Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[Speedwell]

Do you want to walk in newness of life, and turn from bondage to constant desires to sin, because of your flesh nature?

Baptism is symbolic to a watery grave, that when you are baptized you lay the old person you have been in fleshly bondage to sin into the water through a minister, that then as you are raised up out of the water you seek to be a new man through His doing, through His Spirit and Power.

If you are truely ready to leave sin behind then you turn to Him by faith and seek baptism and the reality it represents.

Repentance from walking in sin cannot be half-hearted. It should be earnest desire to walk free from sin. If you seek Him and purity before Him then you will find Him.

Seek to put off the old to put on the new.

He is Holy. The vacuum will start to fill by earnstly seeking walking in purity before Him. The essence of baptism your starting point. He will if you will.

View attachment 203660

Take Him at His Word. He will if you will. Are you ready to change?

View attachment 203661

Yes, indeed. I, to, was baptized. But it must not have worked, because I stayed an Anglican and never felt the least urge to embrace the Genesis stories as 100% accurate literal history.

 

[klutedavid]

Correct. And we have that a plenty.

You do realize that there is a big difference between demonstrating that evolution is correct and little nit picking questions about evolution, don't you?

Hello SZ.

You are confused, the evolution of the whale is a strongly documented, evolutionary example. This is one of the trump cards of the evolutionary theory, deal the cards SZ.

Show me the documented evidence that Pakicetus is an ancestor of the whale. We are not talking about inferring this ancestry of Pakicetus, SZ. Documentation is required, hard evidence, you will support the claim or you will admit that the documentation is inference.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello SZ.

You are confused, the evolution of the whale is a strongly documented, evolutionary example. This is one of the trump cards of the evolutionary theory, deal the cards SZ.

Please, when you are one of the confused ones you should never falsely accuse others of that flaw. It is well understood, but there are many examples with a far better record. Take the evolution of the horse. The museum displays are "wrong". But only because they are grossly over simplified. They show on the order of four or five species when the species identified are over fifty right now.

And when it comes to evolution there is far stronger evidence than the fossil record. The fossil record is merely easier for the lay person to understand.

Show me the documented evidence that Pakicetus is an ancestor of the whale. We are not talking about inferring this ancestry of Pakicetus, SZ. Documentation is required, hard evidence, you will support the claim or you will admit that the documentation is inference.

What do you mean "documented evidence"? There is no such thing. There are quite a few peer reviewed articles on it. But you won't be able to read most of them. Most peer review is still behind a pay wall. And you would probably not be able to understand those scientific journals. I have to run right now, but you could look yourself. Open up Google, enter "Google Scholar" when that browser opens simply type "Pakicetus" in the search bar.

 

[dmmesdale]

Stuff and nonsense. Fine, you don't know biology, but are you also unaware of physics and chemistry? Order arises all the time in all kinds of ways without an organizer. Where are you getting these ideas from?

Your post certainly did not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your post certainly did not.

Wha?? Not an answer to his post.

 

[Dirk1540]

Let's take a timeout!!!!

We're closing in on 600 posts and it's pretty absurd (of me) that I've chimed in, YET I never even elaborated on the actual video lol. I'm simply gonna post the opening remarks and opening question, which I think pretty much gives the gist of why I titled the thread the way I did. None of my opinions here, just gonna post their openings...

Stephen Meyer,

"Rarely has there been such a great disparity between the popular perception of a theory (Neo-Darwinism), and it's actual standing in the peer reviewed scientific literature. If you look closely at the technical literature in biology what you find is biologists expressing doubts very openly, especially the doubts of the creative power of the central mechanism of neo-Darwinism (natural selection mechanism), and this has been going on for quite some time. "

"Yet when the theory is presented publicly, for instance in policy statements by The American Association of the Advancement of Science, or (up until now) The Royal Society, Neo-Darwinism is presented as beyond doubt. And nothing can be further from the truth if you look at the actual scientific literature. Not just in biology generally, but in the relevant sub disciplines of evolutionary biology."

"What's extraordinary about the November meeting at the Royal Society is that many of the scientists who have been raising concerns about neo-Darwinism in the peer reviewed literature were allowed to do so in a public forum that garnered quite a lot of attention in the scientific press, and now it's beginning to percolate down into even the popular press. So the question that arises out of The Royal Society meeting is...after neo-Darwinism, what's next?"

Perry Marshall,

"If you didn't know the background of what was going on (Royal Society meeting) you would say to yourself 'Ok so what's new, scientists are disagreeing about stuff.' But if you are in the field, if you understand it deeply, and you can read the tea leaves, it was the Protestant Reformation of evolutionary biology. This would have never happened 5 years ago. It speaks to a sea change that's going on...it's like Denis Noble pounded his thesis on the door and said 'Hey, this dog don't hunt.' "

"Neo-Darwinism is in serious trouble, it's past it's expiration date. It's no longer enough to just wave a magic wand and say 'Natural Selection, Natural Selection!' Because what living things do is so amazing, and they do it in real time. Evolution has traditionally been this explanation of 'Millions & Millions of years'...when in fact Sonia Sultan told about plants adapting literally in real time and passing immediate changes to their progeny in one generation. "

"If you understand that evolution is a constant 24/7, 365 feedback between the environment and the organism, and the changes in some cases are past down immediately...then you have this completely different view of evolution."

Question to Perry,

"You say that this couldn't have happened 5 years ago. What changed in 5 years that suddenly the orthodox view of neo-Darwinianism is being questioned in this way?"

Perry,

"Well i was talking to Eva Jablonka, she's a very respected researcher from Israel (who is part of the Third Way Movement), and she said 'I've been fighting these guys for a long time.' She said 'Look, it's one thing if one person like me is saying epigenetics is a big deal, but it's another thing if the nutrition people are talking about it, and the fitness people are talking about it, and the cancer people are talking about it, and on & on.' Epigenetics has become a household word in the fitness world because the genome is very dynamic and your genes don't have to change. Epigenetics is like software menus that get grayed out, and switch certain things on & off and then something changes, and then that grayed out thing gets switched back on...this is what happens. So it's not just one thing. We're now sequencing genomes all over the place, we're seeing more & more clearly what goes on. "

"And frankly, even just basic practice of medicine, fighting disease, fighting cancer tumors...all that kind of stuff requires a completely different view of evolution than what the neo-Darwinists have always told us. Denis Noble, the organizer of the conference, he's a physiologist, he's super famous in the medical field for making the pacemaker possible. His heart research...when they were figuring out how the cardiac rhythm works, he figured out from knocking out genes and seeing how it effected the behavior of the heart, he figured out empirically that there's no way that the neo-Darwinist version of how genes work is true."

"And so it's been the fact that the voices of the outsiders of the theory of evolutionary biology have gotten louder & louder. And the irony is that evolutionary biology itself, the core of the field, has been the most resistant to evolving their knowledge of biology out of anybody. Which is kind of funny."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's take a timeout!!!!

We're closing in on 600 posts and it's pretty absurd (of me) that I've chimed in, YET I never even elaborated on the actual video lol. I'm simply gonna post the opening remarks and opening question, which I think pretty much gives the gist of why I titled the thread the way I did. None of my opinions here, just gonna post their openings...

Stephen Meyer,

"Rarely has there been such a great disparity between the popular perception of a theory (Neo-Darwinism), and it's actual standing in the peer reviewed scientific literature. If you look closely at the technical literature in biology what you find is biologists expressing doubts very openly, especially the doubts of the creative power of the central mechanism of neo-Darwinism (natural selection mechanism), and this has been going on for quite some time. "

"Yet when the theory is presented publicly, for instance in policy statements by The American Association of the Advancement of Science, or (up until now) The Royal Society, Neo-Darwinism is presented as beyond doubt. And nothing can be further from the truth if you look at the actual scientific literature. Not just in biology generally, but in the relevant sub disciplines of evolutionary biology."

"What's extraordinary about the November meeting at the Royal Society is that many of the scientists who have been raising concerns about neo-Darwinism in the peer reviewed literature were allowed to do so in a public forum that garnered quite a lot of attention in the scientific press, and now it's beginning to percolate down into even the popular press. So the question that arises out of The Royal Society meeting is...after neo-Darwinism, what's next?"

Perry Marshall,

"If you didn't know the background of what was going on (Royal Society meeting) you would say to yourself 'Ok so what's new, scientists are disagreeing about stuff.' But if you are in the field, if you understand it deeply, and you can read the tea leaves, it was the Protestant Reformation of evolutionary biology. This would have never happened 5 years ago. It speaks to a sea change that's going on...it's like Denis Noble pounded his thesis on the door and said 'Hey, this dog don't hunt.' "

"Neo-Darwinism is in serious trouble, it's past it's expiration date. It's no longer enough to just wave a magic wand and say 'Natural Selection, Natural Selection!' Because what living things do is so amazing, and they do it in real time. Evolution has traditionally been this explanation of 'Millions & Millions of years'...when in fact Sonia Sultan told about plants adapting literally in real time and passing immediate changes to their progeny in one generation. "

"If you understand that evolution is a constant 24/7, 365 feedback between the environment and the organism, and the changes in some cases are past down immediately...then you have this completely different view of evolution."

Question to Perry,

"You say that this couldn't have happened 5 years ago. What changed in 5 years that suddenly the orthodox view of neo-Darwinianism is being questioned in this way?"

Perry,

"Well i was talking to Eva Jablonka, she's a very respected researcher from Israel (who is part of the Third Way Movement), and she said 'I've been fighting these guys for a long time.' She said 'Look, it's one thing if one person like me is saying epigenetics is a big deal, but it's another thing if the nutrition people are talking about it, and the fitness people are talking about it, and the cancer people are talking about it, and on & on.' Epigenetics has become a household word in the fitness world because the genome is very dynamic and your genes don't have to change. Epigenetics is like software menus that get grayed out, and switch certain things on & off and then something changes, and then that grayed out thing gets switched back on...this is what happens. So it's not just one thing. We're now sequencing genomes all over the place, we're seeing more & more clearly what goes on. "

"And frankly, even just basic practice of medicine, fighting disease, fighting cancer tumors...all that kind of stuff requires a completely different view of evolution than what the neo-Darwinists have always told us. Denis Noble, the organizer of the conference, he's a physiologist, he's super famous in the medical field for making the pacemaker possible. His heart research...when they were figuring out how the cardiac rhythm works, he figured out from knocking out genes and seeing how it effected the behavior of the heart, he figured out empirically that there's no way that the neo-Darwinist version of how genes work is true."

"And so it's been the fact that the voices of the outsiders of the theory of evolutionary biology have gotten louder & louder. And the irony is that evolutionary biology itself, the core of the field, has been the most resistant to evolving their knowledge of biology out of anybody. Which is kind of funny."

Let's take a timeout!!!!

We're closing in on 600 posts and it's pretty absurd (of me) that I've chimed in, YET I never even elaborated on the actual video lol. I'm simply gonna post the opening remarks and opening question, which I think pretty much gives the gist of why I titled the thread the way I did. None of my opinions here, just gonna post their openings...

Stephen Meyer,

"Rarely has there been such a great disparity between the popular perception of a theory (Neo-Darwinism), and it's actual standing in the peer reviewed scientific literature. If you look closely at the technical literature in biology what you find is biologists expressing doubts very openly, especially the doubts of the creative power of the central mechanism of neo-Darwinism (natural selection mechanism), and this has been going on for quite some time. "

"Yet when the theory is presented publicly, for instance in policy statements by The American Association of the Advancement of Science, or (up until now) The Royal Society, Neo-Darwinism is presented as beyond doubt. And nothing can be further from the truth if you look at the actual scientific literature. Not just in biology generally, but in the relevant sub disciplines of evolutionary biology."

"What's extraordinary about the November meeting at the Royal Society is that many of the scientists who have been raising concerns about neo-Darwinism in the peer reviewed literature were allowed to do so in a public forum that garnered quite a lot of attention in the scientific press, and now it's beginning to percolate down into even the popular press. So the question that arises out of The Royal Society meeting is...after neo-Darwinism, what's next?"

Perry Marshall,

"If you didn't know the background of what was going on (Royal Society meeting) you would say to yourself 'Ok so what's new, scientists are disagreeing about stuff.' But if you are in the field, if you understand it deeply, and you can read the tea leaves, it was the Protestant Reformation of evolutionary biology. This would have never happened 5 years ago. It speaks to a sea change that's going on...it's like Denis Noble pounded his thesis on the door and said 'Hey, this dog don't hunt.' "

"Neo-Darwinism is in serious trouble, it's past it's expiration date. It's no longer enough to just wave a magic wand and say 'Natural Selection, Natural Selection!' Because what living things do is so amazing, and they do it in real time. Evolution has traditionally been this explanation of 'Millions & Millions of years'...when in fact Sonia Sultan told about plants adapting literally in real time and passing immediate changes to their progeny in one generation. "

"If you understand that evolution is a constant 24/7, 365 feedback between the environment and the organism, and the changes in some cases are past down immediately...then you have this completely different view of evolution."

Question to Perry,

"You say that this couldn't have happened 5 years ago. What changed in 5 years that suddenly the orthodox view of neo-Darwinianism is being questioned in this way?"

Perry,

"Well i was talking to Eva Jablonka, she's a very respected researcher from Israel (who is part of the Third Way Movement), and she said 'I've been fighting these guys for a long time.' She said 'Look, it's one thing if one person like me is saying epigenetics is a big deal, but it's another thing if the nutrition people are talking about it, and the fitness people are talking about it, and the cancer people are talking about it, and on & on.' Epigenetics has become a household word in the fitness world because the genome is very dynamic and your genes don't have to change. Epigenetics is like software menus that get grayed out, and switch certain things on & off and then something changes, and then that grayed out thing gets switched back on...this is what happens. So it's not just one thing. We're now sequencing genomes all over the place, we're seeing more & more clearly what goes on. "

"And frankly, even just basic practice of medicine, fighting disease, fighting cancer tumors...all that kind of stuff requires a completely different view of evolution than what the neo-Darwinists have always told us. Denis Noble, the organizer of the conference, he's a physiologist, he's super famous in the medical field for making the pacemaker possible. His heart research...when they were figuring out how the cardiac rhythm works, he figured out from knocking out genes and seeing how it effected the behavior of the heart, he figured out empirically that there's no way that the neo-Darwinist version of how genes work is true."

"And so it's been the fact that the voices of the outsiders of the theory of evolutionary biology have gotten louder & louder. And the irony is that evolutionary biology itself, the core of the field, has been the most resistant to evolving their knowledge of biology out of anybody. Which is kind of funny."

Too long didn't read. I saw your sources and they are bogus, that means that your entire post is bogus.

How about making your own claims instead of relying on people that have no standing in this debate?

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way Dirk, creationists very often dishonestly claim that when scientists have a discussion about evolution and fine tuning the theory they will try to claim that the theory is in danger. They tend to lie like that quite often.

The discussion in evolution right now is not if it happened. There is no doubt about that. It is how it happened. When exactly did the first mammal appear. That can be quite tricky since soft tissues are not preserved. The evolutionary line is well represented, but it is very hard to say "this one is a reptile and this one is a mammal". The discussion of when the first appeared can vary by millions of years. But that discussion does not mean that there is any threat to the theory at all.

 

[sfs]

Let's take a timeout!!!!

We're closing in on 600 posts and it's pretty absurd (of me) that I've chimed in, YET I never even elaborated on the actual video lol. I'm simply gonna post the opening remarks and opening question, which I think pretty much gives the gist of why I titled the thread the way I did. None of my opinions here, just gonna post their openings...

Let me summarize the actual state of evolution in the scientific community.

First, there is absolutely no dispute at all about common descent. All scientific work in biology operates on the long-since established fact that all life on earth is related by common descent. If someone is trying to pass off their views as scientific but hedges on that question, you can just ignore them.

Second, there is virtually no dispute about the central role of natural selection in adaptive evolution.

Third, "neo-Darwinism" as a specific theory has been obsolete at least since the 1960s.

There is plenty of debate about a wide range of issues and mechanisms in evolutionary biology. All of them involve natural processes in the context of common descent.

Now, is there some specific issue you want to discuss?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me summarize the actual state of evolution in the scientific community.

First, there is absolutely no dispute at all about common descent. All scientific work in biology operates on the long-since established fact that all life on earth is related by common descent. If someone is trying to pass off their views as scientific but hedges on that question, you can just ignore them.

Second, there is virtually no dispute about the central role of natural selection in adaptive evolution.

Third, "neo-Darwinism" as a specific theory has been obsolete at least since the 1960s.

There is plenty of debate about a wide range of issues and mechanisms in evolutionary biology. All of them involve natural processes in the context of common descent.

Now, is there some specific issue you want to discuss?

Don't disappoint the creationists too much. They love to keep that strawman battle going with Darwin, even though the science has advanced quite a bit since his time.

I don't know if you saw it but one poster commented on how Darwin himself admitted that the fossil evidence was a bit on the scant side. Who'd a thunk that we woud have found just a few fossils in 150 years.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Hello Subduction Zone.

Verifiable evidence and not inference is the currency of real science.

Ummm, I don't mean to be overly pedantic but I simply must point out that as a scientist myself, I have used extensively the area of inferrential statistics to do my job.

I guess my biggest question to you, Klutedavid, how do YOU process your observational data? I mean you do use statistics, right?

 

[Obliquinaut]

I was once blind and devoid of Him, and an ardent promoter of Evolution. There is Hope. People can turn to Him and the void begin to be filled.

I used to be a Christian and I had no problem with Evolution. I also had a PhD in the very same field you claim to be educated in and I found evolution to make very good sense.

How could two highly educated people who (at one time) shared a religious belief come to such dramatically different conclusions?

 

[Obliquinaut]

You cannot show any evidence. Even in the fossil record, no transitional forms

OH COME ON, MAN! On this thread alone we've pointed to a large number of transitional fossils. If you don't like them it doesn't make them any less transitional!

This is bordering on the bizarre.

, just different kinds that became extinct.

...and just happened to have features that looked transitional from the previous to the latter forms.

LOL Even Darwin had his doubts about the fossil record thinking they would eventually find millions of examples of transitional forms

PSSST, Darwin died a loooong time ago. And strangely enough Paleontology has found more transitional forms!

: "Where are they", he asked. All you have is a massive graveyard caused by a massive flood with dinosaurs AND animals buried and preserved in mud that hardened in many layers of mud over a period that only took a few weeks.

If you don't understand basic freshman level geology, how can you make any claims about any of this stuff?

Then the rain stopped and the water receded and the Ark settled on Mt. Ararat. You're laughing now

No, I'm sadly shaking my head. Geology at the undergrad level is really not all that complex. When I was a graduate TA we used to call it "rocks for jocks" because so many people took it as their basic science requirement because it wasn't as hard as Chemistry or Physics.

And even that low bar seems too high for some folks. And it makes me sad. Because really geology is a great science and a LOT OF FUN. So long as people who wouldn't dare darken the door of a geology classroom don't try to tell us how it works.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Try as you may but Evolution still remains a belief, it is based on faith. I learned this while being an educated Evolutionist.

I love how Heissonear will not respond to any of my posts. Perhaps the Geochemist and Stratigrapher is scared of talking to a PhD Geochemist? Hmmmmm.

 

[Obliquinaut]

If you have preached to, shared with, reasoned or grappled with staunch atheist/evolutionists, after a while you give up and like Jesus said, "If they don't listen, brush the dirt off your sandals and move on."

What about Christians who are also evolutionists? What did Jesus say to do with them?

 

[Dirk1540]

Now, is there some specific issue you want to discuss?

No. Because I am self admitted as not knowing my stuff to the point of debating this. I'm a spectator just trying to see which position sounds better.

Second, there is virtually no dispute about the central role of natural selection in adaptive evolution.

Hmm, to the untrained eye (me) Perry's summary about the Royal Society seems to imply the polar opposite of your second point. To the untrained eye I can't help but think to myself...wait a minute isn't Perry Marshall in your camp?? He's the anti-ID guy claiming that evolution theory needs an upgrade. The same argument that I always here from Darwinians, that they constantly improve their theory and adapt it to new information (Third Way Movement).

I saw your sources and they are bogus, that means that your entire post is bogus.

Wow! You just won the militant atheist of the year award with that reply. And this came 2 minutes after my post, with an admission that you didn't read it.

I was once told that it was raining outside, but my source was garbage...which was proof that it was sunny skies.

It's official, if somebody has an issue with neo-Darwinism they are BY DEFINITION a bogus source in your view.

And I'm still confused, isn't Perry your guy as well??

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. Because I am self admitted as not knowing my stuff to the point of debating this. I'm a spectator just trying to see which position sounds better.

Then perhaps a little education would be a good thing and trying to avoid shills and hacks would not be a bad idea either.

Hmm, to the untrained eye (me) Perry's summary about the Royal Society seems to imply the polar opposite of your second point. To the untrained eye I can't help but think to myself...wait a minute isn't Perry Marshall in your camp?? He's the anti-ID guy claiming that evolution theory needs an upgrade. The same argument that I always here from Darwinians, that they constantly improve their theory and adapt it to new information (Third Way Movement).

That is the problem. You are merely responding to personal prejudice. Perry Marshall is a business consultant. He is not a scientist. And science is always going through a tune-up. He has no training in the sciences. You don't go to a mechanic and ask him about your heart disease.

Wow! You just won the militant atheist of the year award with that reply. And this came 2 minutes after my post, with an admission that you didn't read it.

Hardly. I did not need to read it. This is supposed to be a science based part of the thread. When you rely on bad sources for your post there is no point in reading it. One knows that it is going to be garbage.

I was once told that it was raining outside, but my source was garbage...which was proof that it was sunny skies.

Please, I have been dating this issue for a while and can cut through nonsense in an amazing amount of time.

It's official, if somebody has an issue with neo-Darwinism they are BY DEFINITION a bogus source in your view.

No, anyone that is not science based is a bogus source. The Discovery Institute, which is where Stephen Meyer is from, was behind an illegal attempt to sneak ID into the classroom.

And I'm still confused, isn't Perry your guy as well??

No, he is just a business consultant. He is an ID believer.

Seriously, all you need to learn how to judge many of these sources properly is a good understanding of the scientific method, and understanding what is and what is not evidence. The latter is extremely important, and yet most lay people only think that they understand the concept. Died in the wool creationists know that they do not understand the topic, but they keep themselves ignorant as a defensive maneuver.

By the way, did anyone else pay any attention to that post at all?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ummm, I don't mean to be overly pedantic but I simply must point out that as a scientist myself, I have used extensively the area of inferrential statistics to do my job.

I guess my biggest question to you, Klutedavid, how do YOU process your observational data? I mean you do use statistics, right?

I should have pointed out that inference is an important part of the sciences too.

Sadly none of the creationists want to learn the basics. That is rather sad since there is no way to criticize a theory properly if one does not understand evidence. And understanding the scientific method is key too.

A big part of me feels that they know that they are wrong avoid the basics so they can maintain an artificial plausible deniability.

 

[Astrophile]

This scripture describes a constellation that will appear on 9-23-17. It is Virgo, clothed by the sun, with the moon at her feet and a crown of 12 stars around her head. It's a rare occurrence that hasn't happened since the birth of Christ. The Wise Men followed a star ... you know the story. Well it most likely was the planet Jupiter, call the King planet, that moves into Virgo's womb, moves around for about 9 months then exists down through her legs.

You don't know much about astronomy. The sun passes through Virgo every September and October, and the moon passes through Virgo every month, so the sun and the moon must both be in Virgo at least once in every year. Also Jupiter passes through Virgo every twelve years, and remains in the constellation for about fourteen months, not merely nine; therefore the sun, the moon and Jupiter must all be in Virgo at least once in every twelve years. So how do you make out that this is 'a rare occurrence that hasn't happened since the birth of Christ'? Of course, since the sun will be in Virgo on 23rd September, nobody will be able to see either Virgo itself or Jupiter; since it will be only three days after New Moon, only keen stargazers will be likely to see the moon.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I should have pointed out that inference is an important part of the sciences too.

Sadly none of the creationists want to learn the basics. That is rather sad since there is no way to criticize a theory properly if one does not understand evidence. And understanding the scientific method is key too.

A big part of me feels that they know that they are wrong avoid the basics so they can maintain an artificial plausible deniability.

That, as well as the fact that learning science isn't all that easy.