It's normal to question the dogma of natural selection
Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum
#1 Dec 11, 2011
This is a list of mostly non-religious scientists who have all spoken out against the Darwinian mechanisms of evolution - natural selection and random mutation and have questioned the role of it in evolution:
James A. Shapiro,
Alfred Russel Wallace,
Gordon Rattray Taylor,
Henry Fairfield Osborn,
Charles Otis Whitman,
Austin Hobart Clark,
John Scott Haldane,
James Le Fanu,
Guy Coburn Robson,
Thomas Hunt Morgan,
Edward Drinker Cope,
Carl Von Nageli,
Karl Von Baer,
Daniel de Rosa,
James N. Gardner,
As you can see, it is perfectly normal to question natural selection and random mutation as the mechanisms of evolution, you do not have to be a creationist, religious etc. Don't just accept it at face value, explore the other theories of evolution.
#2 Dec 11, 2011
Which ones are professional scientists? Of those, which are biologists? Of those, which are not denounced as religious zealots who have abandoned legitimate science in favor of their religious agenda?
#3 Dec 11, 2011
A number of the names above are (or were) Jesus Freaks like you and are (or were) working an agenda when they criticized evolution (like you).
Anthony Flew was a senile philosopher who had no standing from which to criticize the biological theory of evolution.
#4 Dec 11, 2011
Just lies and personal insults.
None of the names on the list are religious, none of them have denied evolution, they are all form evolutionists!, the majority atheists or agnostics. Majority of them are biologists, physicists and some philosophers.
Jesus Freaks like me? When I have never read the bible and do not believe in any religious god?- Why do you feel the need to call anyone who questions natural selection a "Jesus Freak" and make up lies about them. More atheists than christians have questioned natural selection.
"working an agenda when they criticized evolution (like you)."
Like all the scientists on the list I accept evolution, just not darwins mechanism of natural selection. Why do you equate darwins theory with evolution?
All this proves is that:
1. Users have to make u lies about others.
2. Users are confusing natural selection with evolution.
Natural selection is not evolution, it is an interpretation of evolution. Other evolutionary mechanisms exist.
Darwinism, Darwins theory of evolution is not evolution itself, it is an interpretation of evolution, other evolutionary theories exist.
Natural selection is a fairytale, science does not confirm it. Other evolutionary mechanisms which are "non-Darwinian" are more important. But you would not understand that becuase you bum lick Darwin at any cost and defend natural selection like a religion. Learn to open your mind, you have shut yourself so far in.
#5 Dec 11, 2011
Just one example of the sort of LIES that "creationists" tell:
Fred Hoyle did NOT question the mechanism of natural selection. His problem was with abiogenesis and the mechanisms provided for the beginning of life (note his famous tornado through a junkyard argument from incredulity).
Further, Fred Hoyle also said the following;
"The creationist is a sham religious person who, curiously, has no true sense of religion. In the language of religion, it is the facts we observe in the world around us that must be seen to constitute the words of God. Documents, whether the Bible, Qur'an or those writings that held such force for Velikovsky, are only the words of men. To prefer the words of men to those of God is what one can mean by blasphemy. This, we think, is the instinctive point of view of most scientists who, curiously again, have a deeper understanding of the real nature of religion than have the many who delude themselves into a frenzied belief in the words, often the meaningless words, of men. Indeed, the lesser the meaning, the greater the frenzy, in something like inverse proportion. " (Our Place in the Cosmos, 1993)
Which demonstrates that Fred Hoyle had more problems with the SHAM religious people known as "creationists" than he did with real science.
Also: Fred Hoyle was an astronomer and mathematician, NOT a biologist.
#6 Dec 11, 2011
Pretty much everyone in the world who has any contact with "fundamentalist christian creationists" KNOW who the LIARS are.
Would you like to know what my cousins in the Netherlands think of you "creotards"?
#7 Dec 11, 2011
Hey, shadow, how many of your relatives and friends will even talk to you about science? My guess is most of them avoid you as much as possible when you go on one of your insane, anti=science rants.
#8 Dec 11, 2011
MIDutch please do not post if you are going to continue to be abusive, just calm down a second and actually look at this.
MIDutch are you willing to admit you are wrong? Becuase regarding Fred Hoyle you are very wrong.
When I was 16, I brought Fred Hoyle's book "Intelligent Universe", the third chapter was the biggest attack on natural selection that I have ever read.
" Fred Hoyle did NOT question the mechanism of natural selection. "
It is a confirmed fact that he did question and reject the mechanism of natural selection mainly based on mathematical grounds. You have not read his works.
Anyway here is the reference which refutes your comment. I hope you for once can actually be honest and admit you were wrong:
Read that and understand that Hoyle spent most the last 30 years of his life attacking natural selection, he even wrote a book titled "why neodarwinism does not work".
Accept when you are wrong MIDutch.
#9 Dec 11, 2011
Okay, I admit I was wrong about Hoyle and his criticism of natural selection ... but guess what, it is irrelevant. Heck, he even claimed that Archaeopteryx was a fake ... and everyone knows how that argument of his turned out, don't we?
#10 Dec 11, 2011
Hoyle was an astronomer and (clumsy) Christian apologist who made the unbearably stupid "tornado in a junkyard" analogy.
His criticisms of the biological theory of evolution carry no weight.
#11 Dec 11, 2011
That is very honest and decent of you. And heres the thing, instead of going round and round on this forum debating all of this, doing stupid arguments personal attacks etc etc. Why not just finish off with one question. What is it going to take for you not to believe in natural selection? I am wasting time doing these posts. If someone can actually answer that, then I will leave, im leaving anyway this forum wastes college work time. But if you just tell me why users such as yourself are stick to natural selection like clue, then maybe I would understand.
#12 Dec 11, 2011
Using a population of organisms in an environment, demonstrate that the individuals LESS adapted to their environment are statistically the ones who are MOST likely to pass their genes on to the following generations.
Example 1: show that for a population of gazelles hunted by cheetahs that it is always the SLOWEST ones that produce the offspring which maintains the gazelle population.
Example 2: show that for a strain of influenza viruses it is always the ones MOST likely to be killed by the appropriate anti-bodies that evolve into a different strain that the body does not have antibodies for.
Example 3: show that for a species of coral it is always the individual coral organisms that are MOST susceptible to changes in water temperature and salinity that are actually surviving the changes occurring in many of the world's oceans to continue the species.
Demonstrate that this is the case across the board for all organisms living in their respective environments and I will gladly admit that I do not "believe" in natural selection.
Since: Dec 11
#13 Dec 11, 2011
“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”
Since: May 08
#14 Dec 12, 2011
Shadow, may I ask you to post the website where this list was obtained, please?
#15 Dec 12, 2011
Fair play on those examples, but nothing is being created, ns can not create so i do not see it as an important evolutionary mechanism, natural selection clearly has nothing to do with evolution. So what mechanisms in evolution cause speciation or mega evolutionary changes?
#16 Dec 12, 2011
no website, it is a list i made, I am collecting all scientists who have downgraded, rejected, or criticised the role of natural selection and darwinism and who have supported alternative evolutionary mechanisms.
Since: Dec 06
#17 Dec 12, 2011
Funny comment, coming from you...
Since: Dec 06
#18 Dec 12, 2011
He also smeared his own distinguished career by falsely claiming that Archaeopteryx fossils were modified (he claimed that they were Dinosaurs that had feathers 'added'). He didn't like Archaeopteryx, so it HAD to be fake:)
He was utterly refuted on that issue, and sadly, was truly left looking like a fool.
“That's just MY opinion...”
Since: Jan 07
#19 Dec 12, 2011
Which alternative evolutionary mechanism(s) do you support?
“Wear white at night.”
Since: Jun 09
#20 Dec 12, 2011
....including numerologists, psychic mediums and various and sundry other crackpots.
Add your comments below
|"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12)||2 min||Subduction Zone||70,420|
|Do alleged ERVs confirm common descent?||12 min||Subduction Zone||73|
|Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09)||33 min||Eagle 12||30,417|
|Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of...||54 min||Out of the Night||3,823|
|G-d versus Evolution?||1 hr||Al Caplan||33|
|The Subduction Zone class on Evidence. (Jun '13)||1 hr||Out of the Night||78|
|How can we prove God exists, or does not? (May '15)||10 hr||Paul Scott||228|
Find what you want!
Search Evolution Debate Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC