Earlier this month, a long kept list of Ph.D. scientists who “dissent from Darwinism” reached a milestone — it crossed the threshold of 1,000 signers.
“There are 1,043 scientists on the ‘A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism’ list. It passed the 1,000 mark this month,” said Sarah Chaffee, a program officer for the Discovery Institute, which maintains the list.
“A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism” is a simple, 32-word statement that reads: “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.”
https://www.thecollegefix.com/more-than-1000-scientists-sign-dissent-from-darwinism-statement/
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
More than 1,000 Scientists have Signed ‘Dissent from Darwinism’ Statement
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 181 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
2
(1)
2
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AndyTheAbsurd on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:16PM (40 children)
Where's the list, so I know which "scientists" I can safely ignore?
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:19PM (3 children)
Redirect to PDF: https://www.discovery.org/f/660 [discovery.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by aristarchus on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:59PM
And then there is this:
Wow, Wikipedia! Look at all those citations!
Further:
Intelligent Design, eh? Paley's Watchmaker argument, still? Again?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @09:21PM (1 child)
Looks like many of them retired, looking forward to meeting their creator. And 1000 is not exactly a large number. Like 6 million PhDs in America alone ... so yeah, scrapping the floor.
Also, the question is dubious. Might as well ask "does Darwin explain how life was created?". And the answer is obviously no. Evolution is a process, not a "42" answer.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @09:23PM
Are we talking 1000 PhDs in Theology?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:30PM (16 children)
So you are going to ignore global warming then? Because one of the signers (David Chapman) wrote this:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010EO370001 [wiley.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by fyngyrz on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:38PM (15 children)
"ignoring a signer of something stupid" != "ignoring an entire area of science"
--
Some drink from the fountain of knowledge. Others gargle.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:20PM (14 children)
Looking at the departments and degrees it looks like almost all of them look like they study global warming.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:32PM (12 children)
More generally, then:
"ignoring 1,000 signers of something stupid" != "ignoring an entire area of science"
--
My friend said he didn't understand cloning.
I said "That makes two of us."
(Score: 3, Touché) by DannyB on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:36PM
"Ignoring 1,000 singers of something stupid" != "ignoring an entire genre of music"
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by urza9814 on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:43PM (10 children)
It doesn't seem particularly stupid though. The name certainly sounds like it is, but if the quote in the summary is actually the complete statement then I don't really see the problem. It's not saying evolution is a lie, Darwin is a fraud, and intelligent design is the only valid explanation. It's just saying that there might be a bit more to the story and it would be good to keep looking. If you think that statement alone is enough to disqualify someone's opinion...then that's reason enough for me to disqualify yours. If every scientist in the world said that the evidence we have is enough and there's nothing more to research, THAT would be a much bigger issue. A few hundred scientists who want to keep looking is a few hundred scientists who are doing their job.
I'd also like to know how exactly they're getting these signatures though. A list of scientists who actively sought out an organization opposing Darwinian theory is quite different from a list of scientists who were mailed a letter asking "Would you agree with the following statement...?"
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:49PM (7 children)
Loonies often claim that they're only asking questions. The thing is that those questions have usually already been answered out in the real world, but to people who were raised in an alt-Christian, anti-science, cult, science is just something those Liberals do.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:56PM (6 children)
Loonies like Galileo right? Everyone knew the bible was the true word of God so it must be right.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @08:13PM (3 children)
Holy false equivalency! They laughed at the Wright brothers, and they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @08:22PM (2 children)
It's not a false equivalency, it is meant to teach that this metric being used is worthless.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @11:22PM (1 child)
^^^
I am saddened by the vitriol in this thread. The idea here is that we shouldn't heap scorn on people with different opinions as long as those opinions are not causing any problems for others. The statement signed by 1000+ people is quite vague and they even specifically say they aren't opposed to evolution just that they think there might be something else going on.
I personally wouldn't sign that document, but I have no problem with some scientists being skeptical and promoting a wider viewpoint that might lead to a deeper understanding of evolution.
Remember, there is a disagree mod.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @03:08AM
Fine and well, I have no problem with that, the problem I do see here is that the 'something else' being posited/promoted is the old magic sky fairy (funnily, it always seems to be of the judeo-christian variety...)
These scientists might be honourable men, but the people behind this document?, the religious loons propagating this ID nonsense have a somewhat more medieval outlook, the sort that normally leads to the old 'look, god did it, right, and that's all you need to know, question it and we've a stake and some kindling ready..'
Scientific debate is healthy, this isn't. This is another example of the relidges trying to give their medieval superstitions a degree of scientific credibility, no matter how risible it appears to be. I say it's risible, it is, until you factor in that the sheeple are easily led, all they'll be told by their good shepherds is that 'see! even Scientists think Darwin is wrong' then it becomes somewhat more dangerous.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 15 2019, @12:39AM (1 child)
Loonies like Galileo right? Everyone knew the bible was the true word of God so it must be right.
So the science guy provided evidence for his claims and the religious guys provided no evidence but said it was false because god.
Sounds familiar....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @01:05AM
You are still totally ignorant about that time, even though there was just a thread on here about it? Galileo had theory, the church had the evidence.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 15 2019, @12:30AM
The AC has it right. This is just a layer of the onion with plenty more layers hiding the ulterior motives that underlie most of the criticism. Consider this. Why do we need to be told that there might be more to the story and it would be good to keep looking? After all, we do have a lot of history with things being more complicated than we first expected in science. It is entirely possible, for example, that aliens may have manipulated Earth or human evolution in a way that we haven't yet detected.
The problem is that this is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Evolution dynamics are quite powerful and can by itself explain all the weird history and traits we see with terrestrial life after its creation (as noted, the genesis of life being a different thing, but something with its own plausible theory). If we are to accept that some sort of non-evolutionary changes happened to Earth life, then we need evidence for those changes, not merely a gap in our knowledge.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 15 2019, @02:16AM
Exactly. If no one ever asked Why? or How? or What? or Where? or When? we would still be huddled in caves, depending on the Fire Shaman to keep the fire going so we can cook our greasy mastodon. People tend to forget that those who buck the trends are most responsible for advancements.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @08:05PM
Yet another reason to ignore this stupid crowd.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:33PM (8 children)
Here's the list. [discovery.org]
Notice how few of them are biologists or in relevant fields.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:53PM (1 child)
Kinda like the 97%
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 18 2019, @04:43AM
I modded you "Touché" because that was the closest thing to "Ouch".
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fakefuck39 on Thursday February 14 2019, @09:19PM (5 children)
I think this here is a case of fox vs cnn, men's rights retards vs feminist retards, etc. The list is almost entirely scientists, and almost entirely in relevant fields - bilology, chemistry, genetics, etc. I'll assume your comment was sarcasm.
The issue is, idiots, like people posting most comments here, are looking to attack creationism and religion, and look for a fight where there is none. First, a thousand scientists is literally nothing - it's a statistical decimal rounding error when looking at all the scientists in the same fields. The statement they sign also does not claim evolution is false. Actually most creationists don't even say evolution is false. Evolution is taken as fact, you know, since we can see it happen and we have dogs and shit. Natural Selection is a possible theory that explains the directions evolution follows.
Nothing here, nor these scientists are saying there is no evolution, or that creationism is correct. They are saying Natural Selection as a theory to explain the fact of evolution, needs to be closer examined for alternatives - and there's nothing wrong with that besides being a waste of time - but not your time. Their time. Here's another theory to explain evolution, which is highly unlikely, and highly funny, but possible. A long time ago, from a galaxy far away, some weird beings came here and liked to watch monkeys fuck. They bred a bunch of smart monkeys together for a while and we got the first dog. I mean man - the first man.
We need to stop putting assumptions in people's mouths so we could say "that's a stupid thing they said" - they're not the ones who said the stupid thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @10:46PM (1 child)
That's not a theory, it's ancient aliens.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @11:27PM
I hear you're looking for a new hairdresser.
Can I interest you in the https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/babylon5/images/2/23/Londo_motfl.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20061004061720 [nocookie.net] ?
(Score: 2) by Weasley on Friday February 15 2019, @03:40PM (2 children)
While you're correct this statement doesn't actually say evolution is wrong, but come on. The signatories know exactly that they're attaching their name to a conservative political entity that pushes intelligent design. They're not making the intellectually honest statement that there could be more to evolution than meets the eye. They're making a statement that God has been influencing the process.
(Score: 0) by fakefuck39 on Saturday February 16 2019, @07:50PM
they are making the statement they made, nothing more. while their beliefs are obvious and the organization is obvious - do you see them making a creationism statement? no. they recognize their view is one of faith not science, and limit their statement to science. they would like to prove god is influencing the process, but they do not call for investigation into proving god, or disproving evolution. they as scientists call for a scientific investigation into natural selection, and as scientists leave the bible out of it. the only one making a statement about god here is you - as was my point.
(Score: 2) by DeVilla on Thursday February 21 2019, @03:08AM
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:54PM (2 children)
Maybe these are the last real scientists. You see, Science is not blind acceptance of the textbooks, it is seeking and challenging the boundaries of our (limited) knowledge. Real science expands those boundaries by questioning, looking at thing a bit differently and coming up with better theories which can then be proved out. Einstein did not finf his theory written up in a textbook. Darwin proposed a THEORY and there has been a lot of manufactured "fact" around that. Evolution is the Redpill of the we-dont-want-to-be-accountable Humanist circle. So it has become a politicized religion (belief system). Good, genuine science says: challenge it, test it, look harder. Nothing bad with that. If you get all frothy over it, maybe it is time to examine how brainwashed you have become, and look at who did it to you and why. Wake up, Neo...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:11PM
Skepticism is welcome, and should be encouraged. We need people who find some flaw somewhere, to help advance science and theories.
But this statement is like kids saying they don't like mushrooms. There's nothing scientific about it.
"I am skeptical that grand canyon exists, because its layers and topography are complex. You can explain it, but I don't like your idea"
As expected, the overwhelming majority of people who signed are from the US, followed pretty far behind by Canada.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @08:23PM
Most of the fossil record shows generally gradual change. We can trace almost every hand bone back to fossils of ancient fish. And we have seen organisms "change" by a relatively minor degree by filtering who reproduces and who doesn't in labs.
While both of these are not perfect evidence of large-scale evolution by natural selection, they certainly point in that direction.
The alternative theory is that a deity winked them into existence. However, we have not seem ANY repeatable small scale winking into existence. Therefore, N.S. remains the best explanation to fit the evidence so far, going by what has been observed and what has been repeatedly observed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:20PM
A larger list of "scientists" who dissent from science would be more instructive. Creationists and Social Constructionists side by side where they belong.
(Score: 5, Informative) by aristarchus on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:26PM
Know your right wing propaganda factories and Ruskie Fronts: From Wikipedia:
Not be confused with the other kind of non-conservative libertarians, or religious conservatives who are not at all libertarian, but just hate science, and what it has done to the rather lucrative scam they had going on.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday February 14 2019, @10:08PM (1 child)
A good first pass would be to ask the scientist if they've ever had to debug software problems/configurations left them by a predecessor. I bet you could even do it as a survey.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @08:12PM
Chaos and complexity are not necessarily the same thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @10:15PM (1 child)
A little over 1000 folks signed. UC Berkeley has around 1700 faculty members. Its a research school so all the faculty does research of some kind or another.
So fewer folk have signed the list then there are researchers at one University.
World wide that will most likely work out to less then .0001% of scientists have signed the list.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday February 15 2019, @10:26AM
That's 1 Scientist in a million. And 1000 Scientists, very proudly, signed. So we have 1000 million Scientists around our World. Otherwise known as a billion. It's too many. Much more than we need. And they're causing many problems. The so-called Climate Change and the everything else. Very bad situation!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @03:18PM
If we only count the people on the list who have a PHD from an accredited university with their degree in Biochemistry, Biology, Neuroscience, and other hard sciences where they could actually be counted as an expert in evolution, how long is the list? Of those, how many are actual practicing scientists?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:23PM (7 children)
"I'm a 'scientist', not an evolutionary science, but I think I'm an expert all the same."
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:36PM (6 children)
My PHD in Mathematics clearly means I'm qualified to weigh in on this subject!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:38PM (2 children)
Haha, and one of the math guys is from "Messiah University!"
(Score: 3, Funny) by fritsd on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:27PM (1 child)
Well, maybe she or he is working in the field of Religious Algorithms.
Genetic Algorithms [wikipedia.org], based on Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, exist and are very useful for optimization.
Surely it's time that somebody invents Religious Algorithms!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:46PM
I've written genetic software (fun example here [datapipe-blackbeltsystems.com]) and I can tell you it can do some pretty amazing things.
Given one or more fatal stressors, a gene/breeding strategy very much like our own (random characteristics from two surviving parents, possibly incorporating preference for higher performance parents, but not necessarily), evolutionary software can produce strong winning strategies from nothing but random garbage. Repeatably. Dependably.
There's no question that it works. Until or unless evidence for another effective mechanism is produced, evolution is the only valid contender for the complexity of life.
--
I got mood poisioning. Must have been something I hate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:56PM (1 child)
And Bill Nye is.... oh, also not a degree in the field of where he is most vocal. Actually Maths is the foundation of it all and a great place to see there is more to this world that meets the eye.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:16PM
And Bill Nye is....
Bill Nye doesn't say "I'm a scientist listen to me." He says, "these are what the scientists in the relevant field say, listen to them."
Bit of a difference...
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 14 2019, @09:34PM
Absolutely! But you need to show relevancy first. Something like:
1. Biologist is fascinated by the complexity and beauty of life as evolved through natural selection;
2. Chemist says, "Biology is just applied chemistry.";
3. Physicist says, "Chemistry is jkust applied physics.";
4. Mathematician says, "Physics is just applied mathematics!" while drinking heavily (that's you DM).
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:26PM (2 children)
I hear a lot about "darwinism" but have never heard it defined ferociously.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:41PM
I hear a lot about "darwinism" but have never heard it defined ferociously.
Nothing says 'rigorous scientific opinion' like undefined terms!
And the wolf said, "better to ad-hominem you with, my dear."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @10:52PM
They usually refer to universal common descent.
Evolution generally refers to natural selection and random mutation. It doesn't necessarily refer to universal common descent. It is proposed that random mutation and natural selection resulted in universal common descent. That's where the controversy lies.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by pipedwho on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:26PM (1 child)
Clearly education can’t remove the ‘stupid’ from the student.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:47PM
They need to get enough Math education, but not so much as to be capable of counting up the number of chromosomes.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:34PM (2 children)
The more things we can questions, the more funding we get and the more papers we can put out.
- big academia
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:58PM (1 child)
No kidding right? We should have stopped at penicillin!! I'd happily go back to the dark ages if I could just skip the Black Death. Who needs science? I'm countin' these rooocks BIIIITCH!
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 14 2019, @09:45PM
On the other hand, I am glad to hear that antibiotic resistant bacteria are not possible. Thanks "Creation Science!"
(Score: 2) by YeaWhatevs on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:37PM (2 children)
At getting more funding $'s. The site contains a second statement containing "They've never asked scientifically". After all, what researcher wouldn't see additional scientific scrutiny and the funding to go with it? I'm sure every one of those scientists on that list would be quite happy to burn flaming dump-trucks of money to get to the bottom of this scientific mystery.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:44PM
The problem is that biologists are going to get the grant money and there are very few of them on that list.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:47PM
The only mystery here is how supposedly educated persons could be so clueless.
Not even much of a mystery, at that.
--
Ignorance is weakness.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:41PM (1 child)
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life."
So they are fine with a superior being arranging how life is created. That's what I get from this reasoning.
I guess religion will always have a part in life, in general.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:21PM
If that's what you believe ...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:45PM
Often intentionally so, because they're part of a subculture that rejects science, prizes superstition, and has had trouble entering the 20th century, much less the 21st.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by meustrus on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:45PM (17 children)
As any software engineer with a passing familiarity with biology will attest, there's nothing at all "intelligent" about "the complexity of life". Biology is full of awful hacks, stupidly interrelated systems, and literally life-stopping errors just waiting for to be activated by accident.
Life on Earth is too poorly-designed to have been the result of anything but random mutation and natural selection.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 5, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:19PM (6 children)
You mean the Appendix, who's only purpose is to explode periodically, is not an intelligent design?
(Score: 3, Informative) by NewNic on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:39PM (3 children)
Some research suggests that the appendix serves as a reservoir of microbes, ready to re-colonize the gut if your gut microbes are wiped out or depleted.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170109162333.htm [sciencedaily.com]
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @09:29PM
Pfffft I'm not going to believe THEIR lies.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday February 15 2019, @12:20AM
It does stuff..in rabbits [nih.gov] we just got leftovers.
Remember, our ear bones were once jaws [berkeley.edu]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 15 2019, @12:28AM
Damn, you must be real fun at parties!
(I kid, that's an interesting link)
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 14 2019, @10:47PM (1 child)
Not the appendix so much since, as the reply says, it could be a way of recovering from total gut-flora devastation. Years ago, I actually took down notes in a text file somewhere of some of the weirdest, dumbest "designs" in the animal kingdom. It's too long for the lameness filter, so pastebin'd here: https://pastebin.com/mpj06XAG [pastebin.com]
There are some real doozies in here. Like, "okay, my new religion is maltheism because FUCKING EXPLAIN THIS OTHERWISE!" bad.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday February 20 2019, @06:29AM
That's a wonderfully hilarious compendium. Thanks!
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 5, Funny) by maxwell demon on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:25PM
What did you expect from a designer who believes he knows everything? ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Touché) by urza9814 on Thursday February 14 2019, @08:04PM (1 child)
Most software engineers will also attest that there's nothing intelligent about the complexity of the software they're currently working on for exactly the same reasons... :)
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @09:35PM
To simplify the complexity, copy paste all the code and previous versions into one almighty function called main(). Add one huge block of comments to help distunguish between Old and New versions of the code. Accept that it works in mysterious ways. There - much simpler!
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @10:32PM (1 child)
Are you sure you are a software engineer? I'd say that all of the inefficiencies, hacks, and problems are evidence that things were intentionally engineered. ;)
(Score: 3, Funny) by meustrus on Friday February 15 2019, @11:08PM
You might have a point - most software produced through an Agile process ends up looking like it was "evolved" rather than "designed".
However, the process described in Genesis is clearly Waterfall:
There's a few missing steps there, but you get the idea.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday February 15 2019, @02:49AM (2 children)
Throw in genetic drift, gene swapping and I'm sure more, also drives evolution. Darwin was wrong in the same sense that Newton was wrong. Basically a simplification that works most of the time to explain things.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 15 2019, @01:56PM (1 child)
That's one of the powerful things about Darwin's ideas that are missed. It requires a mechanism by which traits can be passed from one generation to the next, but doesn't have an opinion as to what that mechanism is. So all the normal and abnormal ways of passing traits are equally compatible with the theory.
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday February 16 2019, @04:28AM
I believe at the time, genetics were unknown so yes, he wouldn't have commented on that. The big thing was survival of the fittest, which leaves out genetic drift, where new species come about even without being fitter.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @03:32AM
Ah, I take it you've never worked on any large government contracts then ?
The thing they never mention when they bring up the concept of 'intelligent design' is the 'IQ' of said intelligence, as the great (and sorely missed) FZ put it 'dumb all over, a little ugly on the side..'
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @05:04AM
An excellent example of that is the recurrent laryngeal nerve that controls your larynx. It goes straight down from your brain, wraps around the aorta, and then goes back up to the larynx. If you slowly morph people into a fish shape, it goes in a straight line, but as we evolved it never made the jump to the other side of the artery. In the giraffe it travels about four or five meters further than it needs to.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:51PM (13 children)
People have been carefully examining the evidence of evolution for a long time now. There is more for us to learn but the huge amount of evidence is pretty convincing.
At least their statement is sufficiently vague as befits actual scientists, and they don't actually refute evolution; they just think there may be more going on.
I see this as healthy skepticism that might push the science further to discover more about how life evolved. Religion is not tied in and no statement about how life did become so complex, although we all know that creationism is the backbone of this group.
Haters chill out, no harm will come from this and it might give some skeptical scientists the chance to discuss their ideas and hopefully come out better for it. Maybe they'll discover something amazing, or maybe they'll just come to the conclusion that evolution does account for all life.
No need to hate on people for being skeptical. Science was never meant to copy religion.
(Score: 5, Informative) by fyngyrz on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:13PM (11 children)
It's purest, willfully ignorant nonsense. Not healthy skepticism.
The evidence in favor is outright immense. Overwhelming. The experiments, from petri dishes to evolutionary software, all bear the process itself out. The fossil record bears it out. Observations of short term pressures in restricted environments bears it out.
There's no worthwhile point to be made in waving the hand of healthy skepticism here.
Until or unless actual contrary evidence is produced the smart money — and the non-superstitious money — can safely bet on the process of evolution.
--
Stupidity is actually a superpower. We learn this when
we repeatedly fail to defeat it with intelligence.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:40PM (6 children)
Yes there is a point to it as I pointed out, it gives these people a place to explore their ideas instead of being shoved into the corner for a time out. Hopefully some of them realize that evolution is the best explanation.
It is also folly to assume we know everything. I agree with you on the evidence and I said as much, but at the same time we don't know everything about it. I also pointed out that the general statement they signed is vague so it doesn't mean they all toss out evolution 100%.
You seem to be taking this as a direct assault on your own beliefs and knowledge, chill the fuck out! If they never come up with anything more convincing than a bunch of signatures it won't have any real impact. Don't be an evangelical scientist!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @08:12PM (3 children)
Please, remind me when was the list time some scientist was punished for not "believing" in darwinian theory? If they have some evidences, they can bring them to the public. Signed paper is not an evidence. If anything, this act itself looks like religious confession, not like science. Because science, you know, is about evidences, not about gathering together and repeating "we don't believe, we don't believe, we don't believe..."
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 15 2019, @02:30AM (2 children)
Right here, right now, on this forum. Most people agree that all of these 1000 are idiots, or worse.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday February 15 2019, @02:42AM (1 child)
And this punishes them... exactly how?
Or do you believe S/N will have any influence on their life?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday February 15 2019, @05:38PM
They punish their selves, much that same way Runaway1956 does, by being idiots. It is a fitting punishment, but pretty much completely voluntary.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Thursday February 14 2019, @08:15PM (1 child)
They're in precisely the same "place" as the flat-earthers. Absolutely no evidence for, as contrasted to the proverbial metric fuckton of evidence against. If that changes, fine, we should listen. So far it hasn't (and it doesn't seem at all likely to, either.)
Just because some random person with (or without) a degree has an idea doesn't mean that idea is worth anything. Science in particular uses a method that does a decent job of winnowing out things that don't hold up under the weight of consensually experiential, repeatable, non-falsifiable examination.
OTOH, when a scientist in an unrelated field produces an assertion about another field that goes against all the evidence in that other field, then the onus is totally on them to produce evidence that can withstand scientific scrutiny to support that assertion; until or unless they do, there's no point at all in taking them seriously or giving them the benefit of the doubt. Doesn't mean they can't work on it, of course — but until they do worthy work on it, they have nothing of value.
--
Research shows that 6 out of 7 dwarves aren't happy.
(Score: -1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @08:40PM
*WOOOOOOOOOOOSH*
You rabid "science" pushers are just as bad as religious evangelicals. You should applaud their skepticism even if you disagree with their conclusions / positions. Often times science has advanced by trying to prove one thing but finding out another. Heaping hate and scorn adds nothing of value here, at least wait until they put forth a stupid theory with no evidence.
You may get the +5 insightful riding the hate-train, but as you pointed out consensus doesn't make you right! Don't worry, I'll get my own Hemlock.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday February 14 2019, @08:33PM (3 children)
Where does the statement actually say that the existing theories and evidence are false? I don't see that. They think there might be a bit more too it, but they don't say that it's false. They only say that they doubt that the existing theory accounts for *everything*.
There was a hell of a lot of evidence which confirmed Newtonian physics. Overwhelming amounts of evidence. And then we discovered relativity. Newton's theories are still valid within certain limits...we've just found those limits and some of what lies beyond. Our current theories of evolution certainly have limits, we still don't have a perfect explanation for how life initially arose for example (and we might never know for certain.) There are still questions to be answered, and this statement seems to only say that we should keep looking.
IMO, that seems like it's just asking scientists to do their jobs. Or seeking funding to let them do their jobs. There's always more data to analyze and new ways to analyze it. If you wanna argue that this isn't worth funding then I might agree, but that's a different discussion from whether or not there's anything that can be researched.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday February 14 2019, @08:56PM (2 children)
I'm not making either of those assertions.
A: If you want to fund it, by all means, fund it.
B: Certainly research can be done. Doesn't mean there's anything there, but that's what research is, figuring all that out.
The discussion I'm having is essentially "do the research and present your evidence" or else I'm going with the existing evidence.
This goes for hollow/flat earth, creationism, sharpening knives under pyramids, etc., ad infinitum.
But let's not pretend that these things are worthy until or unless they are proved worthy. Let's also not pretend that "I doubt it" is a scientific assertion. Without evidence, these people have nothing.
The science is out there. In this case, it's extremely good, solid, science that extends across multiple disciplines. Anyone who brings the same to the table and can falsify evolution has my vote as totally awesome.
--
They said: "You weren't listening, were you?"
I thought: "Isn't that a weird way to start a conversation?"
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday February 15 2019, @08:39AM (1 child)
Experiment proposal:
Take a dull knife and a knife sharpener. Bring both under pyramids. There, use the knife sharpener on the knife. Afterwards, test whether the knife is sharp.
Prediction: Knife sharpening under pyramids does work.
<eg>
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @01:47PM
About 40 years ago I actually *did* test out a pyramid razor blade sharpener..I was sick and tired of telling people 'they can't and don't fucking work', it was then pointed out to me that how the fuck would I know (I was and am, as they say, a beardo-wierdo..not to be confused with a wierdo-beardo, I hasten to add), have I tried it?
A valid point, so I built one to the mystic proportions outlined in whatever book was promulgating this shite at the time and aligned it to the poles. As I don't shave (beardo-wierdo, remember?) I press-ganged the only clean shaven member of my family (my father) and his shaving gear into the experiment, two blades from the same pack used on alternate shaves, one kept on the shelf, the other in the pyramid sharpener when not in use, both became unusable within three days of each other
So, no big fucking surprise there then, thus armed, my youthful militant sceptical cynicism knew no bounds when the subject of pyramid power reared it's ugly head...yeah! I had experimented and found it wanting...
Obvious problem is, BS Methodology, opinions based on the results of just one experimental run. If only someone like Ronco or K-Tel had gotten into the game we'd have had millions of nearly identical pyramids distributed globally to use for wider experimental trials, any arguments about the manufacture of useless goods which don't work would be null and void as the average Ronco and K-Tel gadget never worked as advertised anyway. I still think it's all BS, but nowadays I'd love to see someone try mass 'scientific' trials of things like pyramid power, as I could do with a laugh...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:29PM
Yea I agree, it seems they have an open mind and are curious. I bet if you ask them what a p-value is this group will demonstrate they have a bigger clue than the average "scientist" who thinks a significant p-value that passed peer review means they are right.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:52PM (2 children)
Yet if it were climate change they were "denying", this list would be censored and anyone on it drummed out of academia forever.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:44PM (1 child)
If they were drummed out of academia forever, they could become anti-vaxers.
(not that I think very many people use a vax these days)
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 14 2019, @09:41PM
True. But you can still get EDT [sourceforge.net] How's that forand evolutionary throwback?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Thursday February 14 2019, @06:55PM (33 children)
In large complex multicellular organisms, how to we get drift in the numbers of chromosomes? Just seems like the chances of that occurring in a viable fashion allowing a branch approaches nil.
Since I've never noticed this used as an argument against evolution (admittedly a debate I find inane and don't pay a lot of attention to - * ) I assume it has some reasonably solid answer, but I've never heard it discussed so...thoughts?
* - Either there is no God and evolution is a thing, or God created an internally consistent world that can be explored and logically explained forward and backward...and evolution is a thing. What's to debate?
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:07PM
Not knowing very much about this domain why is the chromosome count so significant?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:11PM (1 child)
https://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb [scienceblogs.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertsonian_translocation [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Thursday February 14 2019, @08:22PM
Thanks for that, as expected it was merely a lack of understanding and knowledge on my part :-)
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:16PM (22 children)
It's a big jump to include god and I can't see how that's an either/or thing.
Why not a huge black monolith, or a chocolate teapot creating life?
Whether there is any evidence for the existence of god?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:27PM (17 children)
It'd be a pretty short debate. There is no such evidence thus far. After 2000 years for the currently in-fashion $Deity, the odds of any showing up are really pretty poor.
A: Got any consensually experiential, reproducible evidence for God?
B: ...uh... no
Debate over.
--
Reality is that thing which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:56PM (15 children)
Out of curiosity, what "evidence" for God would you find convincing? Just asking.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @08:14PM (2 children)
Come to me in person, create some world for me to see. Sure God can do that without any problems.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @08:27PM (1 child)
I already did, you are looking at it.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @05:19AM
I have some complaints about this one. Where is the returns department?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Thursday February 14 2019, @08:33PM (2 children)
Let's have some miracles on demand. I can think of any number of them that I would find convincing. Miraculous multiplication is right in there; as is healing the sick with a touch (a nice place to start would be in a children's cancer ward, but there's much more to do of course. And I would expect it to be done, too. Everywhere. All at once. Animals too. And fix the mess we've made of the planet, why go half measures, anyway.)
I'd even take a personal demonstration as sufficient evidence; just drop a trillion or so dollars with a legitimate audit trail (which of course must be created out of whole cloth, instantaneously) into my bank account in the next five minutes, that'd be great. I absolutely guarantee I'll use all of it to support the poor and infirm and otherwise truly needy. And cats. Inasmuch as far as I can tell, they're the coolest non-human thing to ever walk the earth. :)
Or heck, just make me healthy and young again, right now, no waiting. I'll accept a self-centered miracle, no problem there, either. Don't need one though, any of the previous would be fine.
All well within the advertised capabilities. Let's go. I'm ready.
--
Physics: There are some laws you can't break.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @08:44PM
So basically the federal reserve is your God?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday February 15 2019, @04:32PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday February 14 2019, @09:45PM (3 children)
If you are talking about God as Christians define it-- supernatural, omnipotent, and omniscient-- that's a loaded question. It presumes that God is part of the natural world, and His existence (or lack) can be discovered through scientific methods. That's much the same mistake Creationists make.
The answer is that there is no natural phenomena that can expose whether we are in a supernaturally perfect simulation of reality, or are in reality. If God wants to exert His supernatural power to reveal Himself to us, He can do so. Just use that omnipotent power to simply make everyone accept His existence. Or make a bunch of miracles happen, that is, events that are impossible to explain as natural phenomena, and which we can tell are impossible.. Apart from that, no.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @01:17AM (1 child)
Errr...that was kind of my point. I doubt that there is any natural phenomena/experiment that would be convincing to an atheist/agnostic.
So, you would be OK with being transmogrified into a mindless drone? While some creationists might like that, this idea just leaves me cold. YMMV, I guess.
I am going to write something which may, at first, look heretical, but it is actually not. As a scientist, I don't "prove" scientific theories. My work is to demonstrate that a given set of data is consistent with a given theory. (Or not, as the case may be.) When I am presented with data that goes against the current paradigm, my first reaction is not "A miracle must have occurred!" My first reaction is, "Wow! That was strange. I wonder what caused my experiment to fuck up?" If I get more data that confirms the first set of data, my next question is what could be wrong with the theory. My colleagues will not be impressed with "a miracle must have occurred" as an explanation. Just so you know.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday February 15 2019, @08:52AM
But is there a possible phenomenon where the only reasonable theory explaining it would be "a god did it"?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 15 2019, @02:26PM
Reveal what, exactly? It's not like we have built-in God detectors that can determine when we're speaking to an omnipotent, omniscience being rather than a really powerful being with good information sources. This whole thing is an exercise in futility on many levels.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mhajicek on Thursday February 14 2019, @10:16PM (3 children)
I think if there were an omnipotent and benevolent deity, he could and would spare five minutes to have a little one-on-one with everyone, rather than have everyone murdering each other over disputes about him.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Touché) by SpockLogic on Thursday February 14 2019, @11:40PM
May You Be Touched by His Noodly Appendage.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @12:22AM (1 child)
If you look at the general scheme of things on this planet at least, non-interfering deities makes far more sense than classical religion lets on. Consider purpose just for a moment, would it do well to interfere with an experiment? Wouldn't it taint your result to stick your nose into the cage and spit on the rat that's trying to solve elementary math constantly?
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday February 20 2019, @06:37AM
Geez, Zeus, can we not go raping the experiment for a change??
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday February 15 2019, @03:08AM
Consistency would help. There's how many religions, including defunct ones? Given a God, I'd expect all the holy books and stories to show some consistencies. Sure the Inuit might have more snow in their version but the basics should be much the same as the desert dwellers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @12:01AM
You'd also have to prove that it doesn't exist, unless you're unwilling to make that assertion being agnostic. And let's not fail to negotiate the idea of God, is he Christian, Muslim, Hindi? Is he a scientist from another planet that launched a rocket 12 billion years ago with the intention to proliferate his species?
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Thursday February 14 2019, @08:36PM (1 child)
It's absolutely not, you can manufacture endless alternatives with varying degrees of implausibility, but that isn't really significant to what I'm saying.
The debate itself is based on a false dichotomy.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday February 14 2019, @09:02PM
I see. Fair enough. I think you are correct.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @09:31PM (1 child)
There cannot be, by definition.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday February 15 2019, @08:56AM
But if there cannot be any evidence for god, then the hypothesis "there is no god" is not falsifiable, and therefore not scientifically sound.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @07:27PM (2 children)
Given a long enough timeline, extremely improbable events are guaranteed to happen. And billions of years is a long time.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 14 2019, @11:11PM (1 child)
Nope, there's no guarantee.
That's a hypothesis, the ergodic one [wikipedia.org], mostly used for theoretical reasons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 15 2019, @02:23PM
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @08:30PM
For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.
Mystery Red of the Great American Eclipse [siderus.io]
It has blood on it! [siderus.io]
ABCNews: Eclipse makes pendulum wander [archive.org]
Sound of Silence [siderus.io]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @09:15PM (1 child)
> how to we get drift in the numbers of chromosomes
So, there's some really interesting mechanisms! Basically meiois doesn't discard them all, normally? But there are others.
Can these organisms be viable? Yes! Humans with Down Syndrome have an extra chromosome 21 and can reproduce sometimes. The point is not that they can usually reproduce, but that they can, ever, at all. Because if it /can/ be viable, then if there's an advantage conferred, it is likely to promulgate. Look at N-ploid plants, where the cellular mechanisms have been better studied (hellooooo wheat!).
Short version: interesting question, lots of science going on, but we have examples of organisms where this has (spontaneously, unless you say G-d reached in and manipulated the nucleotide strands) happened, and with some carcinogens, can pretty easily make first-generation abnormal-count chromosome progeny.
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Thursday February 14 2019, @09:41PM
According to one of the articles AC posted on this earlier, luck will do fine in place of an advantage (an advantage would be advantageous of course...)
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 14 2019, @09:48PM
As (IIRC) Carl Sagan pointed out WRT evolution, The *theory* of evolution is conjecture and logical deduction based upon observation and analysis. It is (per the scientific method), and always will be an approximation of reality, as are *all* scientific theories.
However, that does not negate the *fact* of evolution which we see all around us, all the time.
They are not the same thing and should not be confused with each other.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr