Darwinian Evolution

[Haipule]

What makes you think that it was proven false? And no, Neo-Darwinism is Darwin's concepts along with the genetics of Mendel. Darwin's theory predicted that something like genetics would exist but he did not know the mechanism:

Modern synthesis - Wikipedia

Hogwash! I believe in Un-Natural Selection whereby, the angels (extraterrestrials) once used Earth as a giant sex toy and had sex with geckos making super geckos! It's all right there in the fossil record! Read it and weep!

 

[pitabread]

I really wanted to pick Banana :/

I thought it would be a more popular choice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thought it would be a more popular choice.

Who knows. One can always change one's vote.

 

[Non sequitur]

Who knows. One can always change one's vote.

Done.

 

[Bro. Otto]

This term seems to be the subject of some confusion on this forum. Thought I'd start a poll to see what people think the term "Darwinian evolution" means to them.

Failed hypothesis comes to mind.

 

[HitchSlap]

Failed hypothesis comes to mind.

 

[HitchSlap]

I completely agree, and it is now known as "Neo-Darwinism". But, why then is it still taught in school? Having been proven false because it cannot stand up to the scientific method?

I'm not saying I know the answer, I'm just a stupid surfer.

What's bee proven false, exactly?

 

[Bro. Otto]

The replication safeguard mechanisms of the genome:

1. The 3' to 5' Proof-Reading Exonuclease

2. The excision repair system.

A) Base-pair Excision Repair

B) Short-patch Excision Repair


These are the replication safeguard mechanisms; the limiting mechanism by which the genome strives to maintain structural integrity.

Everything else which does not trigger adaptive speciation, regulatory nor hereditary change is a replication error.

This has been scientifically observed and documented.

This leaves 100 to 300 nucleotide substitution errors per generation (in humans) placed along a 3 billion long nucleotide chain. And few non-harmful replication errors for Darwinian (Neo) evolution to work with.

The premise of Naturalistic Evolution, Darwin or otherwise, is obsolete in that the mechanisms of speciation are observed as an expression of resident mechanisms; Information for adaptive traits do not evolve, they are being expressed: if "C" environment is sustained over a duration of time, then "Y" “X” and “Z” gene expression will manifest.
Research into Darwinian Evolution’s mechanisms for delimiting the limiter, has been ignored.
Of course the error correction mechanism has been known since the seventies and genetic code since the fifties.
If natural scientists were as interested in knowledge and truth as they portray themselves to be Naturalistic Evolution would have ceased with Nirenberg's cracking of the coding of proteins in '65.
The genetic code is the pinnacle achievement of complexity. Nothing comes close to it.

I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made:
Psalms 139:14

 

[HitchSlap]

The replication safeguard mechanisms of the genome:

1. The 3' to 5' Proof-Reading Exonuclease

2. The excision repair system.

A) Base-pair Excision Repair

B) Short-patch Excision Repair


These are the replication safeguard mechanisms; the limiting mechanism by which the genome strives to maintain structural integrity.

Everything else which does not trigger adaptive speciation, regulatory nor hereditary change is a replication error.

This has been scientifically observed and documented.

This leaves 100 to 300 nucleotide substitution errors per generation (in humans) placed along a 3 billion long nucleotide chain. And few non-harmful replication errors for Darwinian (Neo) evolution to work with.

The premise of Naturalistic Evolution, Darwin or otherwise, is obsolete in that the mechanisms of speciation are observed as an expression of resident mechanisms; Information for adaptive traits do not evolve, they are being expressed: if "C" environment is sustained over a duration of time, then "Y" “X” and “Z” gene expression will manifest.
Research into Darwinian Evolution’s mechanisms for delimiting the limiter, has been ignored.
Of course the error correction mechanism has been known since the seventies and genetic code since the fifties.
If natural scientists were as interested in knowledge and truth as they portray themselves to be Naturalistic Evolution would have ceased with Nirenberg's cracking of the coding of proteins in '65.
The genetic code is the pentacle achievement of complexity. Nothing comes close to it.

I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made:
Psalms 139:14

Yeah, I'm gonna' have to see a source for this. Nothing you have asserted here remotely comports with known genetics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The replication safeguard mechanisms of the genome:

1. The 3' to 5' Proof-Reading Exonuclease

2. The excision repair system.

A) Base-pair Excision Repair

B) Short-patch Excision Repair


These are the replication safeguard mechanisms; the limiting mechanism by which the genome strives to maintain structural integrity.

Everything else which does not trigger adaptive speciation, regulatory nor hereditary change is a replication error.

This has been scientifically observed and documented.

This leaves 100 to 300 nucleotide substitution errors per generation (in humans) placed along a 3 billion long nucleotide chain. And few non-harmful replication errors for Darwinian (Neo) evolution to work with.

The premise of Naturalistic Evolution, Darwin or otherwise, is obsolete in that the mechanisms of speciation are observed as an expression of resident mechanisms; Information for adaptive traits do not evolve, they are being expressed: if "C" environment is sustained over a duration of time, then "Y" “X” and “Z” gene expression will manifest.
Research into Darwinian Evolution’s mechanisms for delimiting the limiter, has been ignored.
Of course the error correction mechanism has been known since the seventies and genetic code since the fifties.
If natural scientists were as interested in knowledge and truth as they portray themselves to be Naturalistic Evolution would have ceased with Nirenberg's cracking of the coding of proteins in '65.
The genetic code is the pentacle achievement of complexity. Nothing comes close to it.

I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made:
Psalms 139:14

You should try to put some numbers into that and see if there is enough "new information" or not for evolution to occur. One mistake that creationists often make is to assume that evolution is linear, meaning one change at a time when it is more of a matrix. An entire population will be producing mutations and with about 100 per individual per generation that means in a population of one million, not particularly large or small, there will be 100 million mutations per generation. Only lately has length of a generation gotten to be over 20 years. So for fun let's use a slightly underestimate time of 6 million years since our split from the common ancestor of chimps and man. That is 400,000 generations. times 100 million mutations for the population per generation we get 4*10^13 mutations to work with. Even if only one in a million genes is positive and gets fixed in the genome we have 40 million positive changes. You will find that is more than enough to account for the genetic differences between man and chimps.

 

[Bro. Otto]

Yeah, I'm gonna' have to see a source for this. Nothing you have asserted here remotely comports with known genetics.

Chemistry Nobel DNA Research Lays Foundation For New Ways To Fight Cancer
An over view of what the correction mechanisms do and why.

DNA replication and repair – Knowledge for medical students and physicians
Excellent overall article reporting briefly on many aspects of DNA structure and the assorted repair mechanisms.

SparkNotes: DNA Replication and Repair: DNA Proof-Reading and Repair
Good description of how and what these repair mechanism do.

"Nothing you have asserted here remotely comports with known genetics."

Everything I've stated comports with known science. That you're not being studious in the subject matter needs addressing.
I would suggest reading up on the subject.
And I am not saying that scientists will state what I am. I'm stating the empirical evidence supports what I'm stating. Why mainstream science ignores it is obvious.

Note to Subduction Zone. You may follow along, however, I try not to get tied down or dog-piled by several at a time. And the numbers can grow very quickly.
I DO NOT make an argument from Creationism, but from science.
If Scientists at large would have adopted alien design we would be in harmony with what is seen in nature.
I, of course, would believe life arose from the one true God and the Lord Jesus Christ, but that's just me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Chemistry Nobel DNA Research Lays Foundation For New Ways To Fight Cancer
An over view of what the correction mechanisms do and why.

DNA replication and repair – Knowledge for medical students and physicians
Excellent overall article reporting briefly on many aspects of DNA structure and the assorted repair mechanisms.

SparkNotes: DNA Replication and Repair: DNA Proof-Reading and Repair
Good description of how and what these repair mechanism do.

"Nothing you have asserted here remotely comports with known genetics."

Everything I've stated comports with known science. That you're not being studious in the subject matter needs addressing.
I would suggest reading up on the subject.
And I am not saying that scientists will state what I am. I'm stating the empirical evidence supports what I'm stating. Why mainstream science ignores it is obvious.

Note to Subduction Zone. You may follow along. However I try not to get tired down and dog-piled by several at a time. And the nubers can grow very quickly.
I DO NOT make an argument from Creationism, but from science.
Is Scientists at large would have adopted alien design we would be in harmony with what is seen in nature.
I, of course, would believe life arose from the one true God and the Lord Jesus Christ, but that's just me.

Reply to whom you are able to. But as for this latest post you need to learn the difference between somatic cells and gametes. All of your articles appear to deal with somatic cells.

 

[sfs]

The replication safeguard mechanisms of the genome:

1. The 3' to 5' Proof-Reading Exonuclease

2. The excision repair system.

A) Base-pair Excision Repair

B) Short-patch Excision Repair


These are the replication safeguard mechanisms; the limiting mechanism by which the genome strives to maintain structural integrity.

Everything else which does not trigger adaptive speciation, regulatory nor hereditary change is a replication error.

This has been scientifically observed and documented.

This leaves 100 to 300 nucleotide substitution errors per generation (in humans) placed along a 3 billion long nucleotide chain. And few non-harmful replication errors for Darwinian (Neo) evolution to work with.

More like 75 substitution errors per generation scattered among 6 billion bases, not 3 billion. But otherwise correct except for the last sentence. Most mutations in humans are not harmful -- and of course, evolution doesn't require all that many beneficial mutations to work.

The premise of Naturalistic Evolution, Darwin or otherwise, is obsolete in that the mechanisms of speciation are observed as an expression of resident mechanisms; Information for adaptive traits do not evolve, they are being expressed: if "C" environment is sustained over a duration of time, then "Y" “X” and “Z” gene expression will manifest.

This is too vague to translate into scientific terms -- you could mean a variety of things here, some true and some false. In any case, speciation certainly includes selection on genetic variation produced by mutation -- i.e. Darwinian evolution.

Research into Darwinian Evolution’s mechanisms for delimiting the limiter, has been ignored.

Perhaps it's been ignored by you, but that's not the fault of the researchers. Evolution of error-correction mechanisms and evolution of evolvability are both topics of research.

If natural scientists were as interested in knowledge and truth as they portray themselves to be Naturalistic Evolution would have ceased with Nirenberg's cracking of the coding of proteins in '65.
The genetic code is the pinnacle achievement of complexity. Nothing comes close to it.

?? There are lots of things more complex than the genetic code.

Your post consisted of some true statements about biology, some muddled statements that I couldn't interpret, and a conclusion that had no connection to the preceding statements.

 

[Bro. Otto]

" among 6 billion bases, not 3 billion. "
Actually, you're correct. was unaware of the Veritas sequencing.
Blog: True Size of a Human Genome | Veritas Genetics

"This is too vague to translate into scientific terms -- you could mean a variety of things here, some true and some false. In any case, speciation certainly includes selection on genetic variation produced by mutation -- i.e. Darwinian evolution."
Nothing I wrote was vague. You may disagree, however, it was not vague. My statement describes what is observed in nature.

"Perhaps it's been ignored by you, but that's not the fault of the researchers. Evolution of error-correction mechanisms and evolution of evolvability are both topics of research."
I think you should have reread my statement. That response didn't address any valid point raised; Scientists refuse to address the issue of how Darwinian evolution defeats mechanisms which defeat Darwinian evolution.
If DNA errors during replication are corrected and a few that are not remain, then those which remain are errors. As I said before the genome expresses: hereditary changes, regulatory changes or adaptive changes. All that is left are replication errors.
This is what is seen.

"?? There are lots of things more complex than the genetic code."

So, we have a human genome which codes for an organic three dimensional, self-replicating, self-regulating, self-repairing organism capable of love, hate, aesthetics, perceiving and understanding its self.
And there is something more complex? Please indulge me, but I hope its not a game of semantics.
You know, where you'll claim that 12 billion grains of sand piled in a dune is twice as complex as genetic code.
Not claiming you will, but you'd be surprised what I've read.



" some muddled statements that I couldn't interpret, and a conclusion that had no connection to the preceding statements."
There were no muddled statements.
I'm beginning to get the feeling when one cannot address an issue head on it becomes "vague" or "muddled" or "Nothing you have asserted here remotely comports to........"
Just the impression I'm getting.

 

[sfs]

" among 6 billion bases, not 3 billion. "
Actually, you're correct. was unaware of the Veritas sequencing.

[Could you please use the "quote" function, so we know who you're responding to (and are notified of the response)? Thanks.]
It's 6 billion because we each have two genome copies. We knew that long before any of the genome was sequenced by anyone.

Nothing I wrote was vague. You may disagree, however, it was not vague. My statement describes what is observed in nature.

Sorry, but if an expert in the field can't figure out what you're talking about, it's vague. Were you talking about changes to individual organisms in a new environment (i.e. phenotypic plasticity)? Or about some kind of non-genetically (epigenetically?) inherited change in the new environment? Or about changes to gene regulation?

That response didn't address any valid point raised; Scientists refuse to address the issue of how Darwinian evolution defeats mechanisms which defeat Darwinian evolution.

I didn't address any valid point raised because you didn't raise any valid points. Yes, error correction in DNA replication (for example) is a real thing, and it reduces the mutation rate. It's also very well known to evolutionary biologists and in no way invalidates anything about evolution. If you had some other point to make, you'll have to try again because I couldn't tell what it was.

So, we have a human genome which codes for an organic three dimensional...

You're talking here about the genome. The genetic code is the set of rules for translating DNA into protein; it is embodied in 20 enzymes, and is not complex at all.

So, we have a human genome which codes for an organic three dimensional, self-replicating, self-regulating, self-repairing organism capable of love, hate, aesthetics, perceiving and understanding its self.
And there is something more complex?

Whatever the human genome codes for, it is itself not particularly complex; it is a linear string of nucleotides, each of which can hold at most 2 bits of data. And that's it. It holds (very loosely speaking) a set of instructions for making some tens of thousands of proteins. Your computer is more complex than the genome. Your brain, which ultimately produced by the genome, is vastly more complex. Simple processes can generate systems more complex than the rules.

I'm beginning to get the feeling when one cannot address an issue head on it becomes "vague" or "muddled" or "Nothing you have asserted here remotely comports to........"
Just the impression I'm getting.

I'm getting the impression that you have not studied biology.

 

[Bro. Otto]

"It's 6 billion because we each have two genome copies. We knew that long before any of the genome was sequenced by anyone."
Now if only SCIENCE would have let the rest of us know.

"Sorry, but if an expert in the field can't figure out what you're talking about, it's vague. Were you talking about changes to individual organisms in a new environment (i.e. phenotypic plasticity)? Or about some kind of non-genetically (epigenetically?) inherited change in the new environment? Or about changes to gene regulation?"
So, you don't know what speciation is?
Don't know what gene regulation is?
Don't know what hereditary change is?
The only way my statements could have been viewed as "vague" is if the above terms were uncertain to you.

"I didn't address any valid point raised because you didn't raise any valid points. Yes, error correction in DNA replication (for example) is a real thing, and it reduces the mutation rate. It's also very well known to evolutionary biologists and in no way invalidates anything about evolution.................................
and in no way invalidates anything about evolution."

I suppose if one doesn't ponder the conundrum it wouldn't invalidate anything.


"You're talking here about the genome. The genetic code is the set of rules for translating DNA into protein; it is embodied in 20 enzymes, and is not complex at all."

When you talk like this, I suspect genetics isn't your field of expertise.

"Whatever the human genome codes for, it is itself not particularly complex; it is a linear string of nucleotides, each of which can hold at most 2 bits of data. And that's it. It holds (very loosely speaking) a set of instructions for making some tens of thousands of proteins. Your computer is more complex than the genome. Your brain, which ultimately produced by the genome, is vastly more complex. Simple processes can generate systems more complex than the rules."

That is profoundly naive. I was going to write more, but what can be said.
"I'm getting the impression that you have not studied biology."
And I hold you haven't perceived what you have studied.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Do you realize that sfs works in the field? Ask politely and he can probably explain this to you.

 

[Bro. Otto]

Do you realize that sfs works in the field? Ask politely and he can probably explain this to you.

I know of what I speak of. If he the expert he claimed to be he would understand and would have read between the lines and understood where I was coming from. A scientific lay person, an assistant would have understood what I was saying.
And yet it isn't worth arguing over.
People make choices.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know of what I speak of. If he the expert he claimed to be he would understand and would have read between the lines and understood where I was coming from. A scientific lay person, an assistant would have understood what I was saying.
And yet it isn't worth arguing over.
People make choices.

I seriously considering by if you have any understanding at all. It appears that you copied some phrases from articles that you did not understand since you could not form a coherent argument.

 

[Bro. Otto]

I seriously considering by if you have any understanding at all. It appears that you copied some phrases from articles that you did not understand since you could not form a coherent argument.

I don't copy & paste except links and videos. And I noticed I was the only one posting links.
Yet you've peaked my curiosity.
I want you to copy and post an excerpt from one of my post, in context, and tell me what you didn't understand.
I wonder what it would be.