Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[Dirk1540]

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

Pretty much the reply I expected.

Dirk, that's rather a disjointed post and is quite difficult to follow.

I know, I tried to steer traffic back towards the video with my last couple posts, but there's so much momentum going on in here now it's tough stuff gets buried quick lol. This is my fault, the only way it wouldn't look like a disjointed mess is if I had created all 3 posts in the total beginning.

Some of them are well-established and have long since been incorporated into evolutionary theory...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.

Yeah that's pretty much what I was trying to point out, the talk about pinpointing situations where it looks more 'Smart' than random, like deactivating and reactivating genes intelligently to get a specific result would go against it just being random. It's fine if we dis Perry, I was just interested that he was at the conference that's all.

horizontal gene transfer, the Neutral Theory, endosymbiosis. These are important but not novel..."Niche construction" is more of a real factor, though exactly how important is pretty unclear. Maybe it should receive more attention from researchers...Newman's ideas about physical principles underlying the early evolution of animal body plans are fascinating, speculative and very hard to test.

All stuff I plan to look into more. On the one hand I'd like to read some of these peer reviewed 'Problems' with the neo-Darwinian model by biologists (that Perry spoke of), and read them side by side with other peer reviewed papers of different opinions. But on the other hand I wonder if I'd even be able to understand them! Maybe I'd have to go through a little learning curve before I can understand them. I'd like to dig deeper, I don't like when you guys get to pull rank on me lol.

 

[Ronald]

Historically speaking, when it comes to having to choose between science versus religion, science tends to win the long-run.

Evolution is junk science, not empirical science, it cannot be demonstrated, it's missing original conditions and components ... it's a mixed bag of bones is all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pretty much the reply I expected.

That is because you posted a wall of nonsense again.

I know, I tried to steer traffic back towards the video with my last couple posts, but there's so much momentum going on in here now it's tough stuff gets buried quick lol. This is my fault, the only way it wouldn't look like a disjointed mess is if I had created all 3 posts in the total beginning.

There is no point. No one has interest in a bad video.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution is junk science, not empirical science, it cannot be demonstrated, it's missing original conditions and components ... it's a mixed bag of bones is all.

You can't refute an idea when you have no clue as to how science is done.

Let's start on the basics. Would you like to discuss the scientific method or scientific evidence first?

 

[Ronald]

On the TOE
I read the post that displayed apparent transitional forms of reptiles to birds, etc. -- HOGWASH! All you have is bones that look similar, a lot of guessing and assumptions. You can not tell me how scales turned into feathers -- LOL, that is absurd. I suppose a lizard climbed up a tree and jumped off a branch to capture a bug and fell to the ground and frayed his scales and over millions of years those scales turned into feathers and then one day, he jumped off that branch and flew away? LOL.
Most of the so-called examples missing links between ape and man are nothing more than hoaxes, 100% ape or 100% man with similar bone structures. We are vastly more superior to apes, no need to prove it, look at what we've done, there is no relative between us. But the movie Planet of the Apes might deceive you, that's pure fiction. We are creative, imaginative and intelligent beings a hundred times over. We make decisions within the realm of morality and virtue, animals don't. Animals cannot create symbols that have meaning and use them to communicate. Surprisingly language was also created, it could not have evolved structurally and uniformly in order that translations between them could be possible or meaningfully understood. Believe it or not, at one time there was one language.
The human brain is said to have 10 billion nerve cells, each having 10 - 100 thousand connecting fibers which come to 1 quadrillion connections. Imagine a forest twice the size of Alaska containing 10,000 trees per square mile with each tree having 100,000 leaves. Let's say they are all connected. That's how many connections their are in your brain - well ... maybe not the atheist. This would represent more than 100 times the connections in the combined communication systems on the planet ... and this evolved? ... all manufactured by nature choosing beneficial mutations over time?
Thoughts, emotions, ideas, talent, love, hope and faith are not chemicals in the brain. Happiness is a state of being, not a chemical. If they were chemicals, we would have found them and marketed them so the rest of mankind could all be genius, talented, loving and happy people. Morals and values are not chemicals either. Thoughts and emotions are transmitted by chemicals, they are not chemicals. All these are not physical, they do not have mass and therefore could not have come through physical processes from other things. Physical laws cannot provide the information in a book by randomly combining letters and punctuation. You can see in any form of communication that the information given or received is not physical. Written or spoken words carry information. You can't open up a brain and see thoughts and information or say, "looky here, we have musical talent or genius. The initial spark of a thought or idea is not physical. Where do they come from? And the curious question evolutionists should have is, "Where does all the information come from"? The information in the DNA molecule is mind boggling, it is a language, a digital, error correcting code that holds information, consists of a 4-letter alphabet that uses 3 in a way to detect errors within a 3 billion rung double helix molecule. It can detect a 1 % error in these pairs of nucleotides. It exploits the most advanced language design codes we know of: error-detecting and correcting and adaptive (syntax modifying). In the cell there is equipment (machines) designed to copy this information and use it for manufacturing DNA, RNA and proteins. Information has to leave the nucleus of one cell by photocopying and duplicating it in the next cell. Btw, DNA is the medium that carries information, not the information itself.
Here's an interesting correlation: Weigh a CD, then store a million bits of information on it and weigh it again. No matter how much information you put on it, it will weigh the same. The information has no mass. Likewise, the information in the DNA code could not have been produced by physical laws or chance because it has not mass. Again, where did that information come from?
Something much more simple: The bacterial cell is self-adaptive, self-repairing and self-reproducing. It has a central memory bank that coordinates a vast number of materials and information. It contains assembly plants that process and fabricate materials like amino acids and proteins. The automated functions include artificial languages and decoding systems that decipher DNA codes of itself and other organisms. These intricate components contain error fail-safe proof reading devices for quality control. They can change their function as the need requires. If we compare the design technology of this bacterial cell to anything man-made, it is unequaled in complexity. But Darwin didn't know this, if he did, he would have never formulated his theory. If he knew all they were going to find in the fossil record was hopeful similarities in bones, he would have gone to the Galapagos Islands only to enjoy God's creation.
The so-called Cambrian explosion reveals all basic animal groups appearing suddenly without evidence of ancestors.
*Heidelberg Man was built from a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be human.
*Nebraska Man was built up from one tooth later revealed to be from an extinct pig.
*Piltdown Man's jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape.
*Peking Man's evidence has disappeared.
*Neanderthal Man was proven to be a skeleton of an old man who suffered from Arthritis.
*New Guinea Man dates way back to 1970.
*CroMagnon Man is quite equal in physique and brain capacity to modern man.
As you can see, the history of the TOE is filled with fabrications and flaws.

Robert Fundi, Professor of Paleontology: "All biological groups from bacteria to man appear abruptly in the fossil record without any links connecting them with each other. Evidence of evolution is highly questionable. Evolution of man from Australopithecine Apes is totally without foundation and should be rejected."
Natural selection cannot be demonstrated, it's assumed.
A testable mechanism for changing one kind of creature into something entirely different and building complex organs that are intricately designed within interdependent systems that are self-reproducing does not exist in the TOE.

But hey, you atheists hold onto your precious theory and see where that gets you.

 

[Astrophile]

I know the sun and moon are frequent guests of Virgo as well as Jupiter. It is not rare that only these guests appear, it is rare that main stars of Leo, plus Venus, Mars and Mercury are also present at the same time.

First, the main stars of Leo are always west of Virgo, and always form the same pattern. You can see this perfectly well if you go out on any clear night in spring. Second, Venus and Mercury are always near to the Sun; Mercury is always within 28° of the Sun and Venus within 47°.

I have used Stellarium to look at all the years back to the beginning of the 19th century when Jupiter was in Virgo. The most recent such occasion when Jupiter was in Virgo, the Moon was near Virgo's feet, and Venus and Mercury were west of the Sun was on 8th and 9th September 1945. On a previous occasion (23rd September 1827) Jupiter was north-west of Spica, with the Moon east of Spica; Mercury and Venus were near to conjunction with the Sun, and Mars was near to Regulus. On another occasion (17th September 1803), all of the planets from Mercury to Uranus, as well as the Moon, were near to the Sun in Virgo and Leo. Of course, it would have been difficult or impossible to see any of these planets, even Venus, on this occasion, since they were so close to the Sun. One might have been able to see Mercury or Jupiter, but even they would have been difficult objects.

From this, it appears that planetary conjunctions in Virgo, including the Sun, the Moon, and Jupiter and other planets, are not that rare, and that they certainly occur more often than once in 7000 years.

The scripture explains the woman is "clothed with the sun", meaning at 4pm Jerusalem time it is in that position. Hours later the sign is revealed with a slightly different vantage point, nevertheless it is there.

I don't understand this; can you explain it again, or give me a link? The problem with your 'sign' is that it is arbitrary. Revelation 12:1-2 doesn't say which stars make up the 'crown' that the woman is wearing, and it certainly doesn't say that any of them were planets. One could make the 'crown' out of the twelve brightest stars in Leo, or one could use beta, nu and xi Virginis to make the base of the 'crown'. If one wants to include planets, Saturn would serve just as well as Mars.

Obviously, you googled the nay-sayer website who said exactly what you are saying - nice editorial, but wrong.

No, I didn't. I have been learning about astronomy and watching the movements of the planets for 60 years. I don't need to google 'nay-sayer websites', whatever they are, to know how often Jupiter passes through Virgo and that Venus and Mercury are always close to the Sun.

 

[Ronald]

You can't refute an idea when you have no clue as to how science is done.

Let's start on the basics. Would you like to discuss the scientific method or scientific evidence first?

It requires testable methods that are experiential, acquired by observation with all the data present, conditions, parts and/or factors. In can be demonstrated over and over in a closed system.
It's certainly not a theory or method whereby the original conditions are guessed at, missing pieces are assumed, or fictitious pieces to the puzzle are inserted to complete it.
All you have is a mixed bag of bones -- So you shake em up see what you have. "Emmm, this pig bone looks like something human, this other human bone looks really ape-like and oh_ this human has a protruding forehead, and look at this little ape, we'll call her Lucy, she's gotta be it ... Now let's make an illustration and put it the Natural History Museum, OK".

 

[pitabread]

Evolution is junk science, not empirical science, it cannot be demonstrated, it's missing original conditions and components ... it's a mixed bag of bones is all.

Yeah... none of this is actually true.

The reality is that biological evolution is not only one of the foundational components of modern biology, it's an applied science with applications in various fields. It's becoming integrated into everything from pharmacology to conservation biology to pathogen tracking to agriculture. And especially so given the burgeoning work in modern genomics and its intersection with evolutionary biology.

This is the true reality that creationists face when it comes to modern evolutionary biology; a useful science that has real-world consequences with respect to human economy, health and well-being. This is why it's not going away: it's functionally useful, there is economic incentive to use it, and there is nothing to replace it with.

For reference:

Evolutionary principles and their practical application
Phylogenetics Topic 1: An overview
Trees as tools
Phylogenetic Shadowing of Primate Sequences to Find Functional Regions of the Human Genome | Science

 

[Subduction Zone]

It requires testable methods that are experiential, acquired by observation with all the data present, conditions, parts and/or factors. In can be demonstrated over and over in a closed system.

Correct, so now you are stating that the theory of evolution is science. Please make up your mind.

It's certainly not a theory or method whereby the original conditions are guessed at, missing pieces are assumed, or fictitious pieces to the puzzle are inserted to complete it.

But they aren't. These are simply false statements by you. Like I said, at best you have been listening to liars.

All you have is a mixed bag of bones -- So you shake em up see what you have. "Emmm, this pig bone looks like something human, this other human bone looks really ape-like and oh_ this human has a protruding forehead, and look at this little ape, we'll call her Lucy, she's gotta be it ... Now let's make an illustration and put it the Natural History Museum, OK".

Nope, please you make this too easy. Now you are simply spewing falsehoods.

Let's try for a little honesty. Do you think that you can manage that?

 

[Ronald]

First, the main stars of Leo are always west of Virgo, and always form the same pattern. You can see this perfectly well if you go out on any clear night in spring. Second, Venus and Mercury are always near to the Sun; Mercury is always within 28° of the Sun and Venus within 47°.

I have used Stellarium to look at all the years back to the beginning of the 19th century when Jupiter was in Virgo. The most recent such occasion when Jupiter was in Virgo, the Moon was near Virgo's feet, and Venus and Mercury were west of the Sun was on 8th and 9th September 1945. On a previous occasion (23rd September 1827) Jupiter was north-west of Spica, with the Moon east of Spica; Mercury and Venus were near to conjunction with the Sun, and Mars was near to Regulus. On another occasion (17th September 1803), all of the planets from Mercury to Uranus, as well as the Moon, were near to the Sun in Virgo and Leo. Of course, it would have been difficult or impossible to see any of these planets, even Venus, on this occasion, since they were so close to the Sun. One might have been able to see Mercury or Jupiter, but even they would have been difficult objects.

From this, it appears that planetary conjunctions in Virgo, including the Sun, the Moon, and Jupiter and other planets, are not that rare, and that they certainly occur more often than once in 7000 years.



I don't understand this; can you explain it again, or give me a link? The problem with your 'sign' is that it is arbitrary. Revelation 12:1-2 doesn't say which stars make up the 'crown' that the woman is wearing, and it certainly doesn't say that any of them were planets. One could make the 'crown' out of the twelve brightest stars in Leo, or one could use beta, nu and xi Virginis to make the base of the 'crown'. If one wants to include planets, Saturn would serve just as well as Mars.



No, I didn't. I have been learning about astronomy and watching the movements of the planets for 60 years. I don't need to google 'nay-sayer websites', whatever they are, to know how often Jupiter passes through Virgo and that Venus and Mercury are always close to the Sun.

There are numerous sites on the internet that go into detail about this prophecy.
Signs of the End - The Great Sign of 2017
You have Stellarium, check out that date yourself.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Evolution is junk science

Oh just STOP IT! How on earth would you know it is "junk science"????

, not empirical science

What is your background such that you can say this?

I'm serious here! What is your scientific background and training such that you feel you can say this.

, it cannot be demonstrated, it's missing original conditions and components ... it's a mixed bag of bones is all.

For someone who publishes something they think is worth knowing and presumably wants others to know about it, you certainly do hold forth on a topic you are woefully inexperienced in.

Wow. I get it, you don't agree with evolution, but really, what is your background such that you can even make these claims? Hopefully your prophecy is more well-researched than your stuff here on evolution!

 

[Dirk1540]

There is no point. No one has interest in a bad video.

There you go again, you somehow know a video that you didn't even watch is junk.

 

[Obliquinaut]

It requires testable methods that are experiential, acquired by observation with all the data present, conditions, parts and/or factors.

You are throwing darts blindfolded here. Yes, science requires data and observation. But other than that you seem to just be throwing around words you picked up in your junior high school science class as if they have some deeper meaning.

In can be demonstrated over and over in a closed system.

What do you mean by "closed system"? Was it because you read that phrase in another scientific instance? You mean like closed systems in thermodynamics? WHat do you mean? And why?

And does it bother you that several people on here who are either scientists or clearly have scientific training are telling you over and over and over again that you are incorrect on your applications of science?

You clearly had an intro science class probably in junior high or high school, so you kinda know the basics. You know some words like "observation" and "data" and you just mush them all together and come up with rules that seem reasonable but really don't cover how science is actually done.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There you go again, you somehow know a video that you didn't even watch is junk.

If one knows the people behind it and their beliefs one can tell if it is junk or not. A video by science deniers is never going to be very educational.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you mean by "closed system"? Was it because you read that phrase in another scientific instance? You mean like closed systems in thermodynamics? WHat do you mean? And why?

I tend to ignore the "closed system" claim. Perhaps I shouldn't. I indicates that the poster has no clue, you are correct on that. It seems to be a recent trend more than one creationist has misused that term lately.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I tend to ignore the "closed system" claim. Perhaps I shouldn't. I indicates that the poster has no clue, you are correct on that. It seems to be a recent trend more than one creationist has misused that term lately.

They got nailed for it so much when they tried to use the Second Law of Thermo that now it is probably just considered "safer" if they include the caveat that it is in a "closed system". Even when that phrase isn't really necessary or called for.

 

[pitabread]

The information in the DNA molecule is mind boggling, it is a language

No, DNA is not a language. It often gets compared to languages, but that's usually to illustrate concepts related to DNA via analogies that are more readily understood by laymen.

Unfortunately, some people incorrectly take these analogies literally and then mistakenly apply concepts related to communicative languages to DNA.

 

[Obliquinaut]

On the TOE
I read the post that displayed apparent transitional forms of reptiles to birds, etc. -- HOGWASH! All you have is bones that look similar, a lot of guessing and assumptions.

PARAGRAPH BREAKS ARE YOUR FRIEND! (I mean you should know that...you're a published author!)

You can not tell me how scales turned into feathers -- LOL, that is absurd. I suppose a lizard climbed up a tree and jumped off a branch to capture a bug and fell to the ground and frayed his scales and over millions of years those scales turned into feathers and then one day, he jumped off that branch and flew away? LOL.

If you can find a scientist who believes that version of events indeed you SHOULD laugh at them.

Animals cannot create symbols that have meaning and use them to communicate.

Koko - The Gorilla Who Talks | PBS Programs | PBS

Thoughts, emotions, ideas, talent, love, hope and faith are not chemicals in the brain. Happiness is a state of being, not a chemical.

Interestingly enough there's a 100% correlation between physico-chemical states in the brain and emotions! Indeed one can even cause someone to feel a certain way using chemicals!

If they were chemicals, we would have found them and marketed them so the rest of mankind could all be genius, talented, loving and happy people.

Have you ever heard of antidepressants?

The so-called Cambrian explosion reveals all basic animal groups appearing suddenly without evidence of ancestors.

You do realize that there was life before the Cambrian, right? I mean you do realize that, right?

Oh yeah and you still haven't told us your scientific background such that you can make all these big claims about what is and isn't science.

YOU DO HAVE a scientific background, correct? I mean you couldn't possibly just be spouting off about things you don't really understand could you?

Natural selection cannot be demonstrated, it's assumed.

Ummmm, sorry to break it to you but if something is born with a maladaptive trait that keeps it from reproducing they will not propogate. (YOu might want to wait until you've learned about reproduction in school).

But hey, you atheists hold onto your precious theory and see where that gets you.

PARAGRAPH BREAKS ARE YOUR FRIEND!

 

[sfs]

*Heidelberg Man was built from a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be human.

Since that time, multiple complete skulls of Homo heidelbergensis -- which are definitely not modern humans -- have been found. Why did you not mention them?

Nebraska Man was built up from one tooth later revealed to be from an extinct pig.

Nebraska Man was also never an accepted species.

*Piltdown Man's jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape.

Piltdown Man was indeed a fraud.

*Neanderthal Man was proven to be a skeleton of an old man who suffered from Arthritis.

There are numerous fossil remains of Neandertals, including multiple fossils of Neandertal children. We also now have complete genomes of multiple Neandertals, genomes that are markedly different from those of modern humans. How can you not be aware of these things? They've been in the major newspapers and all over the internet for the last few years.

*Peking Man's evidence has disappeared.

Yeah, the fossils disappeared during World War II, when lots of other things (and people) went missing. Doesn't change the fact that it was an example of Homo erectus, of which we have numerous other examples. Why did you not mention that fact?

*New Guinea Man dates way back to 1970.

What the heck is New Guinea Man?

*CroMagnon Man is quite equal in physique and brain capacity to modern man.

That's because Cro Magnons were modern man -- they were anatomically modern humans. "Cro Magnon man" just means "the earliest modern humans who lived in Europe."

As far as I can tell, virtually nothing you think you know about evolution is true. Perhaps you should find better sources of information, like maybe sources that have some actual information.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What the heck is New Guinea Man?

This was his source:

https://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp