Multi-Decade Study Suggests Problems with Darwinian Evolution

[Stephen3141]

Decade-Long Study: No Evidence Found for Darwinian Evolution

What is the origin of the “complexity and subtlety” the researchers cite? Do they not suggest a mind in or behind the universe?

mindmatters.ai

Try reading the article.
It has a number of interesting points, to make.

 

[PloverWing]

I disagree with these statements by the author:

The whole point of claims for Darwinian evolution is to eliminate subtlety and complexity.

To say that “natural selection seems to operate with greater subtlety and complexity than previously thought” is a polite way of saying that Darwinian evolution is not a correct interpretation of the history of life.

1. The point of claims for Darwinian evolution is to explain the diversity of species. There's no claim that this won't be a complex process.

2. Saying that a scientific theory operates with "greater subtlety and complexity than previously thought" is not a polite way of saying that the theory is false. It might be a way of saying that the theory needs to be refined, or that there are other factors that should be taken into account.

I'm fine, though, with the author's belief that there is "a mind in or behind the universe".

Standard warning: The belief that "God exists if and only if biological evolution is false" is neither good science nor good theology. The author seems to want to follow this path.

 

[Stephen3141]

I disagree with these statements by the author:





1. The point of claims for Darwinian evolution is to explain the diversity of species. There's no claim that this won't be a complex process.

2. Saying that a scientific theory operates with "greater subtlety and complexity than previously thought" is not a polite way of saying that the theory is false. It might be a way of saying that the theory needs to be refined, or that there are other factors that should be taken into account.

I'm fine, though, with the author's belief that there is "a mind in or behind the universe".

Standard warning: The belief that "God exists if and only if biological evolution is false" is neither good science nor good theology. The author seems to want to follow this path.

The article does not use language that make it easy to discuss.
I wish that scientific articles would be better written, in this respect.

But, I took the article to be pointing at the changes that have happened
in biological life, to be much more complicated and subtle, than the
configuration of DNA. (That would be the basis of Neo-Darwinism.)

I also understood the article as pointing to the problem of trying to measure
"distance" between 2 genomes, as a sound metric of which was the most
closely associated with which other genomes, in a theoretical tree of life.


Although I would like to see better writing in scientific journals, I take this
article as admitting that the plain reading of the Neo-Darwinian model,
just doesn't get you a workable model of "evolution".

I posted the article, because this is the sort of sea change, that you will see
in scientific articles that deal specigically with epigenetics, and the role of
"culture" (aka, "nurture), in the behavior of a younger generation.

 

[Sir Joseph]

Decade-Long Study: No Evidence Found for Darwinian Evolution

What is the origin of the “complexity and subtlety” the researchers cite? Do they not suggest a mind in or behind the universe?

mindmatters.ai

Try reading the article.
It has a number of interesting points, to make.

It is a hard article to disect and understand thoroughly, but the conclusion is not surprising. Darwinian evolution does not happen via mutations and survival of the fittest, and no amount of teaching and propping up the false theory will refute the true laws of science.

There are numerous laws of science that refute commonly accepted evolutionary theory, starting with the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Biogenesis. But in this case, information science and genetics dictate the incompatability between the false theory versus truth and reality.

We know that all biological life on Earth is composed of DNA, and that genetic code of information determines its structure. In order to make any structure, be it a simple cell, complex tissue, or new organ, there must be information already stored within the DNA code. And while DNA mutations can mess up this code to create a defective structure, it cannot create the new information required to produce an entirely new or different structure.

The entire DNA mutation, survival of the fittest theory that serves as the foundation of Darwinian evolution loses information during the process, not increases it. It's a mathematical, physical, genetically impossible theory from the start - to increase complexity of biological structures with a decrease of information in each step.

I don't understand why any rational person would embrace such an absurd theory that counters our strongest laws of science, as well as common sense. What's even more distressing though is the vast majority of professing Christians, Catholics, and even seminary schools that reject the Biblical creation account in order to embrace a scientifically absurd theory - one that should more correctly be labeled as a hypothesis, since we have neither outcome nor evidence of life coming from nonlife or simple organisms evolving into complex organisms.