Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish here?
And just because there are only a thousand there is a thousand. And there are more who for academic reasons do not reveal what they really think.
What an breathtaking lack of self awareness.
That is YOUR claim, that hundreds of thousands of qualified researchers, who accept conventional science, don’t possess the understanding to recognize sound science, even though they are the ones who discover pretty much everything.
These “implications” would appear to have no existence outside your fevered imagination.
Signing aSDfD does not imply rejection of universal common descent.
-
aSDfD does not even contain an explicit rejection of “Darwinism”.
-
Even rejection of Darwinism does not imply rejection of universal common descent.
Yes, but I meant Behe accepts it as the scientific community understands it, not as some clueless and scientifically-illiterate YEC misunderstands it. For the avoidance of doubt, let me clarify:
- Michael Behe explicitly accepts universal Common Descent. Michael Behe would accept, for example, common descent between cats and dogs, and in fact between all mammals.
Given your complete failure to provide anything within a million miles of a rigorous definition of “kinds”, let me cut you off there.
Your blather is not evidence, but simply your naive and scientifically-illiterate interpretation of the evidence.
The observable evidence is as follows:
-
Offspring are similar to the parents.
-
Offspring are, on average, less similar to their grandparents.
-
With each generation, the offspring are, on average, more dissimilar to their ultimate progenitors.
As the is no observable limit to this increase in dissimilarity, there is no evidence that this dissimilarity cannot grow without limit.
I made no such claim!
Please stop putting words in my mouth – it is extremely dishonest.
I would suggest however if your only understanding of evolution is from creationist propaganda and creationist quote-mines of evolutionary biologists (as seems to be the case), then you have no understanding of evolution.
What books by Darwin, Mayr, Gould, Peterson, etc have you actually read (rather than simply copy-and-pasting quote-mines of them from some creationist website)?
You have not provided one digit, not one binary bit of hard data.
All that you have done is provided the opinions of inexpert creationists, and the misrepresented opinions of scientists.
3 Likes
While Bechly idenfies with ID and does reject neo-Darwinism as an adequate and complete explanation for life, once again you have clearly shown that you do not read and understand your sources. Despite your bluster, you are flat out wrong. The following is from Bechly’s own web page:
Dr. Günter Bechly - Anti-Darwinism
I see neither any scientific nor compelling other reasons to dispute the conventional dating of the age of the universe and Earth, or the conventional explanations for the origin of the geological column and the fossil record. I also consider so-called Flood Geology of Young Earth Creationists as a totally failed endeavour.
…
I definitely do affirm that every organism (apart from the first living cell) was produced / born from a biological parent organism and thus did not pop into being ex nihilo.
…
1 Like
I take your lack of pointing out where specifically he rejects common descent as you conceding he does not reject it. Thank you.
3 Likes
No, excluding the non-scientists on the petition, there is less than a thousand.
There are approximately 8.8 million scientists world-wide.[1]
That means that the less-than-a-thousand is only about 0.01% of scientists – a completely tiny and insignificant minority.
You have no evidence of this claim, just a couple of worthless self-serving pieces of disinformation by Casey Luskin, a notorious anti-evolution propagandist – neither of which appear to even address the claim that “there are more who for academic reasons do not reveal what they really think”, and a poorly-sourced (e.g. “There are thousands of modern scientists who reject evolution” – but the linked source lists less than 100) and self-published spiel by some obscure electrical engineer – which likewise does not appear to address this claim.
1 Like
Darwin graduated from the University of Cambridge in 1831 with a Bachelor of Arts degree, having passed examinations on physics, mathematics, classics and theology.
This isn’t something where you can hide behind disagreements between experts, or cite opinions or mined quotes, or pretend that there’s no evidence because we haven’t seen it happening. It’s not something that is difficult to understand. It’s a fully-documented matter of historical record, on which you have already been corrected.
So if you continue to claim Darwin didn’t have a degree or diploma in science, you aren’t merely evading or misinterpreting, you are lying. If you insist he didn’t finish his theology degree, you aren’t merely confused or repeating creationist clap-trap, you are lying.
And then nothing you say matters.
3 Likes
Are you just bound and determined to ignore what I just said. You are the one who is making the claim that scientists who have studied from some of the most prestigious schools of higher education there are, could not possibly be intelligent enough to look at what Darwin said, look at the evidence that is claimed to support what Darwin said, and determine for themselves as to the validity of it all?
That those scientists who agree with him do so, even though there IS NO EVIDENCE TO DO SO, is a mystery for the scientific community to uncover.
But, the fact remains, THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS UNIVERSAL COMMON DESCENT.
That you keep trying to talk yourself into believing this, is yet another mystery.
Now, let’s see if the supposed scientific community of “Peaceful science” will allow this to stand or censor it because it doesn’t reflect their ideals.
I must say, that aside from one lone person who I’m not sure is, those on this site are far from being peaceful.
I’ve been attacked and denigrated by almost everyone but one.
If you want only to be told what you already believe, why in the world do you need to make a site and offer an open invitation for others to join. You already vehemently believe what you already believe.
You have done nothing but parrot arguments from apologetic web sites already familiar to everyone. Your few original thoughts offered have been obvious but irrelevant. You have used quote mines to misrepresent people’s life work. You repeat assertions that have already been discredited in previous posts. If you feel that you are denigrated, stop doing these things. Do not play the martyr here.
5 Likes
Please stop spamming with creationist web sites and videos. This is nothing more than a Gish Gallop assembled from the Gish Gallops of others. I’m willing to discuss any specific bits of evidence you would care to present, but not hundreds of nonsensical claims at once.
I ask once again: what is your purpose here? What do you hope to achieve?
2 Likes
One wonders why both Michael Behe and Gunther Bechly accepts universal common descent, then. Not to mention essentially all of the field of evolutionary biology.
Of course there is such evidence, it’s called consilience of independent phylogenies. Even among the most divergent prokaryotic phylogenetic trees, one can still detect a central tree-like trend:
We set out to address the above question as objectively as possible, first of all dispensing with any pre-selected standard of tree-like evolution. The analyzed FOL consisted of 6,901 maximum likelihood phylogenetic trees that were built for clusters of orthologous genes from a representative set of 100 diverse bacterial and archaeal genomes [1]. The complete matrix of topological distances between these trees was analyzed using the Inconsistency Score, a measure that we defined specifically for this purpose that reflects the average topological (in)consistency of a given tree with the rest of the trees in the FOL (for the details of the methods employed in this analysis, see [21]). Although the FOL includes very few trees with exactly identical topologies, we found that the topologies of the trees were far more congruent than expected by chance. The 102 Nearly Universal Trees (NUTs; that is, the trees for genes that are represented in all or nearly all archaea and bacteria), which include primarily genes for key protein components of the translation and transcription systems, showed particularly high topological similarity to the other trees in the FOL. Although the topologies of the NUTs are not identical, apparently reflecting multiple HGT events, these transfers appeared to be distributed randomly. In other words, there seem to be no prominent ‘highways’ of HGT that would preferentially connect particular groups of archaea and bacteria. Thus, although the NUTs cannot represent the FOL completely, they appear to reflect a significant central trend, an attractor in the tree space that could be equated with the STOL (Figure (Figure11).
The central tree-like trend in the phylogenetic forest of life. The circles show genomes of extant species and the grey tree in the background shows the statistical central trend in the data. For the purpose of illustration, the figure shows an ‘FOL’ made of 16 trees with 20 deviations from the central tree-like pattern.
The set of 6,901 phylogenetic trees that comprise the FOL has become a launching pad for several new studies addressing various aspects of prokaryote evolution and general questions of evolutionary biology. In our own hands, the sequel to the original FOL study involved quantitative dissection of the evolution of prokaryotes into tree-like and web-like components [22]. We applied the approach known as quartet analysis to quantify the contributions of these two distinct modes of evolution [21] and found that, although diverse routes of net-like evolution collectively dominate the FOL, the pattern of tree-like evolution that reflects the generally consistent topologies of the NUTs is the most prominent coherent trend [22]. Thus, the ubiquity of HGT notwithstanding, this central tree-like trend reflects a major aspect of genome evolution and hence has a legitimate claim to represent the STOL.
The only good explanation for this central trend is common ancestry. The trees derived from independent genomic loci are similar because they’re constrained by a shared genealogical history. There is, a priori, no reason found in functional constraint, that explains why independent genomic loci should converge on similar phylogenetic trees. You could at best expect some degree of sequence similarity from functional constraint alone, but not such an extreme constraint on branching topology.
You will not meaningfully respond.
2 Likes
Parroting or repeating what others have said, is not anti science. It is your duty to ascertain whether or not what is said to have been said, has or has not been said, and then to dispute what has been submitted.
Complaining that I appeal to other sources, is not anti science. It is demonstrating that others hold the same view. It is demonstrating there is a pattern for what has been observed.
Where is your evidence that disputes what is clearly and empirically observed?
So, don’t worry about who is a martyr. Worry about providing the evidence that supports what you believe.
Which to date you have not done.
All this does is show Bechly is hanging on to the last vestiges of evolution.
He has repeatedly demonstrated that he does not agree with the claims of the evolutionists that the fossil record demonstrates common descent.
And once universal common descent is set aside the extreme age of the universe and earth is on the brink of being shown to be false as well.
1 Like
And how many of those 8 million scientists of the world have you personally talked with to know how they stand on universal common descent?
Are you honestly going to tell me that the number of scientists who have signed the list are the only ones who question universal common descent.
Please tell me you are that biased as to be so blind.
It is, as science is based on data.
Representing your parroting of people with a history of misrepresentation as “testimony” or “evidence” is objectively dishonest.
Much of the material you present is at odds with actual working science, and you have offered no alternative that would replace the current science with anything better and more workable.
I understand that you do not agree with the science of evolution, and a few other odds and ends (like physics). If you want to overturn current science, you need to offer new testable hypotheses which might explain ALL the current data we have, AND make new predictions the current theory does not.
That is because you are presenting material that was never very scientific to begin with, and was firmly refuted in the 20th century. The reason your arguments do not get any scientific traction is because they are apologetics meant to persuade a particular religious belief. If you want to persuade scientists - or most reasonable people for that matter - you need to show results, and you haven’t got any.
You have also made a number of attacks on those here. You should try treating others the way you want to be treated. If you find some comment particularly egregious, you can click on the “Flag” below that comment and leave feedback which moderators will consider.
2 Likes
Timestamp. Where in the 3½ hour video you just linked does he say that?
1 Like
You have not proven them to be misrepresentations.
Where is your evidence.
You say, they are taken out of context. I have supplied more than one quote saying the same thing, from different times, by the same person.
I have even provided quotes from other individuals who have also stated the same thing giving the same understanding.
Now, again, where is your evidence that supports your claims of misrepresentations?