Discarding Darwin???

[PoliticalChic]

As has been evident on this board, folks become incensed when offered facts that interfere with what they have been ordered to believe.

And, wow....has that been true of my critiques of Darwin's theory!!!

The author of the following, Kas Thomas, has degrees in biology and microbiology, and is a former University of California Regents Fellow, and has taught biology, bacteriology, and laboratory physics at the college level.




And he writes......

1. "... I have a certain amount of discomfort, myself, with evolutionary theory—not because it demeans the nobility of man or denies the Bible, or anything of that sort, but because it's such an incomplete and unsatisfying theory on purely scientific grounds.

2. Darwin's theory is subject to some very legitimate scientific criticisms. Biologists are, by and large, painfully aware of the theory's shortcomings.




3. Darwin's landmark work...The Origin of Species, ...doesn't actually explain in detail how speciation happens (and in fact, no one has seen it happen in the laboratory, unless you want to count plant hybridization or certain breeding anomalies in fruit flies).

[....there are still many things we don’t understand about how chromatin is managed, how micro-RNA is regulated, when and why DNA methylases come into play, the relative importance (or unimportance) of translocases, and much, much more.

To assert that we understand how speciation occurs is to assert a half-truth. http://asserttrue.blogspot.com/2014/02/scientists-should-be-humble-not-arrogant.html]




4. .... evolutionary theory is based on "survival of the fittest," a tautology that explains nothing. ("Fittest" means most able to survive. Survival of the fittest means survival of those who survive.)

5. ... we were taught that mutations [ the kind the give rise to single-nucleotide polymorphisms.. it’s been demonstrated many times that the majority of non-neutral point mutations are deleterious, leading to loss of function, not gain of function. Spend some time reading about “Muller’s ratchet” if you don’t believe me..] in DNA are the driving force behind evolution, an idea that is now thoroughly discredited.
The overwhelming majority of non-neutral mutations are deleterious..... Most mutations lead to loss of function, not gain of function.

6. Evolutionary theory, it turns out, is ... terrible at explaining gain of function. It's also terrible at explaining the speed at which speciation occurs.




7. It doesn't explain theCambrian Explosion, for example, or the sudden appearance of intelligence in hominids, or the rapid recovery (and net expansion) of the biosphere in the wake of at least five super-massive extinction events in the most recent 15% of Earth's existence.

.... doesn't mean we should abandon the entire theory....."
Scientific Theory | Today's Big Idea | Big Think





8. "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! "
assertTrue( ): Scientists should be humble, not arrogant





Wow....does that "vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin!" mirror exactly what happens here on this board!!!





Those who have read some of my earlier OPs will notice how closely Thomas' essay corresponds to everything I've posted....

...gratifying to me, and, I'm sure, most disheartening to those pretend-science wonks who have argued with mine.

That's gratifying, as well.

 

[Agit8r]

Why do I have to get a different flu shot every year?

 

[Steven_R]

And I'll be waiting with baited breath while he supports his position in scientific papers and conferences with his peer-reviewed work.

He is going to provide those papers to journals, right?

 

[Toro]

Why do I have to get a different flu shot every year?

Because each year, God is sending different viruses to kill you.

Duh!

 

[PoliticalChic]

And I'll be waiting with baited breath while he supports his position in scientific papers and conferences with his peer-reviewed work.

He is going to provide those papers to journals, right?

Of course, recent history on this board has revealed that you are unable to dispute or even discuss the critique provided.

You are simply one of the "accept without question" cadre.

True, isn't it.

 

[Steven_R]

Until someone is presenting groundbreaking science in the places where scientists do their work, it is meaningless. Talking to a reporter about how you're going to bring down the scientific establishment without producing the work is akin to standing on a street corner with a sign proclaiming "the End is Near!"

Produce the work that "Darwinism" is wrong and convince the scientific community.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Until someone is presenting groundbreaking science in the places where scientists do their work, it is meaningless. Talking to a reporter about how you're going to bring down the scientific establishment without producing the work is akin to standing on a street corner with a sign proclaiming "the End is Near!"

Produce the work that "Darwinism" is wrong and convince the scientific community.

"...Talking to a reporter about how you're going to bring down the scientific establishment..."

Produce the reference to bringing down the scientific establishment. You made that up, didn't you.



BTW....providing proof that Darwin's theory is wrong is child's play.

Convincing children who are programmed to accept without question....that's another story.

 

[Steven_R]

He might have a point. He might even be right, but until he's producing peer-reviewed work in journals and conferences he's just another guy talking.

Produce the work to back up the proposition.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why do I have to get a different flu shot every year?

Because each year, God is sending different viruses to kill you.

Duh!

Did you find any reference to God, religion, or the Bible in the OP?

Your attempt to discredit the OP is fallacious.

From item #1: "....because it's such an incomplete and unsatisfying theory on purely scientific grounds."

 

[Steven_R]

I don't care what his CV says, his position on God, the color of his hair, or any other thing. Where is his peer-reviewed work on the matter? If it doesn't exist, his opinion is irrelevant.

 

[Toro]

Why do I have to get a different flu shot every year?

Because each year, God is sending different viruses to kill you.

Duh!

Did you find any reference to God, religion, or the Bible in the OP?

Your attempt to discredit the OP is fallacious.

From item #1: "....because it's such an incomplete and unsatisfying theory on purely scientific grounds."

Why do we get a different flu shot every year?

 

[Steven_R]

Because each year, God is sending different viruses to kill you.

Duh!

Did you find any reference to God, religion, or the Bible in the OP?

Your attempt to discredit the OP is fallacious.

From item #1: "....because it's such an incomplete and unsatisfying theory on purely scientific grounds."

Why do we get a different flu shot every year?

Because the military-industrial complex is in bed with Big Pharma and the CIA. The flu vaccine is really a way to put microtransmitters in your body so the NSA can track you and use the information to give everything about you to their masters at the Illuminati and their masters, the oil corporations, which, as we all know, is run by the Jews.

Duh.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Why do I have to get a different flu shot every year?

Because god wants to fuck with your mind This is what Politicgirl thinks at least.

 

[Steven_R]

Maybe...maybe God in in league with the Jews? Just how far down does this flu shot rabbit hole go?

 

[Bloodrock44]

Until someone is presenting groundbreaking science in the places where scientists do their work, it is meaningless. Talking to a reporter about how you're going to bring down the scientific establishment without producing the work is akin to standing on a street corner with a sign proclaiming "the End is Near!"

Produce the work that "Darwinism" is wrong and convince the scientific community.

Well now, hero. I was always under the impression it was called Darwin's "Theory" instead of Darwin's "Facts" for a specific reason. Seems you've some splainin' to do.

 

[Steven_R]

Until someone is presenting groundbreaking science in the places where scientists do their work, it is meaningless. Talking to a reporter about how you're going to bring down the scientific establishment without producing the work is akin to standing on a street corner with a sign proclaiming "the End is Near!"

Produce the work that "Darwinism" is wrong and convince the scientific community.

Well now, hero. I was always under the impression it was called Darwin's "Theory" instead of Darwin's "Facts" for a specific reason. Seems you've some splainin' to do.

"It's just a theory!"

Per the Nationals Academies of Sciences:

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

 

[PoliticalChic]

He might have a point. He might even be right, but until he's producing peer-reviewed work in journals and conferences he's just another guy talking.

Produce the work to back up the proposition.

Let's agree that Darwinian supporters should be able to answer the following questions.

If you cannot, well....then let's agree that you're simply another religious fanatic of the Darwinian persuasion....with no understanding of what you fervently believe.

...and "belief sans understanding" could be called 'faith.'




1. Darwin's theory revolves around his idea of random mutations gradually leading to new species.
His erstwhile defender, Stephen Gould, realized that this didn't fit the facts....so, based on his inveterate Marxism, he devised "Punctuated Equalibrium," which is, in fact, the opposite of Darwinism....it claims changes are sudden, spontaneous.

Yet...numbskulls accept both as correct. Where is their explanation?




2. Damning evidence against Darwin's theory comes from the Burgess Shale discovery, which attests to an extraordinary profusion of new animal forms, including unique anatomical structures not seen before in earlier life forms, and new arrangements of body parts. But there is no evidence of gradual development!

Yet...numbskulls ignore the sudden appearances. Where is their explanation?




3. All of those new and original organs and body forms each require new and specific arrangements of DNA, the nucleic acid which serves a blueprint for each structure. To be clear, there is no chemical evolutionary process that has been shown to explain the origin of the information in DNA or RNA needed to produce life from simple, preexisting chemicals.

a. " If you really want a glimpse at how complex "simple organisms" are, and how incredible it is that anyone could believe they spontaneously formed by chance, just consider the cell's nucleus.

This organelle contains DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), a coiled supermolecule, a "digitally coded" database containing the roughly 4,000,000 pieces of information (nucleotide base pairs) required to replicate the cell.

And nucleotide sequencing along the DNA supermolecule must be exact "to the nucleotide" or results could be disastrous." 5 REASONS CHEMICAL EVOLUTION IS FALSE: Reason #1—ReligiouslyIncorrect.org

Yet...numbskulls pretend that they have some explanation for the new DNA. Where is their explanation?




4. The time period from the Pre-Cambrian until we find all sorts of new organism, the Cambrian, is not one that allows both the creation of the specific DNA sequence by random mechanisms for each organ and body form,.....remember that these structures must occur in just the right order.

a." Some scientists are now trying to show how RNA was "spontaneously formed" and subsequently advanced to DNA.

Why the new theory?

DNA, they have determined, is too complex to have been formed by the "random encounters of chemicals."

This is correct.

The odds of "random creation" of just 3% of the human genome are, conservatively, 1 in 10 to the 45 millionth power.
This far exceeds the total number of collective events of hundreds of trillions of universes like ours.

Only problem is, how did RNA come into being? It too is enormously complicated.

And how did it, in turn, "randomly form to DNA?"
5 REASONS CHEMICAL EVOLUTION IS FALSE: Reason #1—ReligiouslyIncorrect.org

Yet...numbskulls ignore the time and possibility restrictions. Where is their explanation?







"...great questions often make very good science.

Unsolved mysteries provide science with motivation and direction. Gaps in the road to scientific knowledge are not potholes to be avoided, but opportunities to be exploited."
In Praise of Hard Questions

 

[PoliticalChic]

Because each year, God is sending different viruses to kill you.

Duh!

Did you find any reference to God, religion, or the Bible in the OP?

Your attempt to discredit the OP is fallacious.

From item #1: "....because it's such an incomplete and unsatisfying theory on purely scientific grounds."

Why do we get a different flu shot every year?

I'd rather not change the subject.


Why is it you do?

 

[ogibillm]

He might have a point. He might even be right, but until he's producing peer-reviewed work in journals and conferences he's just another guy talking.

Produce the work to back up the proposition.

Let's agree that Darwinian supporters should be able to answer the following questions.

If you cannot, well....then let's agree that you're simply another religious fanatic of the Darwinian persuasion....with no understanding of what you fervently believe.

...and "belief sans understanding" could be called 'faith.'




1. Darwin's theory revolves around his idea of random mutations gradually leading to new species.
His erstwhile defender, Stephen Gould, realized that this didn't fit the facts....so, based on his inveterate Marxism, he devised "Punctuated Equalibrium," which is, in fact, the opposite of Darwinism....it claims changes are sudden, spontaneous.

Yet...numbskulls accept both as correct. Where is their explanation?




2. Damning evidence against Darwin's theory comes from the Burgess Shale discovery, which attests to an extraordinary profusion of new animal forms, including unique anatomical structures not seen before in earlier life forms, and new arrangements of body parts. But there is no evidence of gradual development!

Yet...numbskulls ignore the sudden appearances. Where is their explanation?




3. All of those new and original organs and body forms each require new and specific arrangements of DNA, the nucleic acid which serves a blueprint for each structure. To be clear, there is no chemical evolutionary process that has been shown to explain the origin of the information in DNA or RNA needed to produce life from simple, preexisting chemicals.

a. " If you really want a glimpse at how complex "simple organisms" are, and how incredible it is that anyone could believe they spontaneously formed by chance, just consider the cell's nucleus.

This organelle contains DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), a coiled supermolecule, a "digitally coded" database containing the roughly 4,000,000 pieces of information (nucleotide base pairs) required to replicate the cell.

And nucleotide sequencing along the DNA supermolecule must be exact "to the nucleotide" or results could be disastrous." 5 REASONS CHEMICAL EVOLUTION IS FALSE: Reason #1—ReligiouslyIncorrect.org

Yet...numbskulls pretend that they have some explanation for the new DNA. Where is their explanation?




4. The time period from the Pre-Cambrian until we find all sorts of new organism, the Cambrian, is not one that allows both the creation of the specific DNA sequence by random mechanisms for each organ and body form,.....remember that these structures must occur in just the right order.

a." Some scientists are now trying to show how RNA was "spontaneously formed" and subsequently advanced to DNA.

Why the new theory?

DNA, they have determined, is too complex to have been formed by the "random encounters of chemicals."

This is correct.

The odds of "random creation" of just 3% of the human genome are, conservatively, 1 in 10 to the 45 millionth power.
This far exceeds the total number of collective events of hundreds of trillions of universes like ours.

Only problem is, how did RNA come into being? It too is enormously complicated.

And how did it, in turn, "randomly form to DNA?"
5 REASONS CHEMICAL EVOLUTION IS FALSE: Reason #1—ReligiouslyIncorrect.org

Yet...numbskulls ignore the time and possibility restrictions. Where is their explanation?







"...great questions often make very good science.

Unsolved mysteries provide science with motivation and direction. Gaps in the road to scientific knowledge are not potholes to be avoided, but opportunities to be exploited."
In Praise of Hard Questions

because something is unlikely does not mean it can't happen.

that aside, if you are saying that the theory of evolution is incorrect what do you claim is a better explanation for the diversity of life on the planet?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why do I have to get a different flu shot every year?

Because god wants to fuck with your mind This is what Politicgirl thinks at least.

Now...how could you be a mind-reader.....you have no mind.

Those with the limitations that you have will do anything to change the subject, since the subject reveals your ignorance.


First....the OP has no reference to God, religion, or the Bible.

Why are you so afraid to confront the science involved?


Shall I answer for you? Because a) you don't understand the absence of science in Darwin's theory, and b) you don't understand what science is.

It is not philosophy, nor conjecture.

And certainly not based on consensus.




I've posed four questions that get to the heart of the issue......but you don't have the guts to try to answer them.



Let's see....that makes you a gutless, anti-science drone.
You're simply enough hot air to float a blimp.