No we shouldn't.
That would be true for the layman, but not scientists who work in that area.
So.
You seem to be quite critical of a science of which you are demonstrating you have absolutely no knowldege about.
Upvote
0
Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!
- Thread starter ArtB
- Start date
- Status
No we shouldn't.
That would be true for the layman, but not scientists who work in that area.
So.
You seem to be quite critical of a science of which you are demonstrating you have absolutely no knowldege about.
Patently false:
See: How is Darwinian medicine useful?
And: Evolutionary medicine: A meaningful connection between omics, disease, and treatment
Would you like to know more?
Upvote
0
But, of course, it's quite an accurate portrayal of one who martyrs themselves for Allah, yes?
Upvote
0
Would you like to know more?
Yes what does any of this have to do with Darwin's claim of the Origin of Species?
Upvote
0
What claim in the Origin of Species? Be more specific.
I was responding specifically to this notion: "Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism".
As in creationist shorthand Darwinism = the Theory of Evolution, my citations were a direct refutation of the idea that no-one in the biological sciences needs (or uses) evolutionary knowledge and the theoretical underpinnings in their work. Evolution is used in, quite literally, thousands of areas of biology. Every day. By millions of trained professionals. It's also used in sociology, psychology, anthropology, economics and politics.
In my area of business - commercial aerospace - evolutionary theory and genetic algorithms are used on a continual basis, for everything from wing design and optimisation through to man-machine interface design.
Upvote
0
Not quit true, it is one hand clapping, only one side is allowed to talk, if the other side presents an argument, they are suppressed and punished. The motivation for the movie is because of what happened to Richard M. Sternberg after he allowed peer reviewed Stephen C. Meyer's paper on Intelligent Design to be published by the Smithsonian.
If you do not find this type of suppression of our freedom unthinkable; you may, as our freedoms are eroded. The implications are staggering when you look at how these types of ideas have played out in history.
Upvote
0
Again, your response is irrelevant, you obviously do not understand the meaning behind the quote.
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Permitting Intelligent Design to stand on equal footing with the scientific method is akin to Holocaust Denial to be considered as valid as the wealth of evidence we have in support of the history of World War II.
Upvote
0
Its not suppression of freedom. Sternberg's position was overtly religious, and his motivations were questionable, at best. Otherwise he wouldn't have gone after the Smithsonian with a religious discrimination lawsuit (which was later dismissed on the grounds that he had no standing for the complaint).
Meyer's ID paper was a literature review - not really a presentation of any actual evidence for Intelligent Design. When they start publishing actual research outside of their vanity papers and press, that's when people will take them seriously.
I've watched 'Expelled' a couple of times. I've even contributed to critiques of it. You might want to check the other side of the argument before you go praising Ben Stein's little Discovery Institute funded piece of AgitProp.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know/
http://expelledexposed.drupalgardens.com/
Meyer's ID paper was a literature review - not really a presentation of any actual evidence for Intelligent Design. When they start publishing actual research outside of their vanity papers and press, that's when people will take them seriously.
I've watched 'Expelled' a couple of times. I've even contributed to critiques of it. You might want to check the other side of the argument before you go praising Ben Stein's little Discovery Institute funded piece of AgitProp.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know/
http://expelledexposed.drupalgardens.com/
Upvote
0
No, I understood it. It's just wrong.
Evolution is not a worldview - although it has indeed changed how we view the world. Then again, so did heliocentrism.
Evolution is not a philosophy - although there are indeed philosophical implications (including rendering every single religious creation myth wrong). Then again, so did heliocentrism.
Evolution is a scientific theory - it is the best possible explanation we have for the evidence available to us. Its broad and diverse and complicated and messy and there's still lots of it we don't fully understand or haven't researched enough. That's what makes it good.
Its core tenent of descent with modification has survived 150 years of challenges - be they scientific, theological and philosophical. Wishful thinking by creationist, intelligent design proponents (aka creationists in academic garb) and quote mining are not a serious challenge to it in the circles that matter, and never will be.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
There ARE fossils under every stone you turn over. Every piece of organic matter in the soil is a fossil.
Upvote
0
- May 11, 2015
- 17,420
- 3,592
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Are you trying to claim that the little horse evolved into the big horse?
Attachments
Upvote
0
Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design
Selected List of Peer-Reviewed Scientific Publications Supportive of Intelligent Design
The list below provides bibliographic information for a selection of the peer-reviewed scientific publications supportive of intelligent design published in scientific journals, conference proceedings, or academic anthologies:
Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) (HTML).
Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).
Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).
Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).
Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).
Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).
Vladimir I. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov, “The ‘Wow! Signal’ of the terrestrial genetic code,” Icarus, Vol. 224 (1): 228-242 (May, 2013).
Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).
Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 3047-3053 (October, 2009).
Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).
Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).
David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,” Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).
Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003).
Michael J. Denton, Craig J. Marshall, and Michael Legge, “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 219: 325-342 (2002).
Stanley L. Jaki, “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 55(10):884-888 (October 1987).
Granville Sewell, “Postscript,” in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (New York: Springer Verlag, 1985).
A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).
Richard v. Sternberg, “DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes,” Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 56(3):205-232 (September, 2008).
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).
Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).
William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
Again, for a more complete list of peer-reviewed pro-ID scientific publications, please download the full bibliography.Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).
Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).
Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).
Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).
Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).
Vladimir I. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov, “The ‘Wow! Signal’ of the terrestrial genetic code,” Icarus, Vol. 224 (1): 228-242 (May, 2013).
Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).
Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 3047-3053 (October, 2009).
Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).
Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).
David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,” Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).
Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003).
Michael J. Denton, Craig J. Marshall, and Michael Legge, “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 219: 325-342 (2002).
Stanley L. Jaki, “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 55(10):884-888 (October 1987).
Granville Sewell, “Postscript,” in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (New York: Springer Verlag, 1985).
A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).
Richard v. Sternberg, “DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes,” Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 56(3):205-232 (September, 2008).
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).
Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).
William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Basically, you are saying Raul Leguizamon, M. D., Pathologist, and a professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico is wrong when he disagrees with the following:
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).
He is not alone: Dissent From Darwinism "Goes Global" as Over 600 Scientists Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwinian Evolution
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
