It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Almost a Thousand Major Scientists Dissent from Darwin!

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


Memory Shock, I was thinking the same thing. It's essentially the same article with a different context. Lots of opinion, very little fact to back it up. The more I read from Canada Free Press, the less credible I find them to be.




posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
the essence of science is to question the acceped theory. Nothing in the article supports the title. They are not dissenting from Darwin, just probing his theories. I too believe that evolution does not explain everything. To think that God is the only reason creatures exist in their present form would be just plain stupid. They do not reject the theory, they just are saying there are more theories involved in evolution than we accept.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Well having read the article, absent any of the scientific studies that actually support the articles contentions, two things strike me as noteworthy.

First is that it is an incredibly small number of scientists, that are likely making some pretty qualified statements in regards to the genetics pool being tainted, evolving or devolving because of mutations and bacteria.

I don’t see any scientists themselves as claiming “God” is the key factor, and the article is definitely written with a creationalist slant to it.

However, these scientists might not be dissenting on behalf of some favoritism towards God, but rather a favoritism towards Dow Chemical and other fortune 500 companies like Du Pont that fund many grants for scientific research.

In other words are they saying, NO the chemicals we are manufacturing, and dumping into the water table, and air are not responsible for mutations, especially those that cause species to die, or mutate in less reproductive proficient ways, OR are they saying, I went to Church on Sunday?

Could it be that some are saying both? Regardless with such a small sampling from some a large community of professionals, and without reference to the findings that the article is based on, with no specific pro-creationalism quotes attributed to any scientist of note here, what we have is a media fluff piece I my humble opinion.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I was wondering if there is a formula that Big Media uses for these concerns.

Keep in mind that the internet social spectrum has been supposed since the sixties...and we are in the midst of its' realization (social integration for perception)...



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ISHAMAGI
 


In other words, you can't be bothered to try to learn about Evolution and simply settled for a school course that touched on it in an incomplete way, followed by years of propaganda from people who would rather you believe you're made of mud and will be doomed to eternal torture because the first mudman ate a strawberry or something.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 

You think this thread is really about evolution?

Quaint...it's a rehashing of old conversations...such is media propagation...

-Sighs-



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 


Well Darwin's theories are full of holes. Not saying he is wrong, I just think the method of evolution as described is incomplete. There is something we are missing methinks.

From what it looks to me this article is nothing but opinion. Bad Journalism is at play.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
The entire idea of ''darwinism'' is wrong because darwins original theory has been improved upon by many scientists throughout the years, saying darwinism implies to me a strict following of the original theory darwin proposed, which is wrong because it didn't account for various things.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
It's interesting the article brings up Pierre Grasse, who has been dead for 25 years and hasn't seen any of the most recent advances in genetics. Whether or not the guy would have changed his tune had he lived long enough to see what's been done since his death, who knows. The guy was a neo-Lamarckian, a position that has far, far less evidence to back it up than evolutionary theory and the field of modern genetics.

[edit on 5/3/2010 by LifeInDeath]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
evolution is easy to see even in humans.
has any hear heard of a appendix its now a useless organ in the human body .
heck people get it cute out all the time no big deal.
but 50k years agaio it was a big deal as humans used the organ to help grind up the coarse food we ate a lot more of in that time.
then we developed farming and started eating processed food and no longer needed it.
50k years later it has shrank from over 6 inches down to 3 in a few more k kids will be born without it .
along with the tonsils which were used to help filter out air born participles and as our immune system got better we no longer need is going as well .
and one day our kids will be born with out them.
try this one on for size there's a gen that limits muscle growth both parents can carry it but if one doesn't then you end up with a guy like Arnold.
there's two parents in Russia that had a boy and NEITHER parent has the gen well junior has increadable ability's at age five able to life over 200 pounds .
in a few k years this can change a species so much that if you were to take one back it could no longer even breed with its ansester .
this people is evolution easly seen and proved .I can easily site a 100n examples of evolution .
whales all of them chickens chaways poodles penguins .
but of coarse i forget the world is square and no matter how many ships sale around it will still be square



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
I was wondering if there is a formula that Big Media uses for these concerns.

Keep in mind that the internet social spectrum has been supposed since the sixties...and we are in the midst of its' realization (social integration for perception)...


There is no denying the fact that the Internet has become another venue for adding social commentary and editorial along with the News, to define through an element of Peer Pressure how to interpret events and assign importance to them.

The Networks have been for over a two decades now making news presentation more about perspective and editorial and entertainment than simply the facts, of who, what, why, how, when and where, which was the hallmark of honest journalism in days gone by.

Now most news is presented with a preferred reaction to go along with it, and more and more people are using places like ATS to present News along with their own social perspective of what it should mean to us and how it impacts us.

Each item of news now more or less is presented not for disection, but to categorize by way of an offered reactive editorial with it, whether you are in a pro camp, or con camp. You are for this and with us, or you are against this and with them, and don't ask too many probing question about the event itself. Just react as we want you too.

The news has become a divisive argument simply about perspective.

Which many people do want to make all about politics and political camps.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The news has become a divisive argument simply about perspective.


Which highlights the need for journalism to define the "Who, What, When, Where, Why and How" in the initial paragraph.

For connotation?

And what of the similarity in news headlines? Is neural re-framing as simple as waking up with a new headline?



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
The actual list of the scientists who signed on to this is here.

They have a website explaining their position: Dissent from Darwin



A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism


During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.

The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names.

The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.

Dissent from Darwin



It looks like the list is real to me and this isn't just some creationist propaganda.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The news has become a divisive argument simply about perspective.


Which highlights the need for journalism to define the "Who, What, When, Where, Why and How" in the initial paragraph.

For connotation?

And what of the similarity in news headlines? Is neural re-framing as simple as waking up with a new headline?


It would seem it is, and if you pay attention well to sub titles, especially in the video news, they present the perspective they want you to have of each person, who is making news. Hardline Leader, Nobel Prize Winner, Strong Arm Leader, Popular Leader, Radical Leader, etc. etc., flashing across the bottom of the screen in case you might be inclined to form your own opinion!

It is a form of subliminal messaging, in how they word the headlines, and then tweak them from one day to the next, telling the same story over and over again, just adding one or two new words of spin to that main headline.

In many ways they would like you form your perspective and draw a conclusion, even before you have heard or read what the article or piece is about.

They then edit the piece or article in such a way, as just to support the title itself and validate it.

It is calculated manipulation, most of it, for maximum emotional reaction, which tends to compel people to not think then on the intellectual level where they are going to start asking detailed questions, that give you all the pros and cons and might lead you to form another opinion.

Then we, turn around through social networking sites and basically just start offering opinion as the News, because it is only opinion if you aren't actually going to share all the facts, that don't support the Title or the perspective people want to impart.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join