A little news on evolution

withwonderingawe · Jan 1, 2018

Definitely embarrassing:” Nobel Laureate retracts non-reproducible paper in Nature journal

"A Nobel Laureate has retracted a 2016 paper in Nature Chemistry that explored the origins of life on earth, after discovering the main conclusions were not correct.

Some researchers who study the origins of life on Earth have hypothesized that RNA evolved before DNA or proteins. If true, RNA would have needed a way to replicate without enzymes. The Nature Chemistry paper found that a certain type of peptide — which may have existed in our early history — made it possible for RNA to copy itself......But in subsequent experiments, Tivoli Olsen — a member of Szostak’s lab — could not reproduce the 2016 findings. When she reviewed the experiments from the Nature Chemistry paper, she found that the team hadmisinterpreted the initial data: The peptide in question did not appear to provide an environment that fostered RNA replication."

”Definitely embarrassing:” Nobel Laureate retracts non-reproducible paper in Nature journal - Retraction Watch

Another Lazarus · Jan 1, 2018

If evolution was true mankind will be some bunches of tumors.

Quid est Veritas? · Jan 3, 2018

This is actually heartening as it is the Scientific Method at play. Someone tried and failed to reproduce the results.
It also illustrates the problems of confirmation bias, and how evidence can be falsely interpreted along the path you are expecting. It doesn't seem as if anybody thinks this was a purposeful deception.

Jane_the_Bane · Jan 3, 2018

withwonderingawe said:
Definitely embarrassing:” Nobel Laureate retracts non-reproducible paper in Nature journal

Error #1: Evolution is not concerned with the origin of life. That's a completely different area of research.
Error #2: This is not some "embarrassing failure", but science at its best, making progress by falsifying a specific hypothesis.
Error #3: This advancement of knowledge does not bolster Creationism in the least, and it is not only evolution and abiogenesis that conflict with a literalist reading of Genesis, but virtually ALL data from ALL areas of scientific inquiry. Astrophysics, geology, archaeology, palaeontology, etc.

dlamberth · Jan 3, 2018

Another Lazarus said:
If evolution was true mankind will be some bunches of tumors.

The way human beings have poisoned the earth, oceans and air as well as killing off the other life forms on the earth, we might as well be a bunch of tumors.

withwonderingawe · Jan 3, 2018

Quid est Veritas? said:
This is actually heartening as it is the Scientific Method at play. Someone tried and failed to reproduce the results.

Ya know it wouldn't bother me if they did figure it out, someone has to be the moving cause. If they put all the right ingredients in the bowl are they not doing exactly what God, if someone doesn't mix up nothing will happen.

withwonderingawe · Jan 3, 2018

Jane_the_Bane said:
Error #1: Evolution is not concerned with the origin of life. That's a completely different area of research.
Error #2: This is not some "embarrassing failure", but science at its best, making progress by falsifying a specific hypothesis.
Error #3: This advancement of knowledge does not bolster Creationism in the least, and it is not only evolution and abiogenesis that conflict with a literalist reading of Genesis, but virtually ALL data from ALL areas of scientific inquiry. Astrophysics, geology, archaeology, palaeontology, etc.

Error #1: Evolution is not concerned with the origin of life. That's a completely different area of research.

Evolutionist like to say that but without the abiogenesis there is no evolution, logic says you can not separate the two.

Error #2: This is not some "embarrassing failure", but science at its best, making progress by falsifying a specific hypothesis.

Ya don’t write a paper until you have the details verified, perhaps you don’t remember cold fusion

Error #3: This advancement of knowledge does not bolster Creationism in the least, and it is not only evolution and abiogenesis that conflict with a literalist reading of Genesis, but virtually ALL data from ALL areas of scientific inquiry. Astrophysics, geology, archaeology, palaeontology, etc.

The problem with evolution is that it has become political in the sense of; if they prove evolution then the atheist believe they have proven there is no God. The real sciences doesn't matter what matters is there is no God. If there is no God then there is no real right or wrong, no laws governing man's behavior, no Bible to say 'thou shalt not'.

The following is from Express

“Renowned physicist finds PROOF of God: Universe was created by DESIGN in huge 'matrix'

Michio Kaku, who is highly regarded in the scientific community thanks to his work in helping to popularise the String Theory, has developed a new theory which he says points to the existence of God or an intelligent designer for the universe.

The American scientist, who is a professor in theoretical physics at the City College of New York, came to his conclusion by studying “primitive semi – radius tachyons“.

These tachyons are theoretical particles that have the ability to “unstick” matter in the universe or vacuum space between particles, essentially leaving everything free from the influence of the universe.

This led Mr Kaku to the conclusion that the universe was created through design, and not random chaos and that we could be living in a type of “matrix”…..“To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”

With all of the calculations that would need to go into creating a successful universe, Mr Kaku says that God is a mathematician “

//www.express.co.uk/news/science/742567/PROOF-of-God-real-Michio-Kaku

My 88 year old mother reads his books (her mind is better than mine)and over the years she has thought he was going to conclude someday that there is a God.

awitch · Jan 3, 2018

withwonderingawe said:
Error #1: Evolution is not concerned with the origin of life. That's a completely different area of research.

Evolutionist like to say that but without the abiogenesis there is no evolution, logic says you can not separate the two.

They are quite different. Evolution doesn't have any input as the origin of life; only what happens after it starts reproducing.

Error #2: This is not some "embarrassing failure", but science at its best, making progress by falsifying a specific hypothesis.

Ya don’t write a paper until you have the details verified, perhaps you don’t remember cold fusion

You write your papers based on the available information at the time. As more information is acquired, papers may need to be corrected. That's how science works and it critically important.

Error #3: This advancement of knowledge does not bolster Creationism in the least, and it is not only evolution and abiogenesis that conflict with a literalist reading of Genesis, but virtually ALL data from ALL areas of scientific inquiry. Astrophysics, geology, archaeology, palaeontology, etc.

The problem with evolution is that it has become political in the sense of; if they prove evolution then the atheist believe they have proven there is no God. The real sciences doesn't matter what matters is there is no God. If there is no God then there is no real right or wrong, no laws governing man's behavior, no Bible to say 'thou shalt not'.

Evolution is a scientific process. It was politicized by Creationists who wanted to teach Creationism in public school science classes. Accepting evolution does not need to negate anyone's belief in god. There are plenty of Christian scientists who accept evolution. Evolution also says nothing about morality.

JackRT · Jan 3, 2018

withwonderingawe said:
Error #2: This is not some "embarrassing failure", but science at its best, making progress by falsifying a specific hypothesis.

Ya don’t write a paper until you have the details verified, perhaps you don’t remember cold fusion

The two researchers were so certain of their results that they did not wait for their paper to be published but went public early. If they had waited for the peer reviews they might have avoided a lot of embarrassment.

umbrabates · Jan 4, 2018

withwonderingawe said:
Error #1: Evolution is not concerned with the origin of life. That's a completely different area of research.

This is not an error. Evolution pertains to the origin of species, not the origin of life.

Evolutionist like to say that but without the abiogenesis there is no evolution, logic says you can not separate the two.

That's like saying you can't drive a car without knowing how to manufacture one. Yes, a car needs to be manufactured before it can be driven, but being ignorant of the manufacturing process does not inhibit one's ability to learn how to drive.

if they prove evolution then the atheist believe they have proven there is no God.

If there is no God then there is no real right or wrong, no laws governing man's behavior, no Bible to say 'thou shalt not'.

Now who has a problem with logic?

Divine Command Theory has been shot down for centuries, Socrates' Euthyphro being one of the best known examples.

Despite God saying "thou shalt not kill", there are still plenty of Christians who kill in war, who eat meat, who support the death penalty, who use rodenticides, who support animal medical research, who hunt. All of these activities, while in violation of the commandment, are openly practiced, supported, and sometimes endorsed by the Christian community.

Yet, God never explicitly forbade slavery. In fact, the Bible supported it, laying out rules for the treatment of slaves. Yet, we today, without the help of God, recognize it as wrong and abhorrent. Despite God's endorsement of slavery, we managed to figure out it is wrong.

"With all of the calculations that would need to go into creating a successful universe, Mr Kaku says that God is a mathematician “.

This is an interesting article, but it has little, if anything, to do with the origin of life or evolution. Nothing in evolution says there is no God. There are plenty of Christians who believe evolution is a tool of God. The existence of God does not preclude the process of evolution. Just as you trust in gravity, hydrology, plate tectonics, etc. etc. without these concepts interfering with your faith in God, so too should you trust in evolution.

bhsmte · Jan 4, 2018

withwonderingawe said:
Definitely embarrassing:” Nobel Laureate retracts non-reproducible paper in Nature journal

"A Nobel Laureate has retracted a 2016 paper in Nature Chemistry that explored the origins of life on earth, after discovering the main conclusions were not correct.

Some researchers who study the origins of life on Earth have hypothesized that RNA evolved before DNA or proteins. If true, RNA would have needed a way to replicate without enzymes. The Nature Chemistry paper found that a certain type of peptide — which may have existed in our early history — made it possible for RNA to copy itself......But in subsequent experiments, Tivoli Olsen — a member of Szostak’s lab — could not reproduce the 2016 findings. When she reviewed the experiments from the Nature Chemistry paper, she found that the team hadmisinterpreted the initial data: The peptide in question did not appear to provide an environment that fostered RNA replication."

”Definitely embarrassing:” Nobel Laureate retracts non-reproducible paper in Nature journal - Retraction Watch

This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, sorry.

Also, it also shows science self corrects in time, not a bad thing.

Zoness · Jan 4, 2018

Science's requirement for correction and self-adjustment is among its greatest features. I'm suspicious of static philosophy systems that cannot change when presented with new experience or ideas.

JackRT · Jan 4, 2018

Zoness said:
Science's requirement for correction and self-adjustment is among its greatest features. I'm suspicious of static philosophy systems that cannot change when presented with new experience or ideas.

Theology has a powerful tendency to infallibility and inerrancy. Even when proven wrong it sometimes takes centuries before theology can accommodate new understandings.

Cearbhall · Jan 4, 2018

Jane_the_Bane said:
Error #3: This advancement of knowledge does not bolster Creationism in the least, and it is not only evolution and abiogenesis that conflict with a literalist reading of Genesis, but virtually ALL data from ALL areas of scientific inquiry. Astrophysics, geology, archaeology, palaeontology, etc.

Indeed. My first thought was "So when can I expect OP's scathing review of Creationism, if she's denying evolution because it doesn't meet her standard of evidence?"

ViaCrucis · Jan 5, 2018

withwonderingawe said:
Error #1: Evolution is not concerned with the origin of life. That's a completely different area of research.

Evolutionist like to say that but without the abiogenesis there is no evolution, logic says you can not separate the two.

False. Evolution does not require abiogenesis, it simply requires life to be here--how life originated is ultimately irrelevant. If life showed up on a meteor on the primeval earth, or if fairies sprinkled magic dust on a rock it doesn't matter--evolution would still happen.

Error #2: This is not some "embarrassing failure", but science at its best, making progress by falsifying a specific hypothesis.

Ya don’t write a paper until you have the details verified, perhaps you don’t remember cold fusion

Individual scientists are fallible, and sometimes a set of experiments that seem to show certain results are published--the fortunate thing is that other scientists can try and replicate the results, it is that replication that confirms, or in this case repudiates, the original set of experiments. That is the scientific method at work, and is why science actually works. Falsifying ideas isn't a flaw in the scientific method, it's a feature, and why it works.

Error #3: This advancement of knowledge does not bolster Creationism in the least, and it is not only evolution and abiogenesis that conflict with a literalist reading of Genesis, but virtually ALL data from ALL areas of scientific inquiry. Astrophysics, geology, archaeology, palaeontology, etc.

The problem with evolution is that it has become political in the sense of; if they prove evolution then the atheist believe they have proven there is no God. The real sciences doesn't matter what matters is there is no God. If there is no God then there is no real right or wrong, no laws governing man's behavior, no Bible to say 'thou shalt not'.

That's standard Creationist propaganda, and some atheists who are generally ignorant of science themselves may think that, but at the end of the day it is a false narrative. Evolution does not contradict the existence of God, that's like saying germ theory contradicts the existence of God--it's a patently absurd statement to make.

-CryptoLutheran

The following is from Express

“Renowned physicist finds PROOF of God: Universe was created by DESIGN in huge 'matrix'

Michio Kaku, who is highly regarded in the scientific community thanks to his work in helping to popularise the String Theory, has developed a new theory which he says points to the existence of God or an intelligent designer for the universe.

The American scientist, who is a professor in theoretical physics at the City College of New York, came to his conclusion by studying “primitive semi – radius tachyons“.

These tachyons are theoretical particles that have the ability to “unstick” matter in the universe or vacuum space between particles, essentially leaving everything free from the influence of the universe.

This led Mr Kaku to the conclusion that the universe was created through design, and not random chaos and that we could be living in a type of “matrix”…..“To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”

With all of the calculations that would need to go into creating a successful universe, Mr Kaku says that God is a mathematician “

//www.express.co.uk/news/science/742567/PROOF-of-God-real-Michio-Kaku

My 88 year old mother reads his books (her mind is better than mine)and over the years she has thought he was going to conclude someday that there is a God.

A little news on evolution

Well-Known Member

Old Newbie

In Memoriam to CS Lewis

Gaia's godchild

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Retired from Christian Forums

Well-Known Member

Author

Newbie

667, neighbor of the beast

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Similar threads