Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?Check out the interesting article here and don't miss the comments. It's an interesting discussion and as far as I read it never descended into name-calling, which is somewhat unusual. Must have been because Richard Dawkins didn't participate. Now there is a name-caller par excellence if one can use the adjective "excellent" for someone as uncivil and unkind as he is.
…I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
"I Don't Understand Evolution" Says Top Chemist
One of the top ten chemists in the world, Professor James M. Tour, says there are NO scientists who can explain macro-evolution: