Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[pitabread]

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.

Education is creationism's greatest nemesis.

 

[Astrophile]

I would not be rattled by the idea that you are related to a baboon, not at all SZ.

But would a baboon be rattled by the thought that it's related to us?

 

[Astrophile]

Sorry, duplicate post.

 

[Astrophile]

How about this woman?

If you lived in any Muslim country where terrorists are chopping of the heads of Christians and they are fleeing for their lives (millions) you might think you were in a Great Tribulation.

Ah, I understand now; you are including the planets Mercury, Venus and Mars in this 'constellation'. If you get up before sunrise on September 23rd and if the sky is clear you will be able to see Venus and you should be able to see Mercury, at least with binoculars. Mars will probably be too faint to see, and of the stars of Leo only Regulus may be far enough from the sun and bright enough to be visible. Still, I very much doubt whether Revelation 12:1-2 was a prophecy of this interesting planetary conjunction.

By the way, the Moon will be only a very thin crescent on 23rd September, not full, as your picture shows it. Jupiter won't be moving retrograde, and it will be difficult to see from the Northern Hemisphere since it will set during twilight.

 

[Astrophile]

If you then find a monkey skull from say a hundred million years ago, and place it next to a modern human skull. Then I will have issues with that underlying belief system, give me the DNA! I need a method of validating the claim other than the dogma of the evolutionary belief system.

Monkeys didn't evolve until about 25 million years ago, not a hundred million years. It would be more useful to compare an australopithecine skull and limb bones from two or three million years ago with a modern human skull and limb bones, and to compare the DNA of any of the living great apes with human DNA.

Also, if we didn't evolve from australopithecines, where are the fossils of our real ancestors of two or three million years ago?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Well to truly learn it one does have to work hard. But the basics are not that difficult. No complex math needed. No massive amounts of learning of specialties within ones own science. But it does not take too much work to understand what evidence is. What the scientific method is and how it is tested.

They should be able to understand why we know that life evolved if they gave half as much effort as they do in trying and failing to refute it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Education is creationism's greatest nemesis.

And fear.

 

[klutedavid]

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?

Hello Obliquinaut.

A long time ago I did use statistics, yes.

 

[Dirk1540]

Perry and Meyer were at the Royal Society, and they keep up with the research. They were talking about a change that has taken place in the past 5 years. So along comes me, Dirk1540, I come right out and say "Hey I'm no expert. I'm green. Here's a video about this 'Change' that was the topic of Royal Society, I make a thread on it...and basically say Thought??" So it never got addressed, I finally post the gist of it, things like this...

Perry,
"Sonia Sultan told about plants adapting literally in real time and passing immediate changes to their progeny in one generation. "

Ok, something to chew on. The whole 'Immediate' vs 'A Million Years' thing! Sonia Sultan I'm pretty much imagining is pretty qualified to be a speaker at this event.

Your reply...

Perry Marshall is a business consultant.

Perry,
"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."

Hmm, ok, the guy is obviously pointing out that RAPID evolution factors need to enter the topic with the million year evolution platitude, because it's good to compare the 2 theories that seem to conflict. Keep in mind I'm green. To the untrained eye RAPID and A Million Years kind of differ lol. Instead of a explanation on how they're the same you reply,

He is not a scientist.

Perry,
"Well i was talking to Eva Jablonka, she's a very respected researcher from Israel...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.' "

Ok I can dig it, basically driving a point home about different disciplines embracing epigenetics. Once again Eva Jablonka probably being a prominent speaker at this big event...

Perry,
"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. "

You,

He has no training in the sciences.

Ok...but is he right or wrong?? Are you beginning to see a pattern of your love affair of attacking the person and not attacking an argument? Question, if it is true that we are now sequencing genomes all over the place, does it matter if the cashier at K-mart told me? It's either true or it's false lol. You dismiss Perry by default. I don't care if LeBron James made the video, HE WAS AT THE EVENT, the question is were the statements true or false?

Perry,
"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."

Interesting. Now, should I go ahead and question the fact that neo-Darwinism does teach RANDOM mutation, yet here we're talking about specific genes that have to be knocked out for a desired effect? Or should my question be 'Did Denis Noble really do this'?? According to you neither should not be my question. According to you my question should be 'Who is Perry Marshall and what gives him the right to ask this question?' According to you I shouldn't have even read the statement (as you yourself haven't because Perry wrote it).

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.

But Perry and Meyer were at, and reporting on a mainstream prominent scientific event, and reporting on the speakers there. Wouldn't bad sources be reporting on a national creationist convention?

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

You can cut throw nonsense that you didn't even read?

You don't go to a mechanic and ask him about your heart disease.

Well, maybe the fact that the mechanic doesn't have your medical records plays into that, so let's find a more accurate example. Hey here's one, "You don't ask your mechanic about evolution!" (One of your favorite angles!) Oh no, wait...turns out that your mechanic knows a ton about evolution. According to you that's impossible lol. YET, every person in this thread who agrees with you, who are basically a handful of self read 'Internet heroes' (no offense so am I), in your book they are dead on BECAUSE OF THEIR ARGUMENTS! However, Perry and Meyer are dismissed and should not even be listened to BECAUSE OF WHO THEY ARE lol, do you even see the irony?? And as if you honestly expect me to believe that Meyer and Perry don't keep up with their opponent's research, come on!

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

Nah I think I'll just weigh each argument on their own merits instead...instead of having my 'Shill' list, and my 'Legit' list. I find that Hugh Ross says some of the most ridiculous statements. But the man is right sometimes. And if I read a neo-Darwinian advocate and something he says makes sense I'll give him a nod of approval...in other words go against your advice.

They love to keep that strawman battle going with Darwin, even though the science has advanced quite a bit since his time.

Now we reach the reason I asked you 'But why Isn't Perry your guy?' It's not about Perry it's about The Third Movement. The Third Movement IS the advancement for evolution, the realization that there are problems with random mutation theory, and that the theory needs to take a step forward because new information that challenges it has also taken a step forward. I thought that that was your mantra??

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

Not a single person. Doesn't it speak volumes?

Education is creationism's greatest nemesis.

I'm wondering if neo-Darwinists are going to educate themselves with The Third Way? I'm not even being cocky, I'm looking forward to how it plays out. I mean they said this Royal Society event was like the Protestant Reformation of evolutionary theory. This whole turn genes off/turn genes on thing sounds fascinating. I'm not even arguing Darwinism vs Creationism I'm just looking at Darwinism vs Third Way right now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dirk, try to keep the nonsense to a minimum please.

 

[Jimmy D]

Perry and Meyer were at the Royal Society, and they keep up with the research. They were talking about a change that has taken place in the past 5 years. So along comes me, Dirk1540, I come right out and say "Hey I'm no expert. I'm green. Here's a video about this 'Change' that was the topic of Royal Society, I make a thread on it...and basically say Thought??" So it never got addressed, I finally post the gist of it, things like this...

Perry,
"Sonia Sultan told about plants adapting literally in real time and passing immediate changes to their progeny in one generation. "

Ok, something to chew on. The whole 'Immediate' vs 'A Million Years' thing! Sonia Sultan I'm pretty much imagining is pretty qualified to be a speaker at this event.

Your reply...



Perry,
"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."

Hmm, ok, the guy is obviously pointing out that RAPID evolution factors need to enter the topic with the million year evolution platitude, because it's good to compare the 2 theories that seem to conflict. Keep in mind I'm green. To the untrained eye RAPID and A Million Years kind of differ lol. Instead of a explanation on how they're the same you reply,



Perry,
"Well i was talking to Eva Jablonka, she's a very respected researcher from Israel...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.' "

Ok I can dig it, basically driving a point home about different disciplines embracing epigenetics. Once again Eva Jablonka probably being a prominent speaker at this big event...

Perry,
"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. "

You,



Ok...but is he right or wrong?? Are you beginning to see a pattern of your love affair of attacking the person and not attacking an argument? Question, if it is true that we are now sequencing genomes all over the place, does it matter if the cashier at K-mart told me? It's either true or it's false lol. You dismiss Perry by default. I don't care if LeBron James made the video, HE WAS AT THE EVENT, the question is were the statements true or false?

Perry,
"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."

Interesting. Now, should I go ahead and question the fact that neo-Darwinism does teach RANDOM mutation, yet here we're talking about specific genes that have to be knocked out for a desired effect? Or should my question be 'Did Denis Noble really do this'?? According to you neither should not be my question. According to you my question should be 'Who is Perry Marshall and what gives him the right to ask this question?' According to you I shouldn't have even read the statement (as you yourself haven't because Perry wrote it).



But Perry and Meyer were at, and reporting on a mainstream prominent scientific event, and reporting on the speakers there. Wouldn't bad sources be reporting on a national creationist convention?



You can cut throw nonsense that you didn't even read?



Well, maybe the fact that the mechanic doesn't have your medical records plays into that, so let's find a more accurate example. Hey here's one, "You don't ask your mechanic about evolution!" (One of your favorite angles!) Oh no, wait...turns out that your mechanic knows a ton about evolution. According to you that's impossible lol. YET, every person in this thread who agrees with you, who are basically a handful of self read 'Internet heroes' (no offense so am I), in your book they are dead on BECAUSE OF THEIR ARGUMENTS! However, Perry and Meyer are dismissed and should not even be listened to BECAUSE OF WHO THEY ARE lol, do you even see the irony?? And as if you honestly expect me to believe that Meyer and Perry don't keep up with their opponent's research, come on!



Nah I think I'll just weigh each argument on their own merits instead...instead of having my 'Shill' list, and my 'Legit' list. I find that Hugh Ross says some of the most ridiculous statements. But the man is right sometimes. And if I read a neo-Darwinian advocate and something he says makes sense I'll give him a nod of approval...in other words go against your advice.



Now we reach the reason I asked you 'But why Isn't Perry your guy?' It's not about Perry it's about The Third Movement. The Third Movement IS the advancement for evolution, the realization that there are problems with random mutation theory, and that the theory needs to take a step forward because new information that challenges it has also taken a step forward. I thought that that was your mantra??


Not a single person. Doesn't it speak volumes?



I'm wondering if neo-Darwinists are going to educate themselves with The Third Way? I'm not even being cocky, I'm looking forward to how it plays out. I mean they said this Royal Society event was like the Protestant Reformation of evolutionary theory. This whole turn genes off/turn genes on thing sounds fascinating. I'm not even arguing Darwinism vs Creationism I'm just looking at Darwinism vs Third Way right now.

Dirk, that's rather a disjointed post and is quite difficult to follow. Could you please summarize in your own words exactly what your point is.

You have been told, by someone working in the field, that "Neo Darwinism" is obsolete so what are you railing against exactly?

Also, I haven't watched your video as I have no sound on my computer, exactly which "Royal society" event are you talking about?

I suspect that you're just parrotting stuff from a creationist propaganda site.

 

[sfs]

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??

I have no idea who Perry Marshall is or why I should care what he says.

The same argument that I always here from Darwinians, that they constantly improve their theory and adapt it to new information (Third Way Movement).

The Third Wave is a grab-bag of ideas that violate the strict neo-Darwinism of the Modern Synthesis. Some of them are well-established and have long since been incorporated into evolutionary theory, e.g. horizontal gene transfer, the Neutral Theory, endosymbiosis. These are important but not novel; the claim that such ideas are going to overthrow neo-Darwinism is just grandstanding.

Some of them are real but of doubtful importance to evolution, e.g. trans-generational epigenetic inheritance. It happens, but there is little or no evidence that it has any effect beyond a few generations or affects the evolutionary trajectory of a species. (If it does turn out to be important, it will just make evolutionary theory more complicated, not really change it in a fundamental way.) "Niche construction" is more of a real factor, though exactly how important is pretty unclear. Maybe it should receive more attention from researchers -- I dunno. Usually, the way an idea gets more scientific attention is by showing that it's useful in treating real data.

Newman's ideas about physical principles underlying the early evolution of animal body plans are fascinating, speculative and very hard to test.

None of these ideas contradict anything I wrote about the state of evolutionary biology. The one idea that would really change evolutionary theory is that of nonrandomly beneficial mutations, i.e. that organisms can direct mutations to occur in ways that will be beneficial for the organism. This idea is promoted by Shapiro and is, from all the evidence currently available, wrong.

 

[majj27]

I have no idea who Perry Marshall is or why I should care what he says.

Perry Marshall has a degree in electrical engineering and has a career as a marketing consultant specializing in online marketing strategies.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Hello Obliquinaut.

A long time ago I did use statistics, yes.

Then you know that inference is part of the job, right? And you surely provided p-values and F-statistics for your regressions, correct? What do you think that was all about?

So when you say that inference isn't part of science I honestly don't know where you get that.

 

[sfs]

Perry Marshall has a degree in electrical engineering and has a career as a marketing consultant specializing in online marketing strategies.

Well, that explains who he is. The "why should I care what he says" question is still to be resolved.

 

[xianghua]

Sorry, but you totally misunderstood the article. The proteins are different and have different sources.

funny. when they are different they are claiming for convenrgent evolution. but lets play in this game. so your are saying that evolution predict that we will not find a case with the same gene (or very similar one) in some far species but not in some species between them? is this your evolutionery prediction?

 

[xianghua]

According to your own submission you can call it anything - since definitions don´t matter.

i asked you about a specific object. will you call it a watch or not?

 

[xianghua]

It's true, the theory is simply being exposed. Most people don't bother with the intricate complexities of the TOE. Most of us won't challenge it, it takes a few years to study and thought that none of us have. We just want to live our lives, work, get married, have kids, buy a house and that's enough on our plate. But if you spend some time in, you'll see the flaws, you'll see that it's a house of cards. It's a naturalistic view of the origins of life without God and with those who include God in this process, they don't really take the Bible literally).
Natural Selection = The TOE implies that nature has a mind, intelligence to select beneficial mutations over time, sort them out and choosing one. How does nature change the program, the genetic code and order it to manufacture something completely different? It's absurd! Nature does not have intelligence, it does not sort out and choose beneficial mutations, design the DNA molecule and manufacturing process of the cells, organs, etc.
Beneficial Mutations = the sifting through thousands of harmless if not deadly mutations to come upon one that is beneficial, then passing it on. The organism would die of the thousands of harmless and deadly mutations before it got a chance to choose a good one (if it could). Let's be honest, how do we view mutations? Distortions and defects in the genetic code. They are defects and some geneticists would say that 99.99% of them are harmless or at best neutral. You see, chance would not have a chance.
Cells are irreducibly complex. Darwin thought they were a jelly-like substance. He didn't know that cells weren't simple. A one-celled paramecium has a flagellum that is more complex than the space shuttle.
The eye could not have evolved in a piece by piece fashion because ALL THE PIECES ARE REQUIRED TO BE FUNCTIONAL AND PRESENT AT THE SAME TIME. Otherwise vision doesn't work. So none of the pieces would be beneficial to pass on because vision could not be possible.

Evolutionists would point to simple eyes like that of a horseshoe crab, but even their eyes have parts and each part is required for vision.

All cells, organs and systems have been complex all along. Life comes from life and we were created a finished being. A rose was always a rose and a peacock was always a peacock, nothing else. Each kind has its place in the eco-system although the distortion of sin entered in and so the balance is not perfect as it once was.
We can see the complexity of DNA which is mind boggling to decipher. Does nature organize these complex cells, fibers, organs and system simultaneously in the human womb? Do the cells decipher the codes and proceed to build a human all by itself? No, this process is ordered. God knits together the baby in the womb. And the mutations that have accumulated over generations sometimes cause distortions and defects that are seen at birth. We call them birth defects. A baby is a gift, created by God, not nature. God uses nature but intelligence is required, design, order, these things don't produce themselves.
Finally, the Bible says, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God, they are corrupt, their deeds are vile, their is no one who does good." Psalms 14:1

even an eyespot need at least several parts to its minimal function. so even the first step in eye evolution cant evolve stepwise. and e ven the eye itself is evidence for design. if we will find a self replicaiting camera that made from oroganic components (eye actually) we will conclude design.

 

[xianghua]

I do have another question. Ok whether you're a theist or atheist I believe that we all agree that the Earth is much older than the origin of life. So whatever your beliefs you probably agree that 'Something' caused first life. This is what Darwin would point to as the tree trunk to the tree of life.

My question is, if this 'Something' undeniably happened, why so dead set against that something happening multiple times? In other words why so locked into a tree of life and so dead set against a forest of life? I'm even put religion to the side, even if you cling to man and ape being on the same tree, you still can't argue that the cockroach belongs to a separate tree?? Maybe this was asked already, this thread got insanely long lol.

there is no such a tree anymore:

Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

"Charles Darwin's "tree of life", which shows how species are related through evolutionary history, is wrong and needs to be replaced, according to leading scientists."

Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution

"This family tree is backed up by reams of genomic and morphological data, and is well accepted by the palaeontological community. Yet, says Peterson, the tree is all wrong."

 

[xianghua]

Your claiming your evolution from a baboon, I am not making that claim you are.
That is not a swipe at you, that is your evolutionary history not mine.

You need to define your usage of 'closest relative', what a broad phrase that is.

Do you firmly support the evolution of the whale or not?

If you cannot strongly demonstrate the evolution of the whale, then what I am I to think about evolutionary theory?

You cannot say that the, 'mountains of evidence', cannot even demonstrate the actual evolution of any one species. That is simply saying that evolutionary theory is a scientific generalization, on the larger scale it appears valid but no in any specific way.

What could be more basic than you explaining the evolution of the whale.

Negative SZ, your claiming your descent from tree swinging apes.

No claim by me SZ, that is evolutionary science.

Incorrect.

Oh yes they are.

The Jews wrote the scripture, I already know what some of them think about Jesus.

I have stated already that I do not regard the early chapters of Genesis as valid.

I am not a young earth creationist nor do I believe in an old earth. I have issues with both of these extremist camps.

here is an interesting way to check if evolution fo whale is possible: lest say that we have a car. can we change it (analogy to mutations and changes) stepwise into a submarine when every step is functional? if not then nature cant do that too.