Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[Ronald]

You couldn't come up with 2

I used to be a Lutheran too. There is a church where I have a standing invitation to visit any time. Lutherans do not seem to have a problem with science, well at least some I should say. It is even official doctrine at the highest level of the sect that I was a member of that the Genesis account need not be literally true for Christianity to be correct. They did not tell their members that they had to accept or reject the theory of evolution. In fact the church that I referred to has a nice collection of some Scientific American issues.

But I love this line from your post:

' It doesn't make it any more useful to say "2+2+God's Will and In Jesus' name=4".'

Creationists always seem arrogant to me since they are telling their God how he had to make the Earth.

You couldn't add 2 to any amount without God, since He created the two of whatever it is you are adding.

 

[pitabread]

This is what everyone taught, is it not, that DNA contains the building blocks/information of an organism? I couldn't tell you how a hydrogen atom is made. Can you? Can you tell me how a basic protein is made and please list the amino acids it's composed of and how they are made? Please stop with your trivial questions.

It's hardly a trivial question, especially if one is trying to set up genetic information as an argument against biological evolution.

And if you're genuinely wondering where the 'information' in DNA comes from the first question you should be asking is what it is exactly that you are trying to measure. Especially since we already know that DNA undergoes evolutionary processes via replication and mutation. It's subject to changes which can include wholesale duplication of genes and alterations leading to entirely new proteins and other functional changes.

 

[Obliquinaut]

With all the recommendations and criticisms, because of my lack of knowledge, no one here has given me a biochemically educated answer as to the mechanism in the TOE that changes one species into a different species and then where all that informatiom that's contained in our DNA comes from

1) There isn't a simple answer biochemically speaking. But there is a LOT of information on the subject. If you are so interested by all means learn basic biochemistry. Then tell me where the "magical" aspects are to the phosphate bonds in DNA. Tell me where the mystical supernatural aspects are in hydrogen bonding and the shape of the amino acids.

2) All this talk about "information" is really far more daunting than most of us actually grapple with on this forum. I'm not speaking about others since I'm certain that many others on here actually understand Shannon Information theory (I don't). But the reliance on "information" in DNA as if it is somehow mystical or so overwhelmingly amazing is, I fear, just wishful thinking. It's like saying that the "information" encoded in a PbS molecule somehow requires some advanced knowledge to wind up with a pyrite cube (the picture I showed earlier of a very well formed cubic mineral). It's "information" but there's not that much that is so very amazing.

Proteins do things because of the chemicals and the shape of the molecule. DNA and RNA simply give you the order of the molecules. THere's an hypothesis out there that says early life may have been RNA-based, DNA wasn't there. RNA can do the job since it tends to "transmit" the information from DNA. It, itself is just a kind of "transfer" of the information.

But all that aside, the information doesn't seem mystical. And of course there's plenty of errors in the information transfer. Remember, most ID is predicated on some superior intelligence (that is why it is almost exclusively "God" as the hypothesized designer), which means that the designer had flaws.

If the designer WASN'T God then there's an even BIGGER problem of figuring out where that designer came from. If it is God then you have to explain why the design isn't perfect and shows signs of self-regulation and evolution. If it isn't God ultimately where did the "first designer" come from?

Because it appears that basic chemical molecules are irreducibly complex

Huh? Where do you get this? That doesn't really make any sense. The molecules themselves are pretty standard issue molecules many of which arise perfectly naturally without any "life" processes. Miller-Urey showed that more than half a century ago.

, they began that way. A paramecium is complex. Explain these things to me professor.

A zeolite is complex.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You couldn't come up with 2

You couldn't add 2 to any amount without God, since He created the two of whatever it is you are adding.

Wrong again. If you want to claim that a God exists the burden of proof is upon you. So far all you have demonstrated is a total lack of education in the sciences. I guess we need to add mathematics to that too.

What evidence do you have for your God?

 

[Ronald]

I hope others have pointed out to you how painful it is to read stuff like this. You are saying you have to BELIEVE in the Bible in order to read what it says correctly.

When you believe in Jesus and that is when you open up your heart in a humble way, putting all the doubts aside, pray, read the Word, get to know Him and what He did, believe it, ask for forgiveness of your sins and He washes them away, He gives life to your dead spirit, He also baptizes you with the Holy Spirit (God), who then dwells in you. Now you have God guiding you and giving you understanding and discernment when you read the scriptures like never before. When you are not reading the scriptures, He experience His hand, His providence in your life and realize He's always been there. He enables you to see the world differently. You actually realize that prior to this time, you were blind and now you can see. This why you do not have discernment. Salvation is a gift and along with it comes spiritual awareness and an awareness of truth and lies. What you followed in your old life, you see as darkness and unfruitful, you discern the way, see the world differently and the fruit of the Spirit grows within you. He cannot receive this kind of teaching from a biochemistry book or a library of science books combined. God knows you and knows your needs and has a plan for you ( that's if you are one of His sheep). He calls His sheep and they hear His voice. Maybe you haven't been called? Maybe you have resisted and rejected Jesus for so long, the doubts accumulated, tragedies in your life occurred so you blamed God, whatever it is, you may have become callous to Him. Speaking of pride, pride separates us from God and is the worst sin.

 

[Ronald]

Does being "Born Again" allow one to critique topics they don't know anything about?

You haven't shown me that you know anything about the topic, but I have in several posts summarized this theory filled with holes.

 

[pitabread]

I hope others have pointed out to you how painful it is to read stuff like this. You are saying you have to BELIEVE in the Bible in order to read what it says correctly.

I feel that this is just a ready made excuse believers have to dismiss a non-believers reading of and/or interpretation of the Bible.

IMHO, it represents some of the worst in apologetics when believers have to argue that the Bible can't be read 'correctly' if one doesn't have prescribed belief. If you can read the words, you can understand it.

 

[Ronald]

Wrong again. If you want to claim that a God exists the burden of proof is upon you. So far all you have demonstrated is a total lack of education in the sciences. I guess we need to add mathematics to that too.

What evidence do you have for your God?

Jesus, Who He is, what He did, what is doing and what He will do. He fulfilled hundreds of prophecies, performed miracles that had eye witnesses and rose from the dead with over 500 seeing Him at once. He's been changing lives and saving lost souls for a very long time with billions of people faithfully believing in Him and following. Without Jesus, the world would be very dark and void of any hope and purpose, just survival any which way you could. Just wait, you'll see Him demonstrate Who He is and you will receive and lesson from the TEACHER OF TRUTH. He is truth. Truth means reality and you are not in touch with what is real. It's like you are living in an alternate universe where right means wrong. No need to drag this out, I'm done here.

 

[Ronald]

1) There isn't a simple answer biochemically speaking. But there is a LOT of information on the subject. If you are so interested by all means learn basic biochemistry. Then tell me where the "magical" aspects are to the phosphate bonds in DNA. Tell me where the mystical supernatural aspects are in hydrogen bonding and the shape of the amino acids.

2) All this talk about "information" is really far more daunting than most of us actually grapple with on this forum. I'm not speaking about others since I'm certain that many others on here actually understand Shannon Information theory (I don't). But the reliance on "information" in DNA as if it is somehow mystical or so overwhelmingly amazing is, I fear, just wishful thinking. It's like saying that the "information" encoded in a PbS molecule somehow requires some advanced knowledge to wind up with a pyrite cube (the picture I showed earlier of a very well formed cubic mineral). It's "information" but there's not that much that is so very amazing.

Proteins do things because of the chemicals and the shape of the molecule. DNA and RNA simply give you the order of the molecules. THere's an hypothesis out there that says early life may have been RNA-based, DNA wasn't there. RNA can do the job since it tends to "transmit" the information from DNA. It, itself is just a kind of "transfer" of the information.

But all that aside, the information doesn't seem mystical. And of course there's plenty of errors in the information transfer. Remember, most ID is predicated on some superior intelligence (that is why it is almost exclusively "God" as the hypothesized designer), which means that the designer had flaws.

If the designer WASN'T God then there's an even BIGGER problem of figuring out where that designer came from. If it is God then you have to explain why the design isn't perfect and shows signs of self-regulation and evolution. If it isn't God ultimately where did the "first designer" come from?



Huh? Where do you get this? That doesn't really make any sense. The molecules themselves are pretty standard issue molecules many of which arise perfectly naturally without any "life" processes. Miller-Urey showed that more than half a century ago.



A zeolite is complex.

OK, you gave me what you know, admitted you don't understand all of it. The answer for the mechanism by which species become different species isn't here. "Proteins do things because of chemicals and the shape of molecules" is shallow. And do think "DNA and RNA simply give the order of molecules", there is nothing simply about and you brush the surface in a superficial way -- it's amazing that you can criticize anyone's thoughts about the TOE when you do not know or understand it yourself. I gave you a chance and you talked around it, skimmed over it. It's OK, don't exhaust yourself with trying to defend futility.

 

[pitabread]

The answer for the mechanism by which species become different species isn't here.

Species differentiation arises when a population stops naturally interbreeding with another population (insofar as sexual reproduction goes). There are already documented cases of speciation arising both in nature and in lab experiments.

See here: Observed Instances of Speciation
And here: Some More Observed Speciation Events

One thing to keep in mind is that "species" is an artificial human qualifier; it's a label we stick on living things. Species as a concept in nature doesn't really exist except possibly insofar as genetic barriers via lack of interbreeding. But even then it can get a little fuzzy when one encounters things like ring species for example.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus, Who He is, what He did, what is doing and what He will do. He fulfilled hundreds of prophecies, performed miracles that had eye witnesses and rose from the dead with over 500 seeing Him at once. He's been changing lives and saving lost souls for a very long time with billions of people faithfully believing in Him and following. Without Jesus, the world would be very dark and void of any hope and purpose, just survival any which way you could. Just wait, you'll see Him demonstrate Who He is and you will receive and lesson from the TEACHER OF TRUTH. He is truth. Truth means reality and you are not in touch with what is real. It's like you are living in an alternate universe where right means wrong. No need to drag this out, I'm done here.

No, he didn't. I have looked at those "hundreds of prophecies" and most are quote mined reinterpretations of verses taken out of context.

And Jesus never claimed that the stories of Genesis are real. You failed to show where he did that.

You are merely reinterpreting the Bible to suit your whims instead of reading what it actually says.

But let's forget the Bible right now and see if we can get you some basic education.

Are you ready to learn what is and what is not evidence.?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You haven't shown me that you know anything about the topic, but I have in several posts summarized this theory filled with holes.

Nope, you haven't. You have only shown how your knowledge is full of holes. Without understanding the basics of science you can only make yourself look bad.

 

[Obliquinaut]

When you believe in Jesus and that is when you open up your heart in a humble way, putting all the doubts aside, pray, read the Word, get to know Him and what He did, believe it, ask for forgiveness of your sins and He washes them away, He gives life to your dead spirit, He also baptizes you with the Holy Spirit (God), who then dwells in you.

Heard it all before. Especially when I was a Christian for 30+ years.

Now you have God guiding you and giving you understanding and discernment when you read the scriptures like never before.

Truth should not require one believe in it before one hears it.

This why you do not have discernment

If it helps you feel better about why we arrive at different conclusions....

What you followed in your old life, you see as darkness and unfruitful

After a while religious faith kind of felt like that for me. Which is why I had to give it up.

It was actually doing me harm (google "Scrupulosity").

, you discern the way, see the world differently and the fruit of the Spirit grows within you. He cannot receive this kind of teaching from a biochemistry book or a library of science books combined.

Does that mean you don't have to read any of the science books in order to critique them? I mean I see a LOT of that here on CF. I see a lot of people who never darkened the door of a science class after junior high school telling us how to do science. I assume it is because they have "discernment" granted by God rather than actually bothering to learn the stuff.

Maybe you have resisted and rejected Jesus for so long, the doubts accumulated, tragedies in your life occurred so you blamed God, whatever it is, you may have become callous to Him. Speaking of pride, pride separates us from God and is the worst sin.

Sorry but my atheism arises for a much more deep experience than your cartoon view. And again, I was a Christian for decades. It didn't "take" for me I guess.

But I'm OK with you being a Christian. I would never want to see you lose your faith. I would, however, ask that if you wish to critique science that you learn some of the science you critique.

 

[Ronald]

In closing, I have learned some things about the TOE, life and the outer universe from several books I've read but of course I'm not as equipped as these following men:

Professor Sermonti, a Bio-Chemist, Geneticist and Molecular Biologist who said, "The results of Molecular Biology and Genetics have shown that the main claim of Evolution which is that mutations are fixed by natural Selection is not true! Different kinds of plants, animals and dinosaurs became extinct, not something else. It is ridiculous and impossible for a small organism to evolve into man. All living things have been complex from the beginning ... Bio-Chemical evolution has never taken place ... The apparatus for making enzymes without which no other proteins can be made is identical from bacteria to man. The same complex mechanism of life has existed from the very beginning. Man is original and was not derived from another species."


James Shapiro, a Molecular Biologist who said, "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."


Roger Penrose who said, The universe where matter is smoothly distributed requires some extraordinary fine-tuning."

Paul Davies, an Astrophysicist who said, "The cosmic code seems to be tuned to the capabilities of the human mind to decipher it ... The universe is made by pure intelligence. It is made with contingency and intelligibility ...It is highly ordered and designed with well defined laws of Physics and definite cause-effect relationships ... The physical universe on it's own is incomplete. It cannot explain itself. It's existence ultimately demands something outside of itself and is dependent on divine influence."

Robert Fundi, Professor of Paleontology said, "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 in the fossil record. Museums would be full of transitional forms if this theory were true. There are none and no hope for any in the future. Evolution of man from Australopithecine apes is totally without foundation and should be rejected. Man is not the most recent link in a long chain of evolution, he represents a type without any substantial change since his appearance."

Louis Pasteur said, "Life comes from life".

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) states that matter and energy can only be changed in one direction: usable to unusable, available to unavailable or ordered to disordered. Heat quantity can be changed into work by transferring it into another form. In essence, this law says that everything in the universe began with structure and value and is irrevocably moving in the direction of random chaos and waste. This is completely opposite to Darwin's theory which claims that random chance or disorder led to order. This implies that left on their own, things do not spontaneously move to more ordered states. Life appears to be the exception to entropy.

Also a list of famous Christian Scientists:

1. William Ockham
2. Francis Bacon
3. J Kepler
4. Rene Decartes
5. Blaise Pascal
6. Robert Boyle
7. Gottfried Leibniz
8. Issac Newton
9. Carlolus Linneas
10. Daniel Bernoulli
11. Louis Pasteur
12. Lord Kelvin
13. George Washington Carver
14. William Henry Bragg
15. Robert Millikan
16. John Boyd Orr
17. Agnes Gilberne
18. John Eccles
19. Max Plank
20. John Polkinghorne

 

[Obliquinaut]

You haven't shown me that you know anything about the topic, but I have in several posts summarized this theory filled with holes.

I'm pretty sure I've posted stuff on this thread about the technical aspects. Take for instance my post about the Pauling Rules in the discussion of "Design" earlier.

I'm a PhD geologist who spent the last 20+ years working in research and development chemistry. I'm not a biologist, but I've got plenty of experience in the earth sciences. Which means that unlike you who may have only heard of fossils, I've actually found fossils and I've actually done analyses of fossils. I've spent hours looking at coal under the microscope and seeing structures of plants that were millions of years old, plants that no longer exist in the part of the world the coal came from. I've seen the history of the earth from crawling across rocks. I've learned a great deal about organic chemistry. And I've learned how to do science and what is and isn't science.

I'll put my experience and degree up against whatever you can bring.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In closing, I have learned some things about the TOE, life and the outer universe from several books I've read but of course I'm not as equipped as these following men:

Professor Sermonti, a Bio-Chemist, Geneticist and Molecular Biologist who said, "The results of Molecular Biology and Genetics have shown that the main claim of Evolution which is that mutations are fixed by natural Selection is not true! Different kinds of plants, animals and dinosaurs became extinct, not something else. It is ridiculous and impossible for a small organism to evolve into man. All living things have been complex from the beginning ... Bio-Chemical evolution has never taken place ... The apparatus for making enzymes without which no other proteins can be made is identical from bacteria to man. The same complex mechanism of life has existed from the very beginning. Man is original and was not derived from another species."


James Shapiro, a Molecular Biologist who said, "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."


Roger Penrose who said, The universe where matter is smoothly distributed requires some extraordinary fine-tuning."

Paul Davies, an Astrophysicist who said, "The cosmic code seems to be tuned to the capabilities of the human mind to decipher it ... The universe is made by pure intelligence. It is made with contingency and intelligibility ...It is highly ordered and designed with well defined laws of Physics and definite cause-effect relationships ... The physical universe on it's own is incomplete. It cannot explain itself. It's existence ultimately demands something outside of itself and is dependent on divine influence."

Robert Fundi, Professor of Paleontology said, "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 in the fossil record. Museums would be full of transitional forms if this theory were true. There are none and no hope for any in the future. Evolution of man from Australopithecine apes is totally without foundation and should be rejected. Man is not the most recent link in a long chain of evolution, he represents a type without any substantial change since his appearance."

Louis Pasteur said, "Life comes from life".

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) states that matter and energy can only be changed in one direction: usable to unusable, available to unavailable or ordered to disordered. Heat quantity can be changed into work by transferring it into another form. In essence, this law says that everything in the universe began with structure and value and is irrevocably moving in the direction of random chaos and waste. This is completely opposite to Darwin's theory which claims that random chance or disorder led to order. This implies that left on their own, things do not spontaneously move to more ordered states. Life appears to be the exception to entropy.

Also a list of famous Christian Scientists:

1. William Ockham
2. Francis Bacon
3. J Kepler
4. Rene Decartes
5. Blaise Pascal
6. Robert Boyle
7. Gottfried Leibniz
8. Issac Newton
9. Carlolus Linneas
10. Daniel Bernoulli
11. Louis Pasteur
12. Lord Kelvin
13. George Washington Carver
14. William Henry Bragg
15. Robert Millikan
16. John Boyd Orr
17. Agnes Gilberne
18. John Eccles
19. Max Plank
20. John Polkinghorne

You should not conflate Christian with creationist. Most of those scientists are not creationists.

ETA: In fact the first ten, I stopped there, are pre-Darwin. You can't claim them as "creationist" because creationism rose up as an attack on the theory of evolution. Worse yet, number 9, Linneas, recognized the fact that man and other apes were in the same phylogenetic group.

 

[Obliquinaut]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) states that matter and energy can only be changed in one direction: usable to unusable, available to unavailable or ordered to disordered.

IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. This is where that phrase fits. IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. In other words I can put water (higher entropy) into a freezer in my kitchen and make a LOWER ENTROPY system in a couple hours with no sweat. BECAUSE I'M NOT IN A CLOSED SYSTEM.

In essence, this law says that everything in the universe began with structure and value and is irrevocably moving in the direction of random chaos and waste.

Yes, on a UNIVERSAL SCALE. Locally however you can still make ICE CUBES in your freezer. In fact there are a HUGE number of cases where high entropy goes to low entropy so long as energy can be transferred.

I really thought by this time Creationists would have learned just a smidge more about thermodynamics. Apparently in their world ice cannot exist.

This is completely opposite to Darwin's theory which claims that random chance or disorder led to order. [/quote]

PSsst, when you wake up in the morning is it LIGHT outside where you are? Because that giant ball of incandenscent plasma that rises in the east and sets in the west provides ENERGY to the system (earth) and hence the planet is NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM.

This implies that left on their own, things do not spontaneously move to more ordered states. Life appears to be the exception to entropy.

Life...and ice cubes. Oh yeah and salt crystals, and mineral crystals, and.....

Also a list of famous Christian Scientists:

1. William Ockham
2. Francis Bacon
3. J Kepler
4. Rene Decartes
5. Blaise Pascal
6. Robert Boyle
7. Gottfried Leibniz
8. Issac Newton
9. Carlolus Linneas
10. Daniel Bernoulli
11. Louis Pasteur
12. Lord Kelvin
13. George Washington Carver
14. William Henry Bragg
15. Robert Millikan
16. John Boyd Orr
17. Agnes Gilberne
18. John Eccles
19. Max Plank
20. John Polkinghorne

Your forgot Nicolas Steno.

Oh yeah and as for Ockham...well I will point you to his "razor". If design is not necessary as an explanatory variable it would seem that the razor would cut it out. (Not necessarily that Ockham was an evolutionist living so many centuries before evolution, but hopefully you can generalize.)

 

[Obliquinaut]

OK, you gave me what you know, admitted you don't understand all of it.

Just being honest there. I hope you will likewise be honest about your understanding of the rest of the science.

"Proteins do things because of chemicals and the shape of molecules" is shallow.

Well, to be fair I don't have all the time in the world to look up these things for you but I can. That statement isn't really shallow at all. The reason so many biological processes occur is because chemical compounds coordinate, often through hydrogen bonding.

For instance this is why we Cytosine pairing with Guanine in DNA (they are the C and G of GATC)

The dashed lines are HYDROGEN BONDS. Bases pair because of this.

Proteins themselves take on very complex CONFORMATIONS and the conformations dictate a great deal of the FUNCTION of the protein. But in the end, for all it's complexity, it's pretty straightforward chemistry.

I gave you a chance and you talked around it, skimmed over it. It's OK, don't exhaust yourself with trying to defend futility.

I know you're gone now because, well that's what you guys do. Talk big and when finally someone does put up some science you ignore it or simply run away. I've seen it so many times it becomes painful.

YOU GUYS DO THIS ALL THE TIME. You berate and cajole for people to give you science. We give you science and you berate and cajole. We give you even MORE science and you simply run away.

After a few years of it one gets inured to it and simply stops putting up a lot of effort to give you guys science.

I am giving you the level of science you need...pretty basic and simplistic. If I were to go to the effort of giving you more it would be a waste of effort on my part.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's always difficult when a Ronald shows up on a science forum - where do you start with someone who appears to have no basic science knowledge at all, and can only parrot creationist propaganda? ('Professor Sermonti' "is considered one of the two leading creationists in Italy").

This was the most confident example of the Dunning-Kruger effect I've seen for some time.

 

[sfs]

You want information, but you can't tell me where the information in your evolutionary equations came from.

Sure I can. Which equations?

You basically agreed with part of my post because you can't argue with any of the rest.

Huh? I pointed out several of the numerous incorrect or misleading statements you've made about scientific issues, and . . . you don't care. You're getting your scientific information from a tiny comic book, and you think that's all you need to refute those who spend their lives studying these things.

Your whole TOE is weak and falling apart and soon will be destroyed.

Anti-evolutionists have been repeating this for the last 150 years. It ain't happening. How would you know, anyway, since you refuse to learn anything about the science?

Nature does nothing by itself without God who created it.

I happen to believe that. Again, what does that have to do with the reality of evolution?

Evolutionists have really strained their brains to find an alternative to God.

Nonsense. Evolutionists strain their brains to understand how nature works. You see, I actually am an "evolutionist" -- studying evolution is part of my job -- and so I know that what you're saying is false. Where do you get the arrogance to tell me my motives for doing my work, without even talking to me? What do you know about my beliefs or my faith journey?

The Hubbell Telescope was also sent up there to disprove the existence of God.

More nonsense. The Hubble Telescope was sent up to study distant objects in space. Do you really think that making up stories about other people's motivations, that attacking people's character based on nothing at all, is either productive or godly?