Creationist students at Bryan achieve 99 percentile in evolutionary biology!

_{Salvador Cordova

March 29, 2014

Education, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

the department chair took me aside and shared with me the results from the latest standardized testing of the senior biology majors. The test splits up their scores in four categories: cell, organismal, genetics, and evolution. To my absolute delight, Bryan College students scored in the 99th percentile – in the evolution category! That was their highest category too. Uh oh! Who’s been teaching them evolution? Well, that would be me. The class I’m teaching this semester is called “History of Life,” which is just a euphemism for evolutionary biology. I teach straight from Freeman and Herron’s Evolutionary Analysis, and we read Darwin’s Origin of Species during the class. The students know my position on origins, and when appropriate, I bring in creationist commentary. But for the most part, it’s straight evolutionary biology. The 99th percentile means they’re outperforming most students taught by actual evolutionists.

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2014/03/you-are-my-glory-and-joy.html

Well done creationists and Dr. Wood and Bryan college!

HT: JoeCoder, Todd Wood

Comments

It is no doubt a great result. It truly means that students have done a great job to achieve this number. I guess they aren’t those students who use cheap essays online. They are these diligent students who would stay all night up doing their home assignments. Though I have to admit, very little sleep is not so good as well. In any case, this is good news and great numbers. Who know, maybe they will be even able to beat their own numbers one dayCandiceC_{December 18, 2014
December
12
Dec
18
18
2014
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PST}

Yes Rod, in some ways mitochandia look like prokaryotes with diminished genomes. Also no one knows how long it took for the engulfed proks to become power plants. So the problem is it is an untestable claim. If it is OK to say it looks like proks, then is should be OK to say it looks designed and therefor ID is the correct choice. And again endosymbiosis only accounts for the power planst- mitochondria and chloroplasts. Eukaryotes still require a nucleus.Joe_{April 15, 2014
April
04
Apr
15
15
2014
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PST}

tjguy and Joe, you quote Tyson:
“Test ideas by experiment and observation.”
but then go on to ask
So, can you please share what these tests or experiments are that have been done to show that endosymbiotic theory is accurate?
You left out observation from the above. Its very difficult to perform lab experiments to recapitulate events that occured millions or billions of years ago over the course of tens or hundreds of millions of years There are a wealth of observations that overwhelming indicate mitos and chloros evolved from prokaryotes. Rather than argue about generalites can you indicate what you think the flaws in those observations are, why the proposed mechanism to explain it is implausable and/or what observations you'd find compelling evidence for endosymbiosis?RodW_{April 15, 2014
April
04
Apr
15
15
2014
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PST}

AVS, why is the endosymbiotic theory called a theory? I thought that theories have to have strong experimental support. Tyson challenges us to “Test ideas by experiment and observation.” This is your claim:
“Everything I say is backed by experimental tests, I know this because I get all of my information from these things called books and scientific papers, unlike you and your friends here who copy and paste from youtube.”
So, can you please share what these tests or experiments are that have been done to show that endosymbiotic theory is accurate? They must not be too impressive, because in another post you admit that the theory still has some holes in it.
“The endosymbiotic theory is well supported and accepted. Yes it doesn’t explain everything and there are some holes in it, but that is because we are missing a lot of information. It is the best explanation for the beginning steps of the evolution of eukaryotes.”
You believe this is because you are missing a lot of information. Fine. That is your opinion. Could there be other reasons it has holes? Could it be because the theory is wrong? Is that a possibility? Endosymbiotic theory iswell supported? By what? Hard experimental results? I already asked about this. Well accepted? That doesn’t mean all that much actually. It doesn’t explain everything? Then we know it is not accurate. Try solving a math problem and getting an answer that only explains part of the problem. Could you get those results published and even get it elevated to the point of being called a theory? No, but in Darwin’s world, this is common place. Close is good enough and gets accolades by the scientific establishment and even gets turned into an official “theory”.
“It’s the best explanation for the beginning steps of the evolution of eukaryotes.”
BEST EXPLANATION? So what?! There might be 4 theories, all of which are just so stories full of holes. Sure there might be one that is better than the others and can be called the “best” theory, but how meaningful is that? I'm not impressed! Does “best” mean it is right or accurate? Hardly. It is simply the best guess that scientists can come up with given what they have to work with, but that does not mean it is right. And, it only has to do with the “beginning steps” of the evolution of eukaryotes? And even with just that much of the process, there are still holes in the theory? Do you have anything more impressive to explain the rest of the theory? If not, then how in the world, pray tell, do we know that evolution could produce this change from prokaryotes to eukaryotes? Has it been demonstrated experimentally that prokaryotes can actually turn into eukaryotes? We all know the answer to this. It is simply believed to have happened because that is what Darwin’s theory demands. But did it happen? Only in the mind of evolutionists. We don’t really know. Evolutionists think it did. Creationists think it didn’t. IDers are in the middle. Some think it did; others think it didn’t. When you can produce experimental results to back up your theory, which should be more accurately called a hypothesis, then you will have our ear, but so far, it seems that you have not even been able to demonstrate the "beginning steps" of this evolutionary change. And we're supposed to be impressed by this? Please forgive us if we aren't as moved as you are.tjguy_{March 31, 2014
March
03
Mar
31
31
2014
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PST}

AVS, I get it, you don't know how to read. And ID says that evolution is guided. Creation says that too. Again your ignorance means nothing here. And AGAIN the nucleus is the defining characteristic of eukaryotes. Without that all you have are prokaryotes with other prokaryotes inside. I all seriousness you are just another ignorant troll.Joe_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PST}

Joe, you asked about how eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes. Are you related to BA or something? Are you talking about the fact that you put the word "unguided" in front of evolution? I'm not really sure why that would make a difference. Evolution is not guided, so whether you put the word there or not it doesn't matter, it is understood. I specifically chose to talk about the endosymbiotic event that produced mitochondria and chloroplast. Your rebuttal was "you didn't talk about the nucleus, therefore you're wrong." Just another great argument of the likes I've come to expect from you. In all seriousness though, I think I've had enough of your psychobabble so either put together a cogent argument for something, or go back to studying your ABCs.AVS_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PST}

AVS- obviously you are too stupid to comprehend what I post. I did NOT say "the endosymbiotic theory has nothing to do with evolution"- you have serious issues.
You ask about the evolution of eukaryotes,
Nope- as I said you are a moron. BTW all eukaryotes have a nucleus. So without that you don't have any evolution of eukaryotes let alone via unguided evolution. And looking like bacteria doesn't mean they were bacteria.Joe_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PST}

Wow,the endosymbiotic theory has nothing to do with evolution? That's news to me. You ask about the evolution of eukaryotes, I give some info, and you tell me I didn't talk about the evolution of the nucleus. That is called moving the goalposts buddy. It is not that mitochondria and chloroplast "somewhat resemble" bacteria, they have huge amounts of similarities. And, in fact, many tests were done to prove this, such as the sequencing of the mitochondrial DNA, the study of cardiolipin and its importance to bacterial and mitochondrial membranes, studies of mitochondrial protein translation, the list goes on and on. Everything I say is backed by experimental tests, I know this because I get all of my information from these things called books and scientific papers, unlike you and your friends here who copy and paste from youtube.AVS_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PST}

AVS, I know all about the alleged endosymbiotic theory. It has nothing to do with unguided evolution and it also cannot be tested. And BTW it only accounts for mitochondria and chloroplasts- not the all important nucleus. BTW having mitochondria somewhat resemble bacteria is NOT a test. So what was your point behind the bald assertion?Joe_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PST}

AVS, you claim that I'm mentally ill and that I'm scientifically illiterate, but who is the one dogmatically claiming that unguided processes can produce programming, and information storage architecture, that our best computer programmers, and engineers, can only dream of imitating?
Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information – David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors – Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8 “No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms’ genomes programmed?” http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-2-29.pdf Storing information in DNA – Test-tube data – Jan 26th 2013 Excerpt: Dr Goldman’s new scheme is significant in several ways. He and his team have managed to set a record (739.3 kilobytes) for the amount of unique information encoded. But it has been designed to do far more than that. It should, think the researchers, be easily capable of swallowing the roughly 3 zettabytes (a zettabyte is one billion trillion or 10^21 bytes) of digital data thought presently to exist in the world and still have room for plenty more. http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21570671-archives-could-last-thousands-years-when-stored-dna-instead-magnetic "Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - August 2012 Excerpt: "This is bad news. Consider a neuronal synapse -- the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse -- about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years..., even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.",,, Even with shortcuts like averaging, "any possible technological advance is overwhelmed by the relentless growth of interactions among all components of the system," http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/complexity_brak062961.html
Use ad hominem if you want AVS, but I'm not the one claiming that unguided processes can far surpass what our best engineers can currently can do or will do. From my perspective it is your Darwinian worldview that is seriously out of kilter with reality!
"(Although atheists accuse Theists of making extraordinary claims) The truly extraordinary claim — indeed, the wildly and irresponsibly outrageous claim — is that a highly scalable, massively parallel system architecture incorporating a 4-bit digital coding system and a super-dense, information-rich, three-dimensional, multi-layered, multi-directional database structure with storage, retrieval and translation mechanisms, utilizing file allocation, concatenation and bit-parity algorithms, operating subject to software protocol hierarchies could all come about through a long series of accidental particle collisions. That is beyond extraordinary. It is preposterous. It is laughable." https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/naturalism-intelligent-design-and-extraordinary-claims-part-ii/
bornagain77_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PST}

Yeah, it's definitely a severe case of ADD, compounded by your complete and utter scientific illiteracy.AVS_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PST}

Moreover, as if that were not devastating enough as to undermining any credibility Natural Selection might have had as to having the causal adequacy to explain the highly integrated levels of overlapping functional information found in organisms, dimensionally speaking, Natural Selection is now known to not even be on the right playing field in the first place:
The predominance of quarter-power (4-D) scaling in biology Excerpt: Many fundamental characteristics of organisms scale with body size as power laws of the form: Y = Yo M^b, where Y is some characteristic such as metabolic rate, stride length or life span, Yo is a normalization constant, M is body mass and b is the allometric scaling exponent. A longstanding puzzle in biology is why the exponent b is usually some simple multiple of 1/4 (4-Dimensional scaling) rather than a multiple of 1/3, as would be expected from Euclidean (3-Dimensional) scaling. http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~drewa/pubs/savage_v_2004_f18_257.pdf “Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection.” Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79
Here is, what a Darwinist termed, a ‘horrendously complex’ metabolic pathway (which operates as if it were ’4-Dimensional'):
ExPASy - Biochemical Pathways - interactive schematic http://web.expasy.org/cgi-bin/pathways/show_thumbnails.pl
And remember, Darwinian evolution has yet to explain a single gene/protein of those ‘horrendously complex’ metabolic pathways.
"Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way. - Doug Axe PhD. - Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/
The reason why a ‘higher dimensional’ 4-Dimensional structure, such as a ‘horrendously complex metabolic pathway, would be, for all intents and purposes, completely invisible to a 3-Dimensional process, such as Natural Selection, is best illustrated by ‘flatland’:
Flatland – 3D to 4D shift – Dr. Quantum – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4
I personally hold that the reason why internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional instead of three dimensional is because of exactly what Darwinian evolution has consistently failed to explain the origination of. i.e. functional information. ‘Higher dimensional’ information, which is bursting at the seams in life, simply cannot be reduced to any 3-dimensional energy-matter basis:
John Lennox – Is There Evidence of Something Beyond Nature? (Semiotic Information) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6rd4HEdffw “One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software, and the other one is blank. And I ask them, ‘what is the difference in mass between these two computer disks, as a result of the difference in the information content that they posses’? And of course the answer is, ‘Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of the information. And that’s because information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin? And this is the real and fundamental problem that the presence of information in biology has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic, evolutionary scenarios because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce. In the nineteenth century we thought that there were two fundamental entities in science; matter, and energy. At the beginning of the twenty first century, we now recognize that there’s a third fundamental entity; and its ‘information’. It’s not reducible to matter. It’s not reducible to energy. But it’s still a very important thing that is real; we buy it, we sell it, we send it down wires. Now, what do we make of the fact, that information is present at the very root of all biological function? In biology, we have matter, we have energy, but we also have this third, very important entity; information. I think the biology of the information age, poses a fundamental challenge to any materialistic approach to the origin of life.” -Dr. Stephen C. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin-of-life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems - Andy C. McIntosh - May 2013 Excerpt: The third view then that we have proposed in this paper is the top down approach. In this paradigm, the information is non-material and constrains the local thermodynamics to be in a non-equilibrium state of raised free energy. It is the information which is the active ingredient, and the matter and energy are passive to the laws of thermodynamics within the system. As a consequence of this approach, we have developed in this paper some suggested principles of information exchange which have some parallels with the laws of thermodynamics which undergird this approach.,,, http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0008 Storing information in DNA – Test-tube data – Jan 26th 2013 Excerpt: Dr Goldman’s new scheme is significant in several ways. He and his team have managed to set a record (739.3 kilobytes) for the amount of unique information encoded. But it has been designed to do far more than that. It should, think the researchers, be easily capable of swallowing the roughly 3 zettabytes (a zettabyte is one billion trillion or 10^21 bytes) of digital data thought presently to exist in the world and still have room for plenty more. http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21570671-archives-could-last-thousands-years-when-stored-dna-instead-magnetic
In fact, matter and energy are now both shown to reduce to ‘quantum information’. In fact an entire human can now, theoretically, be reduced to quantum information and teleported to another location in the universe:
Quantum Teleportation Of A Human? – video https://vimeo.com/75163272
Thus not only is Information not reducible to a 3-Dimensional energy-matter basis, as is presupposed in Darwinism, but in actuality energy and matter both reduce to a information basis as is presupposed in Christian Theism: Verse and Music:
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. Redeemed – Big Daddy Weave http://myktis.com/songs/redeemed/
bornagain77_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PST}

Moreover, for the vast majority of times that changes do happen to DNA, they are now known to be ‘directed changes’ by sophisticated molecular machines, not unguided ‘random changes’ from a cosmic ray, chemical imbalance, or some such entropy driven event as that:
How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. – 2013 Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611 Shapiro on Random Mutation: “What I ask others interested in evolution to give up is the notion of random accidental mutation.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/jerry-coyne-fails-to-unde_b_1411144.html
What should be needless to say, having ‘cell-mediated processes’ direct changes to DNA is in direct contradiction to the ‘unguided randomness’ which is held to be foundational to neo-Darwinian thought. Moreover, Natural Selection, that other great pillar upon which Darwinian evolution rests, has also been undermined as having the causal adequacy that neo-Darwinists have attributed to it. First off, to the extent that Natural Selection does do anything, Natural Selection is found to be a eliminative force not a generative force:
"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing…. Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets." The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics, 2001 (pp. 199-200) William Provine - Professor of Evolutionary Biology - Cornell University "...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..." Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED - Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036840 Natural Selection Reduces Genetic Information - No Beneficial Mutations - Spetner - Denton - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036816 "A Dutch zoologist, J.J. Duyvene de Wit, clearly demonstrated that the process of speciation (such as the appearance of many varieties of dogs and cats) is inevitably bound up with genetic depletion as a result of natural selection. When this scientifically established fact is applied to the question of whether man could have evolved from ape-like animals,'.. the transformist concept of progressive evolution is pierced in its very vitals.' The reason for this, J.J. Duyvene de Wit went on to explain, is that the whole process of evolution from animal to man " ' . . would have to run against the gradient of genetic depletion. That is to say, . . man )should possess] a smaller gene-potential than his animal ancestors! [I] Here, the impressive absurdity becomes clear in which the transformist doctrine [the theory of evolution] entangles itself when, in flat contradiction to the factual scientific evidence, it dogmatically asserts that man has evolved from the animal kingdom!" —Op. cit., pp. 129-130. [Italics his; quotations from *J.J. Duyvene de Wit, A New Critique of the Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology (1965), p. 56,57.] http://www.godrules.net/evolutioncruncher/2evlch15.htm "We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.-
As well, Natural Selection is grossly inadequate to do the work required of it because of what is termed ‘the princess and the pea’ paradox. The devastating ‘princess and the pea’ paradox is clearly elucidated by Dr. John Sanford, at the 8:14 minute mark, of this following video,,,
Genetic Entropy – Dr. John Sanford – Evolution vs. Reality – video http://vimeo.com/35088933
Dr. Sanford points out, in the preceding video, that Natural Selection acts at the coarse level of the entire organism (phenotype) and yet the vast majority of mutations have effects that are only ‘slightly detrimental’, and have no noticeable effect on phenotypes, and are thus far below the power of Natural Selection to remove from genomes before they spread throughout the population.
“Selection Threshold Severely Constrains Capture of Beneficial Mutations” - John Sanford - September 6, 2013 Excerpt of concluding comments: Our findings raise a very interesting theoretical problem — in a large genome, how do the millions of low-impact (yet functional) nucleotides arise? It is universally agreed that selection works very well for high-impact mutations. However, unless some new and as yet undiscovered process is operating in nature, there should be selection breakdown for the great majority of mutations that have small impact on fitness.,,, We show that selection breakdown is not just a simple function of population size, but is seriously impacted by other factors, especially selection interference. We are convinced that our formulation and methodology (i.e., genetic accounting) provide the most biologically-realistic analysis of selection breakdown to date. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0011
Here are a few more notes on this insurmountable ‘princess and the pea’ problem for natural selection:
Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy (Kimura’s Distribution)– Andy McIntosh – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086/ The GS Principle (The Genetic Selection Principle) – Abel – 2009 Excerpt: The GS Principle, sometimes called “The 2nd Law of Biology,” states that selection must occur at the molecular/genetic level, not just at the fittest phenotypic/organismic level, to produce and explain life.,,, Natural selection cannot operate at the genetic level. http://www.bioscience.org/2009/v14/af/3426/fulltext.htm
bornagain77_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PST}

AVS, do you not what is wrong with Darwinian evolution? It is not even a scientific theory in the first place! What the vast majority of Darwinists fail to realize (or ever honestly admit to) is that Darwinian evolution is not even a 'real' physical science in any proper sense but that Darwinian evolution is more realistically thought of as a pseudo-science. Even Jerry Coyne himself, the self-appointed Grand Inquisitor of Darwinian evolution, admits that Darwinian evolution lacks the rigor of a proper physical science:
“In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history’s inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike “harder” scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.” - Jerry A. Coyne – Of Vice and Men, The New Republic April 3, 2000 p.27 - professor of Darwinian evolution at the University of Chicago
The main reason why Darwinian evolution is more properly thought of as a pseudo-science instead of a proper science is because Darwinian evolution has no rigid mathematical basis, like other overarching physical theories of science do. A rigid mathematical basis in order to potentially falsify it (in fact math, in so far as math can be applied to Darwinian claims, constantly shows us the Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely),,
“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003) Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: “Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859.”… http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/05/oxford-university-seeks-mathemagician/ Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013 Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4 HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY – WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htm Darwin's Doubt - Chapter 12 - Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math - Dr. Paul Giem - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFY7oKc34qs&list=SPHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8t&index=7 also see Mendel's Accountant and Haldane's Ratchet: John Sanford
Another primary reason why Darwinian evolution is more realistically thought of as a pseudo-science rather than a proper physical science is that Darwinian evolution does not have a demonstrated empirical basis to support its claims (in fact empirical evidence also consistently shows us that Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely),,
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Where’s the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’ (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. http://www.discovery.org/a/9461 Don’t Mess With ID (Overview of Behe’s ‘Edge of Evolution’ and Durrett and Schmidt’s paper at the 20:00 minute mark) – Paul Giem – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JeYJ29-I7o
Another reason why Darwinian evolution is more realistically thought of as a pseudo-science rather than a proper physical science is that the two foundational pillars of Darwinian evolution, Random Mutation/Variation and Natural Selection, are both now shown to be severely compromised as to having the causal adequacy that Darwinists have presupposed for them. For instance, although Darwinian evolution appeals to unguided ‘random mutations/variations’ to DNA as the main creative source for all evolutionary novelty, there are now known to be extensive layers of error correction in the cell to protect against any unguided “random” changes happening to DNA in the first place:
The Evolutionary Dynamics of Digital and Nucleotide Codes: A Mutation Protection Perspective – February 2011 Excerpt: “Unbounded random change of nucleotide codes through the accumulation of irreparable, advantageous, code-expanding, inheritable mutations at the level of individual nucleotides, as proposed by evolutionary theory, requires the mutation protection at the level of the individual nucleotides and at the higher levels of the code to be switched off or at least to dysfunction. Dysfunctioning mutation protection, however, is the origin of cancer and hereditary diseases, which reduce the capacity to live and to reproduce. Our mutation protection perspective of the evolutionary dynamics of digital and nucleotide codes thus reveals the presence of a paradox in evolutionary theory between the necessity and the disadvantage of dysfunctioning mutation protection. This mutation protection paradox, which is closely related with the paradox between evolvability and mutational robustness, needs further investigation.” http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2011/04/26/dna_repair_mechanisms_reveal_a_contradic
bornagain77_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PST}

BA I was comparing the mitochondria and chloroplast to bacteria. You are comparing eukaryotes to prokaryotes. Obviously there are going to be differences in both situations, and they are not ignored. Either you have a severe case of ADD or you are just completely incapable of holding a conversation about a specific topic. All you do is copy and paste the same bullshit into your posts because they use some of the same words in the conversation. You have no idea what you are talking about and it shows. Your are the epitome of what is wrong with the intelligent design movement; misinformation and misunderstanding. Good day.AVS_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PST}

Funny how only similarities ever matter to the Darwinist and that stark differences don't ever count? You would think if they were truly being objective in their analysis then they might exercise a bit more skepticism to the power of unguided processes. Especially when Darwinists have ZERO empirical evidence that unguided processes can generate EVEN ONE molecular machine? Even the Cell's (RNA) Shredder Looks Designed - February 14, 2013 Excerpt: "Although the chemistry of the shredding reaction in eukaryotes is very different from that used in bacteria and archaebacteria, the channeling mechanism of the exosome is conserved, and conceptually similar to the channeling mechanism used by the proteasome, a complex for shredding proteins," says Elena Conti.,,, With this description in mind, several problems become apparent for evolutionary explanations of these machines. First of all, they are already present in bacteria and archaebacteria, presumably the simplest living things. Moreover, the bacterial exosome is chemically different but structurally similar. This means the design is "conserved" but not the ancestry. Then there is another chemically different but structurally similar machine in eukaryotes: the proteasome. These machines all appear to be irreducibly complex. They are composed of multiple parts, each essential for function. They are also essential for life: the article says that "unwanted accumulation of RNAs can be damaging to the cell" and that these complex machines have multiple functions. In addition to shredding excess RNAs, the exosome "processes certain RNA molecules into their mature form." Since all living things rely on DNA translation via RNA molecules (messenger RNAs and transfer RNAs), it is difficult to imagine any putative ancestor getting by without functional exosomes from the very beginning. Maybe that's why the article did not even mention evolution. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/even_the_cells_1068921.htmlbornagain77_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PST}

Here's some of the evidence for the endosymbiotic theory: The fact that mitochondrial DNA is not only circular as is bacterial DNA, but it is also very similar to that of some specific bacteria still in existence today. The presence of beta-barrel porins almost exclusively in bacterial, mitochondria, and chloroplast membranes. The fact that the organelle membranes are double membranes, supporting the idea that bacteria were enveloped by the original organism and taken into the cell. the fact that bacteria and the organelles reproduce by the same mechanism, which is completely different from that of the eukaryotic cell itself. The organelle's distinct ribosomes are much more similar to those of bacteria, than those of today's eukaryotes.AVS_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PST}

i.e. There is no actual empirical demonstration that Darwinian processes can accomplish anything that Darwinists ascribe to them, but they know all life happened by unguided processes because they prefer it that way! of related note to the fact that Darwinists have ZERO empirical evidence of Darwinian processes EVER producing a molecular machine, here are several examples that intelligence can do as such: (Man-Made) DNA nanorobot – video https://vimeo.com/36880067 Making Structures with DNA "Building Blocks" - Wyss institute - video https://vimeo.com/68254051 Also of note, Dr. James Tour, who, in my honest opinion, currently builds the most sophisticated man-made molecular machines in the world,,, Science & Faith — Dr. James Tour – video (At the two minute mark of the following video, you can see a nano-car that was built by Dr. James Tour’s team) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR4QhNFTtyw ,,will buy lunch for anyone who can explain to him exactly how Darwinian evolution works: “I build molecules for a living, I can’t begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." James Tour – one of the leading nano-tech engineers in the world - Strobel, Lee (2000), The Case For Faith, p. 111 Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows That Evolution Doesn’t Work – James Tour, Phd. – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB7t2_Ph-ckbornagain77_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PST}

When you either type your own comments in your own words or start using reliable sources, is when I will respond to you BA. The endosymbiotic theory is well supported and accepted. Yes it doesn't explain everything and there are some holes in it, but that is because we are missing a lot of information. It is the best explanation for the beginning steps of the evolution of eukaryotes.AVS_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PST}

Bacteria Too Complex To Be Primitive Eukaryote Ancestors - July 2010 Excerpt: “Bacteria have long been considered simple relatives of eukaryotes,” wrote Alan Wolfe for his colleagues at Loyola. “Obviously, this misperception must be modified.... There is a whole process going on that we have been blind to.”,,, For one thing, Forterre and Gribaldo revealed serious shortcomings with the popular “endosymbiosis” model – the idea that a prokaryote engulfed an archaea and gave rise to a symbiotic relationship that produced a eukaryote. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201007.htm#20100712b Bacterial Protein Acetylation: The Dawning of a New Age - July 2012 Excerpt: Bacteria have long been considered simple relatives of eukaryotes. Obviously, this misperception must be modified. From the presence of a cytoskeleton to the packaging of DNA to the existence of multiple post-translational modifications, bacteria clearly implement highly sophisticated mechanisms to regulate diverse cellular processes precisely. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/07/bacterial-protein-acetylation-dawning.html On the Origin of Mitochondria: Reasons for Skepticism on the Endosymbiotic Story Jonathan M. - January 10, 2012 Excerpt: While we find examples of similarity between eukaryotic mitochondria and bacterial cells, other cases also reveal stark differences. In addition, the sheer lack of a mechanistic basis for mitochondrial endosymbiotic assimilation ought to -- at the very least -- give us reason for caution and the expectation of some fairly spectacular evidence for the claim being made. At present, however, such evidence does not exist -- and justifiably gives one cause for skepticism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/on_the_origin_o054891.html Mitochondria - Molecular Machine - Powerhouse Of The Cell - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5510941/bornagain77_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PST}

Check out the endosymbiotic theory Joe. If you knew anything about evolution, you'd already have heard of it. This is why arguments here on UD are futile. You guys have no idea what you are talking about. But they are fun. =)AVS_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PST}

With regard to the origin of the complex molecules that make up living organisms, some evolutionists believe the following: 1. Key elements somehow combined to form basic molecules. 2. Those molecules then linked together in the exact sequences required to form DNA, RNA, or protein with the capacity to store the information needed to carry out tasks essential to life. 3. The molecules somehow formed the specific sequences required to replicate themselves. Without replication, there can be neither evolutionary development nor, indeed, life itself. How did the molecules of life form and acquire their amazing abilities without an intelligent designer? Evolutionary research fails to provide adequate explanations or satisfying answers to questions about the origin of life. In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces. What, though, do the facts indicate? The available evidence shows that instead of molecules developing into complex life-forms, the opposite is true: Physical laws dictate that complex things—machines, houses, and even living cells—in time break down. Yet, evolutionists say the opposite can happen. For example, the book Evolution for Dummies says that evolution occurred because the earth “gets loads of energy from the sun, and that energy is what powers the increase in complexity.” To be sure, energy is needed to turn disorder into order—for example, to assemble bricks, wood, and nails into a house. That energy, however, has to be carefully controlled and precisely directed because uncontrolled energy is more likely to speed up decay, just as the energy from the sun and the weather can hasten the deterioration of a building. Those who believe in evolution cannot satisfactorily explain how energy is creatively directed. ["Which Approach is More Reasonable?", Awake!, November 2011]Barb_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PST}

AVS:
Care to tell me about some of these problems with evolutionary theory?
It can't be tested. Natural selection has never been observed to be the designer mimic it was claimed to be. Genetic drift is not a designer mimic and neither is neutral evolution. For example please give us a way to model the claim that unguided evolution produced eukaryotes from populations of prokaryotes.Joe_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PST}

Care to tell me about some of these problems with evolutionary theory?AVS_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PST}

This is why creationists are more qualified to talk about the problems with the evolution theory! Unlike evolutionists, we know ALL sides of the issue and are not blindly indoctrinated nor are we "protected" from competing theories. :-DBlue_Savannah_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PST}

It shows that a passionate opponent of evolution is as likely to lead kids to accurate understanding of the subvject as a passionate proponent. its about passion. Therefore the inclusion of the passion of origin contentions into the whole school system could only help and raise interest in these types of subjects or in what is called science. tHe present censorship of creationism and any criticism is a iron blanket on kids enthusiasm about the prestige and accomplishment of figuring things out about nature and the universe and man.Robert Byers_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PST}

I have to repeat my comment from "Live stream of the Nelson–Velasco debate – NOW" From now on, anyone who doesn’t understand evolutionary theory needs only to ask the biology graduates of Brian College, or perhaps Todd Wood. I’m sure they will straighten him/her out. :DPaul Giem_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PST}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply