Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

[whois]

Cite or retract.

see upload.

please note that this article was written by an evolutionary biologist

 

[bhsmte]

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.

With all these peer reviewed articles on ID, why hasn't ID been able to establish itself as legit science?

Do you have a working hypothesis for ID?
Do you have a scientific definition of ID?
Do you have an objective test to determine if ID is present, that is falsifiable?

 

[bhsmte]

see upload.

please note that this article was written by an evolutionary biologist

What does the article say, in your own words?

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

With all these peer reviewed articles on ID, why hasn't ID been able to establish itself as legit science?

Do you have a working hypothesis for ID?
Do you have a scientific definition of ID?
Do you have an objective test to determine if ID is present, that is falsifiable?

I have provided plenty of links that answer these questions, the links actually contain videos and audio that answer all of your questions, no need to read, just listen and watch. You might be interested in the debates where those who believe we need to be silenced debate with those who believe that only allowing one voice is an erosion of our freedoms, this is the deeper issue.

On another note, this type of elitist censorship is exactly what the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is all about. I believe your questions are also answered in the movie, the movie is very telling as we move more and more to a society where only one voice is allowed.

That would be an entirely different thread; though, I fear we are marching lock step into a time where only one voice will be allowed. When I went to school we were taught how to enquirer and evaluate different positions; today, questions are discouraged in favor of memorize and regurgitate.

Welcome to the New World Order.

 

[bhsmte]

I have provided plenty of links that answer these questions, the links actually contain videos and audio that answer all of your questions, no need to read, just listen and watch. You might be interested in the debates where those who believe we need to be silenced debate with those who believe that only allowing one voice is an erosion of our freedoms, this is the deeper issue.

On another note, this type of elitist censorship is exactly what the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is all about. I believe your questions are also answered in the movie, the movie is very telling as we move more and more to a society where only one voice is allowed.

That would be an entirely different thread; though, I fear we are marching lock step into a time where only one voice will be allowed. When I went to school we were taught how to enquirer and evaluate different positions; today, questions are discouraged in favor of memorize and regurgitate.

Welcome to the New World Order.

None of you links contains any of the following:

-a workable scientific hypothesis for ID
-a workable scientific definition of ID
-an objective test, to determine when ID is present, that is falsifiable

The lack of the above, is what tripped up Michael Behe at the Dover trial.

 

[The Cadet]

In other words, why does the universe exist and how did it originate with all the laws of physics, chemistry and life on this planet with the sun located exactly where it needs to be?

I don't know. Do you have a viable, testable, falsifiable scientific explanation? Do you have any explanation that could be even in theory proven to be wrong? I don't think you do, so I'd kindly ask to keep the general apologetics out of this thread, and stick to the science.

This conversation reminds me a lot of this: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Oy vey. Not this again.

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.

the treatment of Richard M. Sternberg was both dishonestly overblown and entirely justified. That is, if they had fired him for this, they would have been right. They didn't (he had tendered his resignation 6 months earlier), but they probably could have.

Let's back up a little bit. Have you read Stephen C. Meyer's paper? Actually, that's probably the wrong question. You're not an expert. I hope I'm not stepping on any toes here when I make that assumption. So you probably wouldn't spot all the errors in it. However, the actual peer-reviewers probably would have... If Sternberg had actually followed protocol. The exact details are fuzzy and it sort of goes down to a "he said/she said" story, but basically Sternberg handled the entire review process on his own without consulting a supporting editor, which is unusual, to put it nicely, and there's some non-trivial suggestions going on that Sternberg basically forced it through. Two significant reasons for that:
1. It's not the subject matter of the journal in question
2. It's less a peer-reviewed paper and more a colossal dump that somehow got published.

I make no exaggeration when I say that Meyer's paper would not have passed review in any reputable science paper, as his material is painfully out of date. You can find a complete debunking here, but perhaps the most blatant example is that he makes the claim that evolution lacks a mechanism for/is otherwise incapable of creating new genes. And while this is forgiveble from amateur skeptics who do not have a solid understanding of the literature, for a peer-reviewed paper, it's disgraceful. It ignores basically 36 years of genetics. This is a problem that Meyer claims is unsolveable that we solved more than 30 years ago. This is the kind of mistake where a real peer-reviewer would say, "Hey, wait a minute, that's totally wrong! How did he come to that bogus conclusion? This guy obviously know nothing about the subject he's trying to publish in, and should get an education before he tries to take a dump all over our journal!" And that's just the most blatant falsehood therein. The entire paper is a huge mess.

I mean, come on. Even if the paper wasn't so obviously bogus, the fact that Sternberg was the editor of the journal and Sternberg and Meyers worked so close together should start to raise some flags. When Sternberg then abandons typical procedure to sluice through the paper, alarm bells should start ringing.

So yeah, it's pretty obvious that this paper did not undergo any sort of meaningful peer review. And given that Sternberg had already tendered his resignation 6 months prior, him "losing his job" is hardly evidence of some academic coverup. "Expelled!" lied about the issue.

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.

In science, you do not have the freedom to just assert whatever you want without evidence. Indeed, the fact that you have to back up your claims with actual evidence is why science is so consistently and persistently useful to begin with! There is no suppression here. Sternberg committed what is most likely academic fraud and got a slap on the wrist for it - he got fired from an unpaid position he had already resigned from.

Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design

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).

Okay, we can stop here, because if it's willing to list a long-since retracted paper that only got in due to academic fraud in the first place, then there's no reason to take its further offerings seriously. It'd be like if anti-GMO website started their list with Seralini et al's 2012 paper.

He is not alone: Dissent From Darwinism "Goes Global" as Over 600 Scientists Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwinian Evolution

Funny story about that. Turns out a lot of scientists on there signed it without knowing what it was, and are now quite [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed about it, because they don't actually reject evolution; they merely agree with the (vague, milquetoast) statement therein.

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

None of you links contains any of the following:

-a workable scientific hypothesis for ID
-a workable scientific definition of ID
-an objective test, to determine when ID is present, that is falsifiable

The lack of the above, is what tripped up Michael Behe at the Dover trial.

If you say so, not sure what the Dover trial has to do with anything, Stephen Meyer's official position is that he declined to testify at the Dover trial, that the courts are not the appropriate forum for scientific debate.

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

Oy vey. Not this again.

Interesting rant, thanks for sharing.

 

[lasthero]

Interesting rant, thanks for sharing.

Nice hand-waving.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have provided plenty of sources and none of them are Wikis; though, it is obvious by the responses that they have not been referenced.

Then show us the information. Show us primary research papers that use ID. Show us the ID science.

 

[Loudmouth]

Niles Eldredge is still alive. He is opposed to the gene-centered view of evolution. Along with Gould they also for all practical applications rejected the modern synopsis. Although were under academic pressure to keep that low key.

If you meant to say the Modern Synthesis, then no, they didn't reject it. Punctuated equilibrium is part of the Modern Synthesis.

For those that do not know Gould and Eldredge proposed the theory of Punctuated equilibrium in their 1972 book.

Thereby proving that evolution does not require gradualism.

 

[Loudmouth]

This conversation reminds me a lot of this: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

It does. We have lots of creationists making assertions that are simply untrue. That is a lot like that movie.

http://expelledexposed.drupalgardens.com/

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Discuss the science that supports his position.

 

[Loudmouth]

Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design

Pick an article and show how ID is applied and how the science supports it.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Completely untrue, as this site shows.

http://expelledexposed.drupalgardens.com/

The stories of martyrdom amongst creationists is completely overblown.

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.

The only thing bad that happened to Sternberg because of his actions is that some people said some mean things about him behind his back in emails. Sticks and stones. His career wasn't ruined. No one took professional action against him. He had already resigned his editor position at the journal before anyone even knew about the Meyers paper. IOW, all you have is a smoke screen to distract people away from the abject failure of ID to produce one scintilla of science. Cry martyr and hope that no one notices that you nothing.

 

[Loudmouth]

see upload.

please note that this article was written by an evolutionary biologist

Boyce Rensberger is not an evolutionary biologist. He is a journalist. Want to try again? Why don't you use quotes from the material that the scientists write themselves?

 

[Loudmouth]

I have provided plenty of links that answer these questions,

This is a discussion forum. Please discuss the material you are presenting.

the links actually contain videos and audio that answer all of your questions, no need to read, just listen and watch.

We are asking you to answer our questions.

You might be interested in the debates where those who believe we need to be silenced debate with those who believe that only allowing one voice is an erosion of our freedoms, this is the deeper issue.

False claims of persecution don't work well here.

We are giving you free reign to discuss this matieral, and look? You won't. Why do you think that is?

This is the problem. THERE IS NO ID SCIENCE TO DISCUSS. That is why there is silence from your side of the debate, because they have nothing.

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

Instead of us cut'n pasting articles, here is audio of a debate between Stephen Meyer, Richard Sternberg, Michael Shermer, Donald Prothero concerning the issues we are discussing where you can cheer on your side and I, mine: Debate on Origins of Life

There are other debates that provide the same level of entertainment: Debates

In all of these debates, you will see your proponents position to be superior and I, mine; beyond that, we can agree to disagree.

 

[lasthero]

Instead of us cut'n pasting articles, here is audio of a debate between Stephen Meyer, Richard Sternberg, Michael Shermer, Donald Prothero concerning the issues we are discussing where you can cheer on your side and I, mine: Debate on Origins of Life

There are other debates that provide the same level of entertainment: Debates

In all of these debates, you will see your proponents position to be superior and I, mine; beyond that, we can agree to disagree.

You know, for a guy on a discussion forum, you don't seem particularly apt to discuss anything.

 

[Loudmouth]

Instead of us cut'n pasting articles, here is audio of a debate between Stephen Meyer, Richard Sternberg, Michael Shermer, Donald Prothero concerning the issues we are discussing where you can cheer on your side and I, mine: Debate on Origins of Life

So we can hear more lies? No thanks.

Are you going to present evidence or not?