Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[Astrophile]

We know that science cannot ever prove anything, that even the evolution of a species over time, is in fact not a valid claim.

What alternative explanation is there that explains the observed facts of biology, particularly the diversity of living things? The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is not perfect, but it is better than any other that has been put forward.

 

[Astrophile]

In the case of a murder, eyewitnesses accounts will definitely hang the offender.

You're an Australian, aren't you. According to Wikipedia - Capital punishment in Australia - Wikipedia, the last judicial hanging for murder in Australia was in 1967, 50 years ago, and the last death sentence passed in Australia was in August 1984, 33 years ago.

 

[Astrophile]

Only true, if one is conditioned or educated within the evolutionary framework. If the evolution of a species is a fact, then I will demand the evolutionary history of that species from inception to the present. Just one example of one species, showing the array of different transitional species in the series, thanks.

What you are asking is tantamount to saying that you will only accept that a person is descended from ancestors who lived at the same time as Aristotle if they can give the names and life-histories of all their ancestors back to the 4th century BC. The demand is absurdly excessive; a minute's thought will show that all of us must have had ancestors who were contemporary with Aristotle, and the same simple argument applies to evolutionary ancestors.

 

[Ronald]

It's true, the theory is simply being exposed. Most people don't bother with the intricate complexities of the TOE. Most of us won't challenge it, it takes a few years to study and thought that none of us have. We just want to live our lives, work, get married, have kids, buy a house and that's enough on our plate. But if you spend some time in, you'll see the flaws, you'll see that it's a house of cards. It's a naturalistic view of the origins of life without God and with those who include God in this process, they don't really take the Bible literally).
Natural Selection = The TOE implies that nature has a mind, intelligence to select beneficial mutations over time, sort them out and choosing one. How does nature change the program, the genetic code and order it to manufacture something completely different? It's absurd! Nature does not have intelligence, it does not sort out and choose beneficial mutations, design the DNA molecule and manufacturing process of the cells, organs, etc.
Beneficial Mutations = the sifting through thousands of harmless if not deadly mutations to come upon one that is beneficial, then passing it on. The organism would die of the thousands of harmless and deadly mutations before it got a chance to choose a good one (if it could). Let's be honest, how do we view mutations? Distortions and defects in the genetic code. They are defects and some geneticists would say that 99.99% of them are harmless or at best neutral. You see, chance would not have a chance.
Cells are irreducibly complex. Darwin thought they were a jelly-like substance. He didn't know that cells weren't simple. A one-celled paramecium has a flagellum that is more complex than the space shuttle.
The eye could not have evolved in a piece by piece fashion because ALL THE PIECES ARE REQUIRED TO BE FUNCTIONAL AND PRESENT AT THE SAME TIME. Otherwise vision doesn't work. So none of the pieces would be beneficial to pass on because vision could not be possible.

Evolutionists would point to simple eyes like that of a horseshoe crab, but even their eyes have parts and each part is required for vision.

All cells, organs and systems have been complex all along. Life comes from life and we were created a finished being. A rose was always a rose and a peacock was always a peacock, nothing else. Each kind has its place in the eco-system although the distortion of sin entered in and so the balance is not perfect as it once was.
We can see the complexity of DNA which is mind boggling to decipher. Does nature organize these complex cells, fibers, organs and system simultaneously in the human womb? Do the cells decipher the codes and proceed to build a human all by itself? No, this process is ordered. God knits together the baby in the womb. And the mutations that have accumulated over generations sometimes cause distortions and defects that are seen at birth. We call them birth defects. A baby is a gift, created by God, not nature. God uses nature but intelligence is required, design, order, these things don't produce themselves.
Finally, the Bible says, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God, they are corrupt, their deeds are vile, their is no one who does good." Psalms 14:1

 

[Subduction Zone]

this gene code for the syncityn protein. so its basically the same gene and have the same function in the placenta formation. so yes, you are wrong. according to this logic we cant consider the hemoglobin in both human and mouse as the same protein because they have a different sequence. or you just refer to the convenrgent trait?

again: the ignorance is all from your side so far.

Sorry, but you totally misunderstood the article. The proteins are different and have different sources. And no, your logic about hemoglobin is faulty too. They know why and how the proteins are different syncityn. From the article:

"Remarkably, mouse syncytin-A and -B differ from primate syncytin-1 and -2 in key respects — they are not in analogous locations on the chromosomes and are from distinct retrovirus families. In other words, they represent separate, independent gene capture events (as if the mouse and primate lineages each pulled different rubber bands from the junk drawer and used them for the same purpose). An amazing pattern of convergent evolution has emerged as more examples of independently acquired syncytins have surfaced in various mammalian orders: syncytin-Car1 is found in carnivores; syncytin-Ory1 in lagomorphs (hares, rabbits, and pikas); syncytin-Rum1 in cows and various other ruminants (Figure 4a); and most recently, syncytin-Mar1 in squirrels."

Ask sfs, since you refuse to understand. He may be able to help you to understand.

 

[Jimmy D]

It's true, the theory is simply being exposed.

In what way?

Most people don't bother with the intricate complexities of the TOE.

Certainly not creationists any way.

Most of us won't challenge it, it takes a few years to study and thought that none of us have. We just want to live our lives, work, get married, have kids, buy a house and that's enough on our plate.

They are still arrogant enough to tell those who do have the education and understanding of the subject that they're wrong though, I wonder where you're going with this post .

But if you spend some time in, you'll see the flaws,

It's becoming clearer where your going now.

you'll see that it's a house of cards. It's a naturalistic view of the origins of life without God and with those who include God in this process, they don't really take the Bible literally).

Oh dear, this is demonstrably wrong, not a good start. Have you heard of Biologos (for example) or maybe the Catholic Church?

Natural Selection = The TOE implies that nature has a mind, intelligence to select beneficial mutations over time, sort them out and choosing one. How does nature change the program, the genetic code and order it to manufacture something completely different? It's absurd! Nature does not have intelligence, it does not sort out and choose beneficial mutations, design the DNA molecule and manufacturing process of the cells, organs, etc.

Beneficial Mutations = the sifting through thousands of harmless if not deadly mutations to come upon one that is beneficial, then passing it on. The organism would die of the thousands of harmless and deadly mutations before it got a chance to choose a good one (if it could). Let's be honest, how do we view mutations? Distortions and defects in the genetic code. They are defects and some geneticists would say that 99.99% of them are harmless or at best neutral. You see, chance would not have a chance.
Cells are irreducibly complex. Darwin thought they were a jelly-like substance. He didn't know that cells weren't simple. A one-celled paramecium has a flagellum that is more complex than the space shuttle.
The eye could not have evolved in a piece by piece fashion because ALL THE PIECES ARE REQUIRED TO BE FUNCTIONAL AND PRESENT AT THE SAME TIME. Otherwise vision doesn't work. So none of the pieces would be beneficial to pass on because vision could not be possible.

Evolutionists would point to simple eyes like that of a horseshoe crab, but even their eyes have parts and each part is required for vision.

All cells, organs and systems have been complex all along. Life comes from life and we were created a finished being. A rose was always a rose and a peacock was always a peacock, nothing else. Each kind has its place in the eco-system although the distortion of sin entered in and so the balance is not perfect as it once was.
We can see the complexity of DNA which is mind boggling to decipher. Does nature organize these complex cells, fibers, organs and system simultaneously in the human womb? Do the cells decipher the codes and proceed to build a human all by itself? No, this process is ordered. God knits together the baby in the womb. And the mutations that have accumulated over generations sometimes cause distortions and defects that are seen at birth. We call them birth defects. A baby is a gift, created by God, not nature. God uses nature but intelligence is required, design, order, these things don't produce themselves.
Finally, the Bible says, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God, they are corrupt, their deeds are vile, their is no one who does good." Psalms 14:1

Ah, the old argument from increduilty, not very convincing I'm afraid. How about some positive evidence for whatever mechanisms you're proposing?

 

[majj27]

Natural Selection = The TOE implies that nature has a mind, intelligence to select beneficial mutations over time, sort them out and choosing one.

It implies no such thing. The environment is not performing some sort of thought-out eeny-meeny-miney-moe. That's an argument against something that just simply doesn't exist.

Beneficial Mutations = the sifting through thousands of harmless if not deadly mutations to come upon one that is beneficial, then passing it on. The organism would die of the thousands of harmless and deadly mutations before it got a chance to choose a good one (if it could).

Evolutionary changes do not happen in a single organism. It's not as if you've got some shapeshifting blob trying on different mutations to see which one is useful and stylish and totally on fleek. Deadly mutations kill the individual organism. That's natural selection.

"The fool has said in his heart, there is no God, they are corrupt, their deeds are vile, their is no one who does good." Psalms 14:1

Well, no worries then. Evolution does not have any sort declarative stance on the existence of God any more than the fact that yellow and blue make green or single-integer addition.

 

[Speedwell]

Finally, the Bible says, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God, they are corrupt, their deeds are vile, their is no one who does good." Psalms 14:1

These discussions are not about theism versus atheism; they are about a religious minority with a political agenda versus everybody else, theist and atheist alike.

 

[Ronald]

In what way?



Certainly not creationists any way.



They are still arrogant enough to tell those who do have the education and understanding of the subject that they're wrong though, I wonder where you're going with this post .



It's becoming clearer where your going now.



Oh dear, this is demonstrably wrong, not a good start. Have you heard of Biologos (for example) or maybe the Catholic Church?







Ah, the old argument from increduilty, not very convincing I'm afraid. How about some positive evidence for whatever mechanisms you're proposing?

Thats the key, the mechanism by which Macro-evolution works ... its flawed, its based on guesswork and I m goal conditions that are absent in the theory, making it not science at all. Go ahead with it, you need a lot of faith on it ... But then what do you end up with? Nothing, no hope, no purpose, no future.

 

[quatona]

so if you will find this watch:

a wood watch‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

just that it have a self replicating system and made from organic components like a wood. you cant call it a watch?

According to your own submission you can call it anything - since definitions don´t matter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thats the key, the mechanism by which Macro-evolution works ... its flawed, its based on guesswork and I m goal conditions that are absent in the theory, making it not science at all. Go ahead with it, you need a lot of faith on it ... But then what do you end up with? Nothing, no hope, no purpose, no future.

Sorry, your strawman is not how evolution works. The only flaw is in your understanding.

Why not try to learn while you are here? People will gladly help you to learn.

 

[pitabread]

All cells, organs and systems have been complex all along. Life comes from life and we were created a finished being. A rose was always a rose and a peacock was always a peacock, nothing else.

And yet evolutionary relationships between species is an applied science with application in various fields of biology. Meanwhile, creationism... isn't.

Funny, that.

 

[Dirk1540]

I do have another question. Ok whether you're a theist or atheist I believe that we all agree that the Earth is much older than the origin of life. So whatever your beliefs you probably agree that 'Something' caused first life. This is what Darwin would point to as the tree trunk to the tree of life.

My question is, if this 'Something' undeniably happened, why so dead set against that something happening multiple times? In other words why so locked into a tree of life and so dead set against a forest of life? I'm even put religion to the side, even if you cling to man and ape being on the same tree, you still can't argue that the cockroach belongs to a separate tree?? Maybe this was asked already, this thread got insanely long lol.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do have another question. Ok whether you're a theist or atheist I believe that we all agree that the Earth is much older than the origin of life. So whatever your beliefs you probably agree that 'Something' caused first life. This is what Darwin would point to as the tree trunk to the tree of life.

My question is, if this 'Something' undeniably happened, why so dead set against that something happening multiple times? In other words why so locked into a tree of life and so dead set against a forest of life? I'm even put religion to the side, even if you cling to man and ape being on the same tree, you still can't argue that the cockroach belongs to a separate tree?? Maybe this was asked already, this thread got insanely long lol.

Because the evidence has always pointed to a single source. When DNA was discovered it was hammered home when we could compare the genomes of different species.

 

[Speedwell]

I do have another question. Ok whether you're a theist or atheist I believe that we all agree that the Earth is much older than the origin of life. So whatever your beliefs you probably agree that 'Something' caused first life. This is what Darwin would point to as the tree trunk to the tree of life.

My question is, if this 'Something' undeniably happened, why so dead set against that something happening multiple times? In other words why so locked into a tree of life and so dead set against a forest of life? I'm even put religion to the side, even if you cling to man and ape being on the same tree, you still can't argue that the cockroach belongs to a separate tree?? Maybe this was asked already, this thread got insanely long lol.

Because there is no evidence for it and nothing we understand about evolution suggests that it needs to have happened that way.
The only support for "special creation" comes from a particular interpretation of scripture.

 

[pitabread]

My question is, if this 'Something' undeniably happened, why so dead set against that something happening multiple times? In other words why so locked into a tree of life and so dead set against a forest of life? I'm even put religion to the side, even if you cling to man and ape being on the same tree, you still can't argue that the cockroach belongs to a separate tree?? Maybe this was asked already, this thread got insanely long lol.

Multiple origins of life is something that has been explored, although it's usually in the context of early life (i.e. single celled organisms). When it comes to Eukaryotes, the domain of life that includes all animals, plants, fungi, etc, evidence particularly at the cellular level points to common ancestry.

 

[sfs]

Thats the key, the mechanism by which Macro-evolution works ... its flawed, its based on guesswork and I m goal conditions that are absent in the theory, making it not science at all. Go ahead with it, you need a lot of faith on it ... But then what do you end up with? Nothing, no hope, no purpose, no future.

Your misunderstanding of evolutionary biology -- which is impressive, by the way -- does not reduce its value as a science. Like any science, biology does not provide hope, purpose, or future. Those have to come from elsewhere.

 

[Ronald]

Sorry, your strawman is not how evolution works. The only flaw is in your understanding.

Why not try to learn while you are here? People will gladly help you to learn.

I don't have time, got an appointment in heaven in a couple months.

 

[Ronald]

It implies no such thing. The environment is not performing some sort of thought-out eeny-meeny-miney-moe. That's an argument against something that just simply doesn't exist

Nature selects beneficial defects over time, pieces them together and whalla , from slime to Marilyn Monroe.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Obliquinaut.

Thanks for your reply.

I wish you guys would actually click on the links and look at the details. It isn't done like that. Just because it had four legs and lived in a swamp doesn't mean it's a whale ancestor. They look at the arrangement of bones and biological structures.

I do from time to time look at some links.

And this is to completely ignore all the GENETIC and CHEMICAL data supporting evolution.

If you have the DNA of Pakicetus, I will check it's DNA against the current whale DNA.
Give me the genetic data.

If I did biology and paleontology as badly as you just described I too we be anathematized. Please, give credit to these scientists that they actually DO THINGS YOU MAY NOT REALLY UNDERSTAND. Your oversimplified guess at what a real paleontologist does is NOT the same as what a real paleontologist does.

I do not reject all scientific discoveries or explanations.

Tell me what science you do. I would love to know because you spend so much time telling us what science is or isn't.

I have a slight interest in science.

You guys always CRITIQUE science but it always seems that you treat science like it was something you learned in junior high and don't actually have to apply it in any real sense.

There are scientific disciplines which I dare not question, there are also scientific areas that are wide open to criticism.

Don't get me wrong: science does rely on observation and repeatable experimentation but I sense you have so little understanding of the science related to evolution that you are just waving away legitimate science because you don't understand this.

Where I experience issues with science is when science makes claims, these claims are usually based on scant evidence.

For example, the evolution of the whale.

Do you also agree that religion is limited?

Of course I agree with that statement, historical Christianity is a disaster.

You claim God exists and you DEMAND EVERYONE ELSE PROVE SCIENTIFIC facts. It's always easy to be the one who demands without having to act according to the same demands.

They are two different entities, science and religion. They cannot be compared with one another. Science must cite the evidence, science must test the claim, science cannot without substantial cause, speculate on associations in the data.

I do not argue about the validity of electronics, chemistry, or very often with geology.
But I do see problems with the interpretation of the fossil record, why is that?