Increasing Skepticism Among Secular Scientists?

It might seem a cruel joke on you, BB, when your time comes. But what can you expect when you are convinced you have superior qualities to your Creator, the Creator of everything, in fact ; particuarly since you live at a time in history, when even people with a relatively high worldly intelligence and, ergo, characterstically a relatively feeble grasp on spiritual understanding, have no excuse for not believing, at least, the facts of Christ's incarnation, death and Resurrection, whether or not they choose to commit themsleves to the cause of Christ, the cause of compassion, the cause of right. 'Send not to know for whom the bell tolls...'We don't live for ever on this earth.' Axel

@23 ET: "Darwin talking about a damnable doctrine? His is the most damnable doctrine ever. According to Darwin’s doctrine we can do as we please as long as we leave more offspring behind. Murder, theft, rape are all OK under Darwin’s doctrine." According to Evolutionist doctrine, rape is a 'valuable' characterstic (sorry kids and moderators). More rape= higher number of pregnancies. In fact, consensual sex and family planning restrict reproduction/gene spreading. We should impregnate fertile women each 9 months. Period. Truthfreedom

Brother Brian, So you're ignorant and proud of it. Good for you. Are you a Darwinist by any chance? No need to reply. Nonlin.org

Brother Brian:

Doesn’t seem as if this was a gift to mankind is to do what God tells you to do or be forever damned.

That is a strawman. It's like saying we don't have free will cuz murder lands you in prison. ET

Nonlin

MatSpirit @21, Seversky @24, Like it or not, determinism is dead and you were endowed with free will

Linking to your blog as if it is proof is no more compelling than BA77’s copy and pasta from his site. But, at least, you are not pasting thousands of words that nobody reads. :) so, for that, you are to be commended. Brother Brian

Interesting conversation about free will. Doesn’t seem as if this was a gift to mankind is to do what God tells you to do or be forever damned. Seems more like a cruel joke. Brother Brian

MatSpirit @21, Seversky @24, Like it or not, determinism is dead and you were endowed with free will http://nonlin.org/free-will/ . Deal with it. Back to Increasing Skepticism, Darwin's "theory" was stillborn - I am surprised it lasted this long, but then again, both communism, and nazism are still around. Dawkins is a willful ignorant best case - quoting him is definitely not helping you. Nonlin.org

Seversky you go on to offer that the crucifixion was, of all things, "a form of street-theater performed for the edification or education of onlookers." Might I offer you a bit different picture of the crucifixion than what you imagine to be merely 'street theater'.

World Over - 2015-04-02 – Investigation the Shroud of Turin with Raymond Arroyo (15:00 minute mark: the excruciating torture involved in a crucifixation is discussed) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65GDj4EzuY0 New Evidence Bolsters Claim That Turin Shroud Was Used To Bury Christ - July 17, 2017 Excerpt: A new study of the Shroud of Turin,,, found a high level of creatinine and ferritin in the blood particles present in the linen fabric, indicating that the person wrapped in it was a victim of torture.,,, “Indeed, a high level of creatinine and ferritin is related to patients suffering of strong polytrauma like torture,” Fanti said. “Hence, the presence of these biological nanoparticles found during our experiments point a violent death for the man wrapped in the Turin shroud.”,,, http://www.westernjournalism.com/new-evidence-bolsters-claim-that-turin-shroud-was-used-to-bury-christ/ Matthew 27:45–46 Now from the sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour. About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”

As the following article states, "God takes the problem of evil more seriously than we could ever have taken it ourselves. ,,,"

The Problem of Evil by Benjamin D. Wiker - April 2009 Excerpt: We still want to cry, Job-like, to those inscrutable depths, "Who are you to orchestrate everything around us puny and pitiable creatures, leaving us shuddering in the darkness, ignorant, blasted, and buffeted? It‘s all well and good to say, ‘Trust me! It‘ll all be made right in the end,‘ while you float unscathed above it all. Grinding poverty, hunger, thirst, frustration, rejection, toil, death of our loved ones, blood-sweating anxiety, excruciating pain, humiliation, torture, and finally a twisted and miserable annihilation — that‘s the meal we‘re served! You‘d sing a different tune if you were one of us and got a taste of your own medicine." What could we say against these depths if the answer we received was not an argument but an incarnation, a full and free submission by God to the very evils about which we complain? This submission would be a kind of token, a sign that evil is very real indeed, bringing the incarnate God blood-sweating anxiety, excruciating pain, humiliation, torture, and finally a twisted and miserable annihilation on the cross. As real as such evil is, however, the resurrection reveals that it is somehow mysteriously comprehended within the divine plan. With the Incarnation, the reality of evil is absorbed into the deity, not dissolved into thin air, because God freely tastes the bitterness of the medicine as wounded healer, not distant doctor. Further, given the drastic nature of this solution, we begin to recognize that God takes the problem of evil more seriously than we could ever have taken it ourselves. ,,, http://www.crisismagazine.com/2009/the-problem-of-evil

Indeed, this is no game and/or street theater Seversky. The Crucifixion was all too real and the consequences for your eternal soul are far more drastic than you can possibly imagine right now:

Why Hell is so Horrible - Bill Wiese - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hd_so3wPw8

To end on a positive note:

The Easter Question - Eben Alexander, M.D. - March 2013 Excerpt: More than ever since my near death experience, I consider myself a Christian -,,, Now, I can tell you that if someone had asked me, in the days before my NDE, what I thought of this (Easter) story, I would have said that it was lovely. But it remained just that -- a story. To say that the physical body of a man who had been brutally tortured and killed could simply get up and return to the world a few days later is to contradict every fact we know about the universe. It wasn't simply an unscientific idea. It was a downright anti-scientific one. But it is an idea that I now believe. Not in a lip-service way. Not in a dress-up-it's-Easter kind of way. I believe it with all my heart, and all my soul.,, We are, really and truly, made in God's image. But most of the time we are sadly unaware of this fact. We are unconscious both of our intimate kinship with God, and of His constant presence with us. On the level of our everyday consciousness, this is a world of separation -- one where people and objects move about, occasionally interacting with each other, but where essentially we are always alone. But this cold dead world of separate objects is an illusion. It's not the world we actually live in.,,, ,,He (God) is right here with each of us right now, seeing what we see, suffering what we suffer... and hoping desperately that we will keep our hope and faith in Him. Because that hope and faith will be triumphant. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eben-alexander-md/the-easter-question_b_2979741.html

bornagain77

Seversky tries to justify his quoting of Dawkins's vitriolic diatribe against God by stating:

But this is a problem that no Christian can avoid. If a human dictator had carried out all the acts attributed to God in the Old Testament, I think you would condemn them just as much I do.

It is certainly no problem for me. It may be a problem for your particular conception of God, but it is certainly no problem for my conception of God. In my conception of God, God punishes sinful man! In your conception of God, a sinful God torments innocent man. For instance, you (and Dawkins) presuppose that God committed unprovoked genocide against the Canaanites. Yet in actuality the Canaanites weren’t destroyed because they were Canaanites (genocide). Rather, God judged the Canaanites for their evils, like child sacrifice, which he had warned them about, and given them 400 years to repent from.

Chances are… we’ve misunderstood the God of the Bible – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW8MbUbpOPI

To accentuate this point of God punishing sinful man, Miroslav Volf states in the following quote, "God isn’t wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love.”

“My last resistance to the idea of God’s wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, the region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed and 3,000,000 displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalized beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry. Though I used to complain about the indecency of God’s wrath, I came to think that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn’t wrathful at the sight of the world’s evil. God isn’t wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love.” – Miroslav Volf – Croatian theologian https://books.google.com/books?id=BkwnAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA59

Moreover, the bible says that the wages of sin is death, and in confirmation of that claim, it is now found that atheists suffer physically and mentally as a result of forsaking the objective reality of morality in general and from forsaking God in particular. Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists states that 'The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally.',,, lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction…

“I maintain that whatever else faith may be, it cannot be a delusion. The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally. If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health - preface “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100 https://books.google.com/books?id=PREdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false

And the following meta-analysis of studies found that Active religious involvement increased the chance of living longer by some 29%, and participation in public religious practices, such as church attendance, increased the chance of living longer by 43%. And ""For those who did not attend church at all, they were twice as likely to die prematurely than those who did who attended church at some point over the last year,"

Atheism and health A meta-analysis of all studies, both published and unpublished, relating to religious involvement and longevity was carried out in 2000. Forty-two studies were included, involving some 126,000 subjects. Active religious involvement increased the chance of living longer by some 29%, and participation in public religious practices, such as church attendance, increased the chance of living longer by 43%.[4][5] http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_health Can attending church really help you live longer? This study says yes - June 1, 2017 Excerpt: Specifically, the study says those middle-aged adults who go to church, synagogues, mosques or other houses of worship reduce their mortality risk by 55%. The Plos One journal published the "Church Attendance, Allostatic Load and Mortality in Middle Aged Adults" study May 16. "For those who did not attend church at all, they were twice as likely to die prematurely than those who did who attended church at some point over the last year," Bruce said. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/02/can-attending-church-really-help-you-live-longer-study-says-yes/364375001/

Thus Seversky, you apparently greatly misunderstand exactly who God is. God is not some tyrant who gets pleasure from tormenting people as you and Dawkins falsely imagine Him to be. But God is the source of life itself, your life! And when you choose to go against his will for your life and sin, you are separating yourself from the very source of your own life! Seversky, you go on to state:

We don’t need an objective moral code or one provided by a god to form our own moral beliefs about how people should behave towards one another in a way that creates the greatest benefit for all.

Give me a break. Your atheistic worldview provides no basis whatsoever for objective morality. In fact, Morally noble altruistic behavior of any type is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ theory. https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/getting-at-what-we-mean-by-truth/#comment-670690 Moreover, your claim that you can "form our own moral beliefs about how people should behave towards one another in a way that creates the greatest benefit for all" is directly betrayed by the hundreds of millions of people slaughtered in the 20th century by their own governments in your supposed atheistic utopias. Atheistic utopias where atheists "form(ed) our own moral beliefs about how people should behave towards one another in a way that creates the greatest benefit for all" The unmitigated horror visited upon man, by state sponsored atheism, would be hard to exaggerate,,, Here's what happens when Atheists/evolutionists/non-Christians take control of Government:

“169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide] I BACKGROUND 2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide] 3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS 4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State 5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill 6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State 7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS 8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military 9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State 10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges 11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State 12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing 13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State 14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS 15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea 16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico 17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia” This is, in reality, probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there were. It also doesn’t count all the millions of abortions from around the world. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes - Foundational Darwinian influence in their ideology (Nov. 2018) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/historian-human-evolution-theorists-were-attempting-to-be-moral-teachers/#comment-668170

bornagain77

Seversky:

If a human dictator had carried out all the acts attributed to God in the Old Testament, I think you would condemn them just as much I do.

Totally clueless. You have no idea as to why God did what He did.

We don’t need an objective moral code or one provided by a god to form our own moral beliefs about how people should behave towards one another in a way that creates the greatest benefit for all.

Without God that is all meaningless drivel. ET

Bornagain77 @ 26

It is nice to see that Seversky and Dawkins, (although they deny the reality of objective morality and hold all morality to be merely subjective and illusory), have objective morality all figured out. Indeed, (again although they deny the reality of objective morality and hold all morality to be merely subjective and illusory), Seversky and Dawkins apparently feel free to to spew venom against God as if they are somehow perched on some lofty peak of objective moral perfection in which they, from their perch of moral perfection, find God to be morally reprehensible.

But this is a problem that no Christian can avoid. If a human dictator had carried out all the acts attributed to God in the Old Testament, I think you would condemn them just as much I do. We don't need an objective moral code or one provided by a god to form our own moral beliefs about how people should behave towards one another in a way that creates the greatest benefit for all. Nor is there anything that prevents us judging the acts described in the Old Testament against those beliefs. I understand that you find those judgments deeply offensive but the fact remains that every one of Dawkins' adjectives can be justified by reference to incidents described in the OT. That is a problem that needs to be addressed by believers

Direct contradiction in logic aside, perhaps, just perhaps, Seversky and Dawkins don’t have nearly as good a grasp on objective moral perfection as they fancy themselves to have? And maybe, just maybe, the one who died on the Cross for our sins and then rose from the dead, might, just might, have a far, far, better grasp on moral perfection than Seversky and Dawkins apparently fancy themselves to have?

We make no claim to perfection. As human beings, like everyone else, we just try to do the best with what we have. And the Crucifixion and Resurrection raise another issue. Jesus was the Son of God, in effect, God made manifest on Earth in human form. The body of Jesus could be killed if God so allowed but God/Jesus is immortal. It is utterly beyond human power to harm Him in the slightest. So in what way was Jesus at risk? Yes, his body suffered ill-treatment, torture and eventually death on the cross but Jesus continued as if nothing had happened. Which suggests that the whole event was a form of street-theater performed for the edification or education of onlookers. Seversky

Seversky repeats Dawkins's vitriolic diatribe against God:

“…a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

It is nice to see that Seversky and Dawkins, (although they deny the reality of objective morality and hold all morality to be merely subjective and illusory), have objective morality all figured out. Indeed, (again although they deny the reality of objective morality and hold all morality to be merely subjective and illusory), Seversky and Dawkins apparently feel free to to spew venom against God as if they are somehow perched on some lofty peak of objective moral perfection in which they, from their perch of moral perfection, find God to be morally reprehensible. I guess the exact details of exactly how one is suppose to possibly be able to attain the moral perfection necessary in order to judge God Himself, (in a Darwinian worldview where morality is held to be merely subjective and illusory), is left for the reader to work out. :) Perhaps Seversky and Dawkins, (since they are apparently morally perfect enough in order to judge God Himself,) might forgive me if I were to ask them, "Exactly what objective moral standard are you guys judging God by since you hold morality to be subjective and illusory?" Direct contradiction in logic aside, perhaps, just perhaps, Seversky and Dawkins don't have nearly as good a grasp on objective moral perfection as they fancy themselves to have? And maybe, just maybe, the one who died on the Cross for our sins and then rose from the dead, might, just might, have a far, far, better grasp on moral perfection than Seversky and Dawkins apparently fancy themselves to have?

The Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection of Jesus: A high quality interview with Gary Habermas giving an overview of the Minimal-Facts approach to the Resurrection of Jesus. A must-listen and a great place to start research into the historical evidence for the Resurrection. https://www.themindrenewed.com/interviews/2014/105-int-046 Turin Shroud 3-D Hologram Reveals The Words ‘The Lamb’ on a Solid Oval Object Under The Beard – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to 3-D Hologram – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis

Verse:

Matthew 5:48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

bornagain77

seversky:

God endows you with free will but threatens to kill you if you don’t do exactly what He wants you to do.

That doesn't follow. But I understand why you need a strawman. ET

Nonlin.Org @ 20

1. You see your child make a mistake you know it will turn badly, yet you let them do it anyway to learn a lesson. Does it mean the child does not have free will? Not at all!

"Aye, there's the rub!" God endows you with free will but threatens to kill you if you don't do exactly what He wants you to do. Is free will just the freedom to choose between available options or does it entail the freedom to act on them? Do you have free will if can choose freely in your own mind but are forced to actually follow only one course of action whether you like it or not?

2. Free will allows you to damn yourself. What’s so hard to understand? You want your cake and eat it too? Pathetic. Even in the godless society you sometimes go to jail when committing a crime (as long as your name is not Clinton).

Or Trump, apparently. Let's not play favorites. Besides, the exercise of free will is not a defense against harming others in society. But it should be up to us to decide where the lines are drawn, not some God with arbitrary nonsense about graven images or coveting neighbors oxen.

3. The Darwin quote is telling – the guy wishes “evolution” to be true and Christianity to not be. This is NOT the stuff of scientific inquiry as his followers keep pretending.

He wasn't talking about scientific inquiry. He was talking about Biblical "morality", about a world allegedly ruled by an Old Testament God who, in Richard Dawkins' memorable passage, was "...a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” You may wish that sort of thing to be true but, like Darwin and Dawkins, I can assure you I don't. Seversky

seversky:

Neither quantum mechanics nor relativity nor NDEs solve the conundrum of how there can be free will if there exists an omniscient deity with knowledge of what is in our future.

Knowledge of all possible futures takes care of that. Also just because God knows the choices we are going to make doesn't negate free will.

In other words, you are saying that God endows us with free will but if we exercise it in a way He doesn’t like we will be damned for all eternity?

Yes, if you break one of the ten commandments. You break the law free will doesn't get you a free pass. Darwin talking about a damnable doctrine? His is the most damnable doctrine ever. According to Darwin's doctrine we can do as we please as long as we leave more offspring behind. Murder, theft, rape are all OK under Darwin's doctrine. ET

Rather...Ignorance at work..... and no lesson learned. Maybe....just maybe we can all just drop the hate? This is @21 - seems that you hold a lot of contempt... Trumper

Nonlin,,,, 1. You see your child make a mistake, say picking up sticks on the Sabbath, and you know they will burn foreever in the fires of Hell for it, yet you let them do it anyway to learn a lesson. Christian love at work. MatSpirit

Seversky, 1. You see your child make a mistake you know it will turn badly, yet you let them do it anyway to learn a lesson. Does it mean the child does not have free will? Not at all! 2. Free will allows you to damn yourself. What's so hard to understand? You want your cake and eat it too? Pathetic. Even in the godless society you sometimes go to jail when committing a crime (as long as your name is not Clinton). 3. The Darwin quote is telling - the guy wishes "evolution" to be true and Christianity to not be. This is NOT the stuff of scientific inquiry as his followers keep pretending. Nonlin.org

Bornagain77 @ 12 Neither quantum mechanics nor relativity nor NDEs solve the conundrum of how there can be free will if there exists an omniscient deity with knowledge of what is in our future.

Although free will is often thought of as allowing someone to choose between a veritable infinity of options, in a theistic view of reality that veritable infinity of options all boils down to just two options. Eternal life with God, or Eternal life without God.

In other words, you are saying that God endows us with free will but if we exercise it in a way He doesn't like we will be damned for all eternity? Great freedom of choice. What's that old saying, 'what one hand giveth the other taketh away'?

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.” – C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce

In response to Lewis, I will quote Darwin from his autobiography:

I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine

I quite agree. Seversky

Darwinism discussions are always emotional. Ever wonder why? Because it's all religion and no science. Look at history - first came the atheist philosophy/religion, and THEN the retard "theory"... ...does Darwinism fail because ID/creationism is right? Nope. It fails on its own illogical inconsistencies. Behe, Axe, and Co are too nice and simply misguided in their acceptance of some Darwinist nonsense like "microevolution". ...but why does Darwinism fail so badly? Let's see: Gradualism fails – http://nonlin.org/gradualism/ Natural selection fails – http://nonlin.org/natural-s... Divergence of character fails – http://nonlin.org/evotest/ Speciation fails – http://nonlin.org/speciatio... DNA “essence of life” fails – http://nonlin.org/dna-not-e... Randomness fails – http://nonlin.org/random-ab... Abiogenesis fails – http://nonlin.org/warmpond/ Science against Religion fails – http://nonlin.org/philosoph... etc., etc. And let’s test it again and make sure it fails again and again: http://nonlin.org/evotest/ Nonlin.org

@ScuzzaMan #4 - I truly doubt that you "know" what you are claiming to know - "and teach them things I know are wrong and inimical to their well-being." it is certainly true ( in both the practical and intrinsic sense) that we all hold MB - many of which we are unaware of. This is no different for the religious Ed teacher than it is for a moral science believer or biologist etc...etc.. The fact is that there are those that believe what they wish to believe when objectivity gets blurred...and subjectivity fills the gaps. Trumper

Too funny. Joshua Swamidass choked on the article and said:

One sadly confused law student. Someone needs to let him know that we all agree that non-Darwinian mechanism are important too.

It is very telling that he never says what those alleged non-Darwinian mechanisms are. However, according to evolutionary biology, ALL evolutionary mechanisms are blind and mindless, ie Darwinian. In other words, Joshua Swamidass is one sadly confused whatever he is. ET

Mimus:

If biological form is not encoded by genes then how can different genes be responsible for encoding similar structures!

Because it is not the genes that determine form, duh. As Dr. Denton said over a decade ago:

To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment. Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes. Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene- Michael Denton “An Anti-Darwinian Intellectual Journey”, Uncommon Dissent (2004), pages 171-2

No one knows what determines form. But scientists have found out it is not the genome ET

Mimus, the first point certainly does not contradict the second point. Completely different genes being found to be involved in generating very similar structures certainly does not imply that the genes themselves are responsible for generating the ultimate biological form and/or shape of any particular organism in the first place. To help you see this point more clearly, do the construction materials that make up a house, a machine, a bridge, a computer, or a etc.. etc.. determine the final shape and/or form of a house, a machine, a bridge, a computer, or a etc.. etc.? Of course not! And just as it is impossible for construction materials to determine what final form and/or shape any particular man-made artifact may take, it is also impossible for genes and/or proteins to determine what final form and/or shape any particular organism may take. As Stuart A. Newman, Professor of Cell Biology and Anatomy, once stated, "Only if the pie were to rise up, take hold of the recipe book and rewrite the instructions for its own production, would this popular analogy for the role of genes be pertinent."

The Gene Myth, Part II - August 2010 Excerpt: “It was long believed that a protein molecule’s three-dimensional shape, on which its function depends, is uniquely determined by its amino acid sequence. But we now know that this is not always true – the rate at which a protein is synthesized, which depends on factors internal and external to the cell, affects the order in which its different portions fold. So even with the same sequence a given protein can have different shapes and functions. Furthermore, many proteins have no intrinsic shape, (intrinsically disordered proteins), taking on different roles in different molecular contexts. So even though genes specify protein sequences they have only a tenuous (very weak or slight) influence over their functions. ,,,,So, to reiterate, the genes do not uniquely determine what is in the cell, but what is in the cell determines how the genes get used. Only if the pie were to rise up, take hold of the recipe book and rewrite the instructions for its own production, would this popular analogy for the role of genes be pertinent. Stuart A. Newman, Ph.D. – Professor of Cell Biology and Anatomy http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/08/gene-myth-part-ii.html

Moreover, this failure of reductive materialism to be able to explain the basic form and or shape of any particular organism occurs at a very low level, a much lower level than DNA itself. In the following article entitled 'Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics', which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remarked that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings “challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description."

Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics - December 9, 2015 Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,, It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, "We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s," added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. "So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description." http://phys.org/news/2015-12-quantum-physics-problem-unsolvable-godel.html

On top of all that, it is now known that the, what is termed, ‘positional information’ of any particular organism is not reducible to the sequential information within DNA as was originally presupposed in Darwinian thought. At about the 41:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Wells, using a branch of mathematics called category theory, demonstrates that, during embryological development, ‘positional information’ must somehow be added to the developing embryo, ‘from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method, in order to explain the transdifferentiation of cells into multiple different states during embryological development.

Design Beyond DNA: A Conversation with Dr. Jonathan Wells – video (41:00 minute mark) – January 2017 https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE?t=2484

The amount of ‘positional information’ that is somehow coming into a developing embryo from the outside by some non-material method is immense. Vastly outstripping, by many orders of magnitude, the amount of sequential information that is contained within DNA itself. As Doug Axe states in the following video, “there are a quadrillion neural connections in the human brain, that’s vastly more neural connections in the human brain than there are bits (of information) in the human genome. So,,, there’s got to be something else going on that makes us what we are.”

“There is also a presumption, typically when we talk about our genome, (that the genome) is a blueprint for making us. And that is actually not a proven fact in biology. That is an assumption. And (one) that I question because I don’t think that 4 billion bases, which would be 8 billion bits of information, that you would actually have enough information to specify a human being. If you consider for example that there are a quadrillion neural connections in the human brain, that’s vastly more neural connections in the human brain than there are bits (of information) in the human genome. So,,, there’s got to be something else going on that makes us what we are.” Doug Axe – Intelligent Design 3.0 – Stephen C. Meyer – video https://youtu.be/lgs6J4LqeqI?t=4575

And as the following article states, the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000.

In a TED Talk, (the Question You May Not Ask,,, Where did the information come from?) – November 29, 2017 Excerpt: Sabatini is charming.,,, he deploys some memorable images. He points out that the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000. Later he wheels out the entire genome, in printed form, of a human being,,,,: [F]or the first time in history, this is the genome of a specific human, printed page-by-page, letter-by-letter: 262,000 pages of information, 450 kilograms.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/in-a-ted-talk-heres-the-question-you-may-not-ask/

Moreover, this 'positional information' that is somehow coming into the developing embryo, ‘from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method, is also now found to be optimal. As the following article states. " It’s now known that some form of positional information makes genes variously switch on and off throughout the embryo, giving cells distinct identities based on their location.,,, when researchers have been able to appropriately determine what cells are doing, many have been surprised to see clear indications of optimization.,,,"

The Math That Tells Cells What They Are - March 13, 2019 Excerpt: It’s now known that some form of positional information makes genes variously switch on and off throughout the embryo, giving cells distinct identities based on their location.,,, That mounting evidence is leading some biologists to a bold hypothesis: that where information is concerned, cells might often find solutions to life’s challenges that are not just good but optimal — that cells extract as much useful information from their complex surroundings as is theoretically possible.,,, when researchers have been able to appropriately determine what cells are doing, many have been surprised to see clear indications of optimization.,,, “I don’t think optimization is an aesthetic or philosophical idea. It’s a very concrete idea,” Bialek said.,,, https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-math-that-tells-cells-what-they-are-20190313/

"Optimal" is not just some word that they are carelessly tossing around to describe this positional information. When they describe a biological system as being in a 'optimal' state, they mean exactly what they are saying. As the following article states, "In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants."

William Bialek: More Perfect Than We Imagined - March 23, 2013 Excerpt: photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light — the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped. “Light is quantized, and you can’t count half a photon,” said William Bialek, a professor of physics and integrative genomics at Princeton University. “This is as far as it goes.” … Scientists have identified and mathematically anatomized an array of cases where optimization has left its fastidious mark, among them;,, the precision response in a fruit fly embryo to contouring molecules that help distinguish tail from head;,,, In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/03/william-bialek-more-perfect-than-we.html

Thus in conclusion, Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, are now shown to have no clue how macroscopic structures may possibly be generated from a complete microscopic description. Whereas, on the other hand, the Christian Theist, due to the immense amount of 'optimal' positional information coming into a developing embryo during embryological development, is now found to be very well supported in his claim that God is forming each of us in our mother's womb. Of course, Darwinists such as Mimus will never accept any of this evidence that falsifies Darwinism because, for him, Darwinism is not a science that is ever subject to rigid falsification, but is, in reality, a pseudo-scientific religion that chooses to he believes in instead of believing in the living God who created him.,,, Which is very sad!

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint, and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it, the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality, politics, National Post, pp. B1, B3, B7 (May 13, 2000)

bornagain77

I, of course, stopped reading the spam links once it became clear they would be un-ending. But I did findthis amusing First bullet point:

Then to refute the idea,, First off, the form and/or shape of any particular organism, or form and/or shape of any particular part of any particular organism, contrary to the reductive materialistic philosophy that undergirds Darwinian thought, is not reducible to genes, nor to DNA as a whole, nor is it reducible to any other material particulars that Darwinists may wish to invoke

Contridicts the second bullet point!

In fact, many times completely different genes are found to be involved in generating very similar structures

If biological form is not encoded by genes then how can different genes be responsible for encoding similar structures! Or as you just thowring stuff and wall and hopinf somethign sticks? Mimus

Seversky. as to free will: From page 43 of the paper attached to this video,,

How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f0hL3Nrdas

,,, we find,,, ,,,, Besides the empirical verification of ‘free will’ and/or Agent causality within quantum theory bringing that rather startling solution to the much sought after ‘theory of everything’, there is, to put it mildly, also another fairly drastic implication for individual people being, as Weinberg stated, “brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” as well. Although free will is often thought of as allowing someone to choose between a veritable infinity of options, in a theistic view of reality that veritable infinity of options all boils down to just two options. Eternal life with God, or Eternal life without God. C.S. Lewis stated the situation for people as such: “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.”

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.” – C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce

To support of C.S. Lewis’s contention that “Without that self-choice there could be no Hell”, all I have to do is to point to the many people of today who are fanatically ‘pro-choice’ as far as abortion in concerned, demanding the unrestricted right to choose death for their unborn babies no matter what stage of development their babies may be at. Unbelievably, infanticide itself, unthinkable in our society just a few short years ago, is now being demanded as a right by many on the ‘pro-choice’ side.

Proverbs 8:36 But those who fail to find me harm themselves; all who hate me love death."

On top of that, in order to support the physical reality of heaven and hell, I can appeal directly to two of our most powerful and precisely tested theories ever in the history of science. Special Relativity and General Relativity respectfully. As the following video shows, with General Relativity we find an ‘infinitely destructive’ eternity associated with it. And with Special Relativity we find an extremely orderly eternity associated with it:

Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo

Again, the implications for individual humans, to put it mildly, are drastic. To get the seriousness of this point across, I offer the following testimonies from people who have had a Near Death Experiences and who have personally went to heaven and to hell.

Imagine Heaven - Evidence for the Afterlife (with interview of Dr. Mary Neal towards the end of the video) https://vimeo.com/140585737 Imagine Heaven - What About Hell? https://vimeo.com/143542740 “I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn’t walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn’t really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different – the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.” Barbara Springer – Near Death Experience – The Tunnel – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv2jLeoAcMI Bill Wiese (Man Who Went To Hell) – 23 Minutes in Hell (8 Minute Version) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqufixPt2w0

To put the drastic implications for us even more clearly, we, with either our acceptance or rejection God and what He has done for us through Jesus Christ on the cross, are choosing between eternal life with God or eternal death separated from God: Verse:

Deuteronomy 30:19-20 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Because of such dire consequences for our eternal souls, I plead with any atheists who may be reading this to seriously reconsider their refusal to accept God, and to now choose God, even eternal life with God, instead of choosing eternal death separated from God. Not to sound cliche, but that 'free will' decision is, by far, the single most important decision that you will ever make in your entire life.

Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb” – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

bornagain77

Seversky:

If God is real, what follows?

Everything, duh. It means there is a purpose to our existence beyond the mundane of "being a good person". It means there is more to life than what physics and chemistry can explain. Which, with respect to biology, is essential to its understanding. I would think that would be important...

Remember that Jesus warned Peter on the evening before He was arrested that Peter would deny knowing Him three times?

Or Jesus told Peter to deny knowing Him 3 times in order to spare his own life so he could spread the word and bear witness. ET

Bornagain77 @ 3

OT: After realizing that God is really real way back when, I remember the same reaction, that a journalist recently had at a Stephen Meyer talk, hitting me like a ton of bricks one time:

So what if God is real? If God is real, what is He? If God is real, what follows? Do you think it's necessarily going to be something you like? Remember what follows from the concept of an omniscient God with demonstrated foreknowledge of the future? Remember that Jesus warned Peter on the evening before He was arrested that Peter would deny knowing Him three times? And that's exactly what he did, even though he had been explicitly warned that it would happen. Even though he should have been able to do something other, he couldn't. Whatever a God knows will happen, will happen. So what price free will? Seversky

LoL! @ Seversky for the equivocation- another prediction fulfilled. We are NOT anti-evolution. So please stop with the blatant lies. ET

Mimus claims that

"In a few cases (e.g. evolutionary development) these have turned into profitable areas of research that have taught how life has evolved."

Only if you regard a complete failure of an idea as a "profitable areas of research" does that sentence even begin to make any sense. Which means, even if the sentence were to make sense it would make no sense! :) First to define the idea,,,

Evolutionary developmental biology Evolutionary developmental biology (informally, evo-devo) is a field of biological research that compares the developmental processes of different organisms to infer the ancestral relationships between them and how developmental processes evolved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology

Then to refute the idea,, First off, the form and/or shape of any particular organism, or form and/or shape of any particular part of any particular organism, contrary to the reductive materialistic philosophy that undergirds Darwinian thought, is not reducible to genes, nor to DNA as a whole, nor is it reducible to any other material particulars that Darwinists may wish to invoke

Darwinism vs Biological Form https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

In fact, many times completely different genes are found to be involved in generating very similar structures

Homology -- do common structures imply common ancestor? (14:17 minute mark - Different Genes involved in generating similar structures) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ydajcf2SBw&feature=player_detailpage#t=862

As Professor Norman Nevin stated, “The facts of comparative anatomy provide no support for evolution in the way conceived by Darwin and research at the molecular level has not demonstrated a correspondence between the structure of the gene and the structural and physical homology.”

“The facts of comparative anatomy provide no support for evolution in the way conceived by Darwin and research at the molecular level has not demonstrated a correspondence between the structure of the gene and the structural and physical homology.” Professor Norman Nevin hailed in one obituary as “a pioneer in the science of genetics”. Should Christians Embrace Evolution? p137, (IVP 2009),

In fact, instead of their being certain 'genes for' some particular phenotypic trait, genes are now found to be existing in a holistic web of mutual interdependence and cooperation (i.e. the antithesis of the selfish gene concept that was championed by Dawkins)).

What If (Almost) Every Gene Affects (Almost) Everything? – JUN 16, 2017 Excerpt: If you told a modern geneticist that a complex trait—whether a physical characteristic like height or weight, or the risk of a disease like cancer or schizophrenia—was the work of just 15 genes, they’d probably laugh. It’s now thought that such traits are the work of thousands of genetic variants, working in concert. The vast majority of them have only tiny effects, but together, they can dramatically shape our bodies and our health. They’re weak individually, but powerful en masse. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/its-like-all-connected-man/530532/ Theory Suggests That All Genes Affect Every Complex Trait – June 20, 2018 Excerpt: Mutations of a single gene are behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another are behind cystic fibrosis. But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,, One very early genetic mapping study in 1999 suggested that “a large number of loci (perhaps > than 15)” might contribute to autism risk, recalled Jonathan Pritchard, now a geneticist at Stanford University. “That’s a lot!” he remembered thinking when the paper came out. Over the years, however, what scientists might consider “a lot” in this context has quietly inflated. Last June, Pritchard and his Stanford colleagues Evan Boyle and Yang Li (now at the University of Chicago) published a paper about this in Cell that immediately sparked controversy, although it also had many people nodding in cautious agreement. The authors described what they called the “omnigenic” model of complex traits. Drawing on GWAS analyses of three diseases, they concluded that in the cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not 100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than 100,000. https://www.quantamagazine.org/omnigenic-model-suggests-that-all-genes-affect-every-complex-trait-20180620/

Thus the entire reductive materialistic edifice undergirding evo-devo thought is found, once again, to be false. Moreover, embryological development is found to be radically different between different species and does not conform to what would be a-priorily expected under Darwinian presuppositions. As Michael Denton noted, "In some ways the egg cell, blastula, and gastrula stages in the different vertebrate classes are so dissimilar that, where it not for the close resemblance in the basic body plan of all adult vertebrates, it seems unlikely that they would have been classed as belonging to the same phylum."

"The earliest events leading from the first division of the egg cell to the blastula stage in amphibians, reptiles and mammals are illustrated in figure 5.4. Even to the untrained zoologist it is obvious that neither the blastula itself, nor the sequence of events that lead to its formation, is identical in any of the vertebrate classes shown. The differences become even more striking in the next major phase of in embryo formation - gastrulation. This involves a complex sequence of cell movements whereby the cells of the blastula rearrange themselves, eventually resulting in the transformation of the blastula into the intricate folded form of the early embryo, or gastrula, which consists of three basic germ cell layers: the ectoderm, which gives rise to the skin and the nervous system; the mesoderm, which gives rise to muscle and skeletal tissues; and the endoderm, which gives rise to the lining of the alimentary tract as well as to the liver and pancreas.,,, In some ways the egg cell, blastula, and gastrula stages in the different vertebrate classes are so dissimilar that, where it not for the close resemblance in the basic body plan of all adult vertebrates, it seems unlikely that they would have been classed as belonging to the same phylum. There is no question that, because of the great dissimilarity of the early stages of embryogenesis in the different vertebrate classes, organs and structures considered homologous in adult vertebrates cannot be traced back to homologous cells or regions in the earliest stages of embryogenesis. In other words, homologous structures are arrived at by different routes." Michael Denton - Evolution: A Theory in Crisis - pg 145-146

In fact, 'alternative splicing patterns', which are heavily involved in the embryological development of any particular organism, are found to "differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,”

Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species. On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F

In fact, completely contrary to the reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought, "Alternative splicing can produce variant proteins and expression patterns as different as the products of different genes."

Frequent Alternative Splicing of Human Genes – 1999 Excerpt: Alternative splicing can produce variant proteins and expression patterns as different as the products of different genes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC310997/

Moreover, "As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms."

Widespread Expansion of Protein Interaction Capabilities by Alternative Splicing - 2016 In Brief Alternatively spliced isoforms of proteins exhibit strikingly different interaction profiles and thus, in the context of global interactome networks, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,, Page 806 excerpt: As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms (Smith and Kelleher, 2013). http://iakouchevalab.ucsd.edu/publications/Yang_Cell_OMIM_2016.pdf

To say that this empirical evidence presents a problem for the presuppositions that undergird evo-devo thought is an understatement. If Darwinism were a normal science instead of basically being an unfalsifiable religion for atheists, this should, once again, count as yet another direct falsification of the claims from Darwinian evolution. Here are a few more falsifications of Darwin's theory (that the religious pseudoscientific Darwinists continually ignore):

Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are found to be ‘directed’. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.” Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.”. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! Darwinist’s, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-biophysicist-looks-at-the-limits-of-what-science-can-tell-us/#comment-675618

bornagain77

The plain truth from the literature, conferences, expert perception, and a bit of anecdote for color, is that current Neo-Darwinism is far from the untouchable theory it is lauded to be. Not only this, but it has serious and increasing skeptics and challengers from within the secular scientific community

A Christian law student rehashing standard creationist/ID anti-evolution tropes in The Federalist? I'm shocked - shocked I tell you - to see such a thing. Seversky

April 16, 2019 at 7:47 am I think independent writer Suzan Mazur (Oscillations) deserves a great deal of credit for moving the questions out of the irrelevant sinkhole of whether Jesus loves Darwin. Starting with her 2010 book, The Altenberg 16: An exposé of the evolution industry (a group of evolutionary biologists and philosophers concerned about the future of the discipline, who met to talk about what Darwinism was doing to it), she went on to write honestly about the 2016 effort by the Royal Society to rescue the discipline from the Dead hand Royal Society: Public Evolution Summit. We live in a time where everybody gets cosmetic makeovers but real shakeups are harder than they used to be.

This is such a weird take on the state of affairs. As long as there has been a modern synthesis there have been calls from people like r Kevin Laland "extend" the synthesis. In a few cases (e.g. evolutionary development) these have turned into profitable areas of research that have taught how life has evolved. These have been accepted into mainstream evolutionary thinking. On the other hand, structuralists and niche constructionists and the likes that Mazur writes about have never demonstrated the power of their ideas. As a result, they remain on the fringes of evolutionary biology, spending more time complaining about being kept out that doing research. And, of course, none of this has the first thing to do with ID or othe forms of creationism. Mimus

Once you get them to stop bashing caricatures of ID, and instead tell us how to test the claim that, for example, nature invented eyes/ vision systems (Nathan Lents in "Human Errors"), do they start to realize the folly of their position. But only after you show that their attempts do not deal with the actual question- evidence for relation is not evidence for a mechanism. Over on Peaceful Science they have a difficult time with this. They also don't seem to understand the very nature of science that the onus is one the people who make a claim to be able to test it. Joshua Swamidass thinks the people who make the claim have to falsify it- maybe he means try to. He thinks ID fails cuz he sez no one has tried to falsify the design inference. However, Dr. Behe's first book was about exactly that! He couldn't find any evidence in the scientific literature that demonstrated blind and mindless processes could produce the likes of any bacterial flagellum; cilia; blood clotting, etc. He tried to falsify the claim these structures we intelligently designed. He was so amazed at his finding that he wrote three books about it. Scrutinizing Our Own Hypotheses- something neither Joshua nor evolutionists ever do. Otherwise they would have to reject the concept that non-telic processes produced life and its diversity. They also continue to conflate ID with religion and Creationism. And Joshua has the gall to say that he understands ID. ET

My point is that the honest scientist doesn’t need to start with any kind of metaphysical belief, if he wishes to keep metaphysical beliefs out of science. I seriously doubt this. Metaphysical beliefs may be unconscious, unobserved, unacknowledged, but none of us live without them. Not scientists or anyone else. Indeed, the belief that science can be practiced sans metaphysical beliefs can properly be identified as a metaphysical belief. Certainly the presumption that all things have natural explanations is as pure metaphysics as it is possible to get. There is no conceivable scientific method capable of establishing this proposition. I don't care what your own MB's might be, in the abstract. (I'll get to the personal later.) If they differ from mine, fine. If that means your conclusions about politics, science, the Beatles, and crop rotation in the 14th century, also differ from mine? Fine. All I ask from you is that you accord me the same courtesy, and not try to use the violent power of the State to force me to pay perverts and freaks to hold my children hostage and teach them things I know are wrong and inimical to their well-being. On the personal level, if we discuss metaphysics, I will try earnestly to convince you of certain basic truths of our existence, in the hope that it will both (A) improve your chances of a long and healthy life, and (B) make you a safer person for others to share this world with, thus improving their chances of a long and healthy life. But the choice, as always, will remain yours. ScuzzaMan

OT: After realizing that God is really real way back when, I remember the same reaction, that a journalist recently had at a Stephen Meyer talk, hitting me like a ton of bricks one time:

A Journalist (response) at Stephen Meyer’s Dallas Speech - April 15, 2019 Excerpt: "What If God Is as Real as a Heart Attack? At some point during this talk, I felt a gear turn in my head. Then a shudder went through the whole Rube Goldberg, sending all the mismatched parts of my mind into frantic motion. What if God is real?",,, https://evolutionnews.org/2019/04/a-journalist-at-stephen-meyers-dallas-speech-recalls-his-own-remarkable-response/

bornagain77

From an ID perspective we need to go back and try to understand what Darwin was trying to do. He was trying to explain the appearance of design and purpose in the natural world without invoking design or a designer. To do so he had to start with the fact of apparent design and then try to explain how organs and organism’s evolved unguided without any kind of plan or purpose. So far nobody has been able how this occurred except when it comes to minor trivial evolutionary changes. At present no one has been able to explain so called macro-evolutionary change which according to the fossil record appears to occur in bursts and spurts with no evidentiary clues as to how such changes occurred. What that leaves the modern Darwinist with is a metaphysical belief which has no real scientific support behind it. If you disagree with that assessment pick an example of some organism or organ and explain empirically step-by-step (citing experiments and natural world observation) how it naturally, gradually and accidentally (not intentionally) evolved. Just claiming that it somehow could have evolved naturally is not an empirical or scientific explanation, it’s a metaphysical one. To be clear I do think that natural changes due to natural selection and/or genetic drift etc. does explain micro evolutionary change but micro evolutionary is not sufficient to explain the kind of change required by Darwin’s original theory which was purported to explain all evolutionary change. My point is that the honest scientist doesn’t need to start with any kind of metaphysical belief, if he wishes to keep metaphysical beliefs out of science. All he needs to do is to look critically and objectively at the theory and see if it can explain what it purports to explain. From what I know from my own investigation is that Darwin’s theory doesn’t, but I am neither a scientist nor an expert. john_a_designer

I think independent writer Suzan Mazur (Oscillations) deserves a great deal of credit for moving the questions out of the irrelevant sinkhole of whether Jesus loves Darwin. Starting with her 2010 book, The Altenberg 16: An exposé of the evolution industry (a group of evolutionary biologists and philosophers concerned about the future of the discipline, who met to talk about what Darwinism was doing to it), she went on to write honestly about the 2016 effort by the Royal Society to rescue the discipline from the Dead hand Royal Society: Public Evolution Summit. We live in a time where everybody gets cosmetic makeovers but real shakeups are harder than they used to be. I put it down to academia being much too large and entrenched these days. Too many time-serving mediocrities in relation to people who are genuinely curious about how the world works. Also, the role of independent writers in publicizing actual but unpopular changes is often overlooked, in favour of the noise made by grandstanding puff arts who take the credit. I am not, of course, referring to the Third Way scientists, who are more often taking the heat. I mean that, if rethinks are forced upon the discipline, people will be shoving forward to take the credit who did much less than Mazur accomplished via her many interviews with life scientists and others who see past Darwin. News