Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[Bradskii]

Read that one book. Plenty of references
I can refer to other books I have but the essence is there.

Ready when you are...

 

[Hans Blaster]

If you want to discuss Denton's arguments against evolution, feel free to make a new post (or new thread) with Denton's arguments against evolution laid out (or some of them, whatever fits in a post of reasonable length) and you will generate a debate. There is a lot in this post that really doesn't have anything to do with Denton's criticism evolution or even of evolution itself. That is why I am going to reply to those points here, but they shouldn't be entangled with your main argument about evolution from Denton's critique.

I’m often accused of contrarian views that run counter to fact or science.
my detractors all seem to assume That Darwinian evolution ( which doesn’t make it as a proper theory anyway) is now established as THE process of evolution , not what it really is - an overeach of conclusions based on too limited a data set, and that functionalist adaptation cannot explain the path to the main classes of life.

As others have noted "Darwinian evolution" is out of date, but we can save that for your post featuring Denton's argument.

My detractors contend that there is a pathway to life via abiogenesis after which Darwinian process arrived at present life by more or less known route, instead of the REALITY as I have often said, that the void between the most complex non living structures we know to the simplest cell we know which is horrendously complex, is a vast unbridgeable chasm , and that there is not even conjecture that fills the gap.

Abiogenesis is not evolution. It is not part of any theory of evolution from Darwin's to the Modern synthesis and beyond. I suggest you not include abiogenesis as part of your "EVOLUTION in crisis" debate (whether it is in Denton's book or not.)

The reality is my detractors seem to get their views from mass media, and they do not study enough , or know enough to notice my views are a mainstream in the minds of many evolutinary biologists. These are not creatonists but scientists who see The same problems I do.

OK, Mike, this "detractor" notion is getting annoying. Those who disagree with you in these threads are not some coherent group. We don't think about you when you are gone. We argue with you because we think the things you are presenting are wrong.

As for this "mass media" bit. Some of those who argue with you are actually in biology professionally. I doubt they are getting their information from "mass media". As for me, I mostly read popular science books and lectures since I last took biology as an undergraduate.

This is a vast subject and far from closed .
It takes an entire book just to describe the different schools of thought attempting To address the serious problems with limitations of darwinian thinking , as other than fine micro adaptation, and why for example neither autocatalytic sets nor RNA world cut it as a solution To the second problem I mention.

This is abiogenesis again. It has nothing to do with "darwinian thinking".

I urge all to read a single book.

I'm convinced part of the problem is that many here have only read the one Book.

“ Michael Denton - evolution still a theory in crisis “

The consensus of many evolutionary biologists seems to be that present theories and Darwinian assumptioms and present biological science can never explain life, that the universe must be somehow predisposed to life, because random chemical and biological process can Never account for what we see.

The origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory, even Darwin's, and "predisposed to life" is that "fine tuning" argument that also has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. If I were you, I'd stay away from those during your presentation of Denton's critique of evolution as neither are related. (Let's get this out of the way here, and not muddy up the discussion on the evolution theory critique.)

So my views are mainstream science born of study, and much reading unlike the illinformed atheist kneejerk faith in Darwinism , who refuse to study counter arguments. I study both sides of all arguments, but then I am a scientist.

Wow! "illinformed atheist kneejerk faith in Darwinism" really packs in the error and the invective. Let's quickly summarize them:

* "ill informed": Though not all, many who critique Denton, ID, or other creationist know evolutionary theory and the supporting evidence very well.
* "atheist": I think you will find that many of those arguing against creation are Christians on this site. I must say, I was surprised that as an English Catholic you were a creationist as I tend to think of that orientation as a largely American evangelical position (at least in "the West"). I accepted evolution for 20 years before leaving that church, including the period when I read a lot of anti-creationist literature. Evolution has nothing to do with "atheism".
* "kneejerk faith": An odd attack of "faith" for a religious man, something I might expect from an opponent of religion like myself, but there you go. Evolution is not a faith, any one who accepts evolution because of "faith" is a fool. I don't think you will find any of those people arguing with you on this site.
* "Darwinism": Darwin's theory (or later evolutionary theories) are not an "ism" or a philosophy just like they aren't a faith or religion.

These are not creationists speaking, but evolutionary biologists who see the same problems I do, but articulate them a great deal better. They should , it’s their specialism not mine.

Who are "these"? The only person you have mentioned is Michael Denton who is an ID creationist. (But, you can save these for the discussion of Denton's critique if you like.)

You can either study it or stay illinformed .

Read that one book. Plenty of references
I can refer to other books I have but the essence is there.

I've read plenty of books on evolutionary theory at the popular science level (which is the level Denton's book is at). This discussion should be adequately informed through quotation of Denton's book and summary of his argument, evidence, and critique.

My views on NDE which comments on the nature of consciousness , is also a big part of the question of life and is the hardest puzzle of life that chemistry can never solve, because it lies beyond the boundaries of chemistry, are also shaped by good mainstream science. The illinformed here seem to have no concept of how wide and deep that scientific literature is, and how many researchers and medics accept it.

NDEs are not part of evolutionary theory nor the counter and you should avoid discussing them when you get to Denton's arguments.

we live in a fast food , quick fix, two minute video explains all world. I don’t.

That isn’t the world of science, which is seeing further by climbing a mountain of knowledge by study.
there is no 2 minute video to why Darwinism doesn’t work.

My information doesn't come from 2-minute videos and I don't think that is the case with anyone willing to take on debate with you here.

It takes a book. Read it. It’s a good review of where evolutionary science is at, and the holes it can’t fill.

I sincerely doubt that a book from an ID creationist who works for a ID creationist propaganda mill is the best review of current evolutionary science at the pop-sci level. It would be like reading Dawkins to understand the current positions of Christianity.

 

[AV1611VET]

What's to stop God using evolution to make us?

God stopped Himself from using evolution to make us when He created us in an instant of time.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

God stopped Himself from using evolution to make us when He created us in an instant of time.

Only on paper.

 

[AV1611VET]

Only on paper.

Well God certainly had a choice back then, didn't He?

What does His autobiography say He chose?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well God certainly had a choice back then, didn't He?

What does His autobiography say He choose?

You do know that an autobiography is when someone writes a book about themselves, right? The Bible does not qualify since every time God speaks it's someone quoting Him or it describes God's actions and words.

 

[BPPLEE]

You do know that an autobiography is when someone writes a book about themselves, right? The Bible does not qualify since every time God speaks it's someone quoting Him or it describes God's actions and words.

He was coauthor

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

He was coauthor

It's still not an autobiography though.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Was this a hit and run? I guess we can all hope that MM is compiling all his notes from this book to have an in depth discussion since he's been taken up on his "challenge" to read it and refute it. Any day now.

 

[Bradskii]

Was this a hit and run? I guess we can all hope that MM is compiling all his notes from this book to have an in depth discussion since he's been taken up on his "challenge" to read it and refute it. Any day now.

I think that @Mountainmike was perhaps unnerved to find that at least 2 people had already read it.

 

[NxNW]

God made us, we are spiritual beings, evolution says it does not need God at all to function and do its thing, that a big lie.

What does God do that evolution does not?

What does the soul do that the brain does not?

 

[NxNW]

He was coauthor.

Somebody could make a [tasteful] joke about it being Ghostwritten.

 

[AV1611VET]

What does God do that evolution does not?

Make man from the dust of the ground; not from the seminal fluid of an animal.

What does the soul do that the brain does not?

Doesn't perish.

 

[AV1611VET]

Somebody could make a [tasteful] joke about it being Ghostwritten.

POST 97

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What does God do that evolution does not?

What does the soul do that the brain does not?

We're going to find out ........................................

 

[Hans Blaster]

We're going to find out ........................................

I have no hope MM will properly respond.

 

[BCP1928]

What does God do that evolution does not?

Nothing. They work together.

What does the soul do that the brain does not?

Nothing. They work together.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have no hope MM will properly respond.

My comment wasn't actually 'for' MM. But I guess it could be taken in that vein as well.

 

[Hans Blaster]

My comment wasn't actually 'for' MM. But I guess it could be taken in that vein as well.

I don't know who else we are all waiting to respond to our posts. (Though maybe AV wrote something I didn't see.)

 

[Ophiolite]

I don't know who else we are all waiting to respond to our posts. (Though maybe AV wrote something I didn't see.)

I think the suggestion might be what we will supposedly discover following death.