “hold more than one degree in the sciences”, unless one of those degrees is in biology, are irrelevant.
You have provided no evidence that any such scientists exist.
Although it is likely that at least some exist, it is also likely that they are an insignificant minority of scientists.
This can be seen from the shear number of scientific organisation that reject ID:
That is not a particularly impressive CV.
You have failed to demonstrate that Bechly actually rejects Common Descent – a number of aSDfD signatories don’t reject it.
Please, stop trying to bring claims without evidence. And I have clearly shown that Bechly and other scientists have rejected common descent evolution.
All you need to do is watch the videos he has made and you will understand this.
So what did he mean when he said “I am convinced that the evidence strongly points towards a combination of old earth and common ancestry with saltational development”?
