Darwinists open fire on epigenetics

The Insurmountable Problem of 'Form" for Darwinian Explanations – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1138468566166075/?type=2&theater bornagain77

The reality Darwin’s boys inhabit does not include epigenetics. That settles it if all you want is Manhattans.

Can you explain why epigenetics is incompatible with evolution? AIUI, epigenetics concerns regulation of expression, which generally means phenotype and not inheritance. Many, perhaps most, epigenetic changes are under genetic, rather than environmental, control, so fall within conventional evolutionary theory. As far as epigenetic inheritance is concerned, where this passes hypothetical environmental information on, this is actually much closer to Darwin's view of the source of variation than the so-called Modern Synthesis. So there is no particular objection to it on either score (though there is little evidence that the latter actually happens). As far as I can see, the objections collated by Coyne are to an unproven mode of gene regulation, and not to evolutionary implications at all. Is there a possibility this is a knee-jerk reaction on your part? Coyne does not solely blog about evolution. Hangonasec

bornagain77: once again Once again you ignored a substantive response, preferring to shut down objections to your position. The question concerned General Relativity and Quantum Theory. As all physicists are aware, there's something wrong with gravitational theory. Zachriel

Mr. Arrington, once again I request that Zach be banned for trollish, dishonest, behavior. bornagain77

as to:

Basically, serious philosophers of science don’t now use falsification as a demarcation criterion.

Only because of the corrupting influence of Darwinian evolution on science would 'serious' philosophers say anything like that:

A Philosophical Question...Does Evolution have a Hard Core ? Some Concluding Food for Thought In my research on the demarcation problem, I have noticed philosophers of science attempting to balance (usually unconsciously) a consistent demarcation criteria against the the disruptive effects that it’s application might have with regard to the academic status quo (and evolution in particular)… Few philosophers of science will even touch such matters, but (perhaps unintentionally) Imre Lakatos does offer us a peek at how one might go about balancing these schizophrenic demands (in Motterlini1999: 24) “Let us call the first school militant positivism; you will understand why later on. The problem of this school was to find certain demarcation criteria similar to those I have outlined, but these also had to satisfy certain boundary conditions, as a mathematician would say. I am referring to a definite set of people to which most scientists as well as Popper and Carnap would belong. These people think that there are goodies and baddies among scientific theories, and once you have defined a demarcation criterion. you should divide all your theories between the two groups. You would end up. for example, with a goodies list including Copernicus’s (Theory1), Galileo’s (T2), Kepler’s (T3), Newton’s (T4) … and Einstein’s (T5), along with (but this is just my supposition) Darwin’s (T6). Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for.” So basically, the demarcation problem is a fun game philosophers enjoy playing, but when they realize the implications regarding the theory of evolution, they quickly back off… http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/hardcore_pg.htm

Lakatos, although he tipped toed around the failure of Darwinism to have a rigid demarcation criteria which can be tested against, he was brave enough to state that a good scientific theory will make successful predictions in science and a bad theory will generate ‘epicycle theories’ to cover up embarrassing failed predictions. Yet, by even that loose standard, i.e. 'predictive power', for demarcating a 'scientific' theory, even then Darwinian evolution fails big time to establish itself as being 'scientific':

Darwin's (failed) Predictions - Cornelius G. Hunter - 2015 This paper evaluates 23 fundamental (false) predictions of evolutionary theory from a wide range of different categories. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the nature of scientific predictions, and typical concerns evolutionists raise against investigating predictions of evolution. The paper next presents the individual predictions in seven categories: early evolution, evolutionary causes, molecular evolution, common descent, evolutionary phylogenies, evolutionary pathways, and behavior. Finally the conclusion summarizes these various predictions, their implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena, and how they bear on evolutionist’s claims about their theory. *Introduction Why investigate evolution’s false predictions? Responses to common objections *Early evolution predictions The DNA code is not unique The cell’s fundamental molecules are universal *Evolutionary causes predictions Mutations are not adaptive Embryology and common descent Competition is greatest between neighbors *Molecular evolution predictions Protein evolution Histone proteins cannot tolerate much change The molecular clock keeps evolutionary time *Common descent predictions The pentadactyl pattern and common descent Serological tests reveal evolutionary relationships Biology is not lineage specific Similar species share similar genes MicroRNA *Evolutionary phylogenies predictions Genomic features are not sporadically distributed Gene and host phylogenies are congruent Gene phylogenies are congruent The species should form an evolutionary tree *Evolutionary pathways predictions Complex structures evolved from simpler structures Structures do not evolve before there is a need for them Functionally unconstrained DNA is not conserved Nature does not make leaps *Behavior Altruism Cell death *Conclusions What false predictions tell us about evolution https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/home Why investigate evolution’s false predictions? Excerpt: The predictions examined in this paper were selected according to several criteria. They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of evolutionary thought. They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints. Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated. They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have implications for evolution’s (in)capacity to explain phenomena, as discussed in the conclusions. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions

Further note:

"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge http://izquotes.com/quote/147518 “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.” Karl Popper - Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1976) unsourced variant: “Evolution is not a fact. Evolution doesn't even qualify as a theory or as a hypothesis. It is a metaphysical research program, and it is not really testable science.” Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution By John Horgan on July 6, 2010 Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection "almost a tautology" and "not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program." Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin's theory dissatisfying. "One ought to look for alternatives!" Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/ “The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments. Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis. I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right.” - Dr Michael Behe

bornagain77

bornagain77: instead of honestly admitting that Darwinian evolution is a unfalsifiable pseudo-science that is impervious to experimental testing and shortcomings The question concerned General Relativity and Quantum Theory, which are not compatible, meaning one or both are wrong in some aspect or another. Zachriel

Though not directly addressing Godel’s incompleteness, none-the-less, Weinberg, an atheist who had a hand in formulating the ‘standard model’ in the 1960’s, basically agrees with Steve Fuller’s assessment that mathematical descriptions should be limited in their explanatory scope. He puts the situation like this:

“I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that. The fact that the constants of nature are suitable for life, which is clearly true, we observe,,,” (Weinberg then comments on the multiverse conjecture of atheists) “No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don’t even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. But it is a possibility.” Steven Weinberg – as stated to Richard Dawkins at the 8:15 minute mark of the following video Leonard Susskind – Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg – 1 in 10^120 Cosmological Constant points to intelligent design – video https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk?t=495

Even Hawking himself agreed that Godel’s incompleteness proves that there will never truly be a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’:

“Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel (ref. on cite), halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”. Thus, based on the position that an equation cannot prove itself, the constructs are based on assumptions some of which will be unprovable.” Cf., Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010) @ 15-6 https://books.google.com/books?id=7MzOBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA536#v=onepage&q&f=false

As to Weinberg’s question ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’, Bruce Gordon answers that question rather bluntly, but clearly, here:

BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,, Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,, For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/

And when the Agent causality of Theists is rightly let ‘back’ into the picture of physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, (instead of the self refuting ‘blind’ causality of atheists),

Agent Causality (of Theists) vs. Blind Causality (of Atheists) – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1118356054843993/?type=2&theater

,,when Agent causality, i.e. God, is rightly let back into the picture of physics, then a empirically backed unification between Quantum Theory and Relativity is readily achieved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from death:

The End Of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - Pg.31 William Dembski PhD. Mathematics Excerpt: "In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity." http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from Death as the “Theory of Everything” – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1143437869002478/?type=2&theater Special Relativity and General Relativity compared to Heavenly and Hellish Near Death Experiences – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1113745045305094/?type=2&theater (Entropic Concerns) The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead is the correct solution for the “Theory of Everything” – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/1121720701174195/?pnref=story

Verse and Music:

Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Hillsong- Lord of Lords https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlqDIfS4O3s

bornagain77

Zachriel, (whom should rightly be banned from UD for his repeated trollish behavior), instead of honestly admitting that Darwinian evolution is a unfalsifiable pseudo-science that is impervious to experimental testing and shortcomings, and is thus no better than tea-leaf reading,

Darwinian Evolution is a Unfalsifiable Pseudo-Science (i.e. no demarcation/falsification criteria)– Mathematics – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1132659110080354/?type=2&theater

The unbanned troll, instead of being honest to the situation with Darwinism, instead tries to focus on the 'timeless' singularities of blackholes where the equations that precisely describe what is happening within space-time break down. And to thus undermine two of the most successful theories ever in the history of science.,,, The unbanned troll stated:

"both theories breaking down, such as at a black hole singularity."

And why exactly should anyone, especially a atheistic troll, expect an equation that was specifically formulated to describe what is happening within space-time to describe what is happening outside space-time, i.e. within the 'timeless' singularity of a blackhole? It does not follow! Regardless of that 'expected' shortcoming of the math of General Relativity, none-the-less, the equations of General Relativity actually 'predicted' the existence of blackholes long before they were verified by experimental observation.

Black holes were first identified in Einstein's general relativity Excerpt: Two months after contracting a life threatening disease and being sent home to recuperate, Schwarzschild was finally able to concentrate on completing his calculations. Shortly before his death in 1916, Schwarzschild completed his work and it was published later the same year. Titled On the Field of Gravity of a Point Mass in the Theory of Einstein, it became one of the pillars of modern relativistic studies and in it Schwarzschild presented his solutions to Einstein's unfinished equations. Significantly, it provided support for a, then, seemingly implausible situation about the effects of severely compressed matter on gravity and energy. (i.e. Blackholes) http://www.cosmotography.com/images/supermassive_blackholes_drive_galaxy_evolution_2.html

Moreover, the fact that the equations of General Relativity (and quantum mechanics) breakdown at blackholes is actually an argument for Theism:

Quantum Mechanics & Relativity – Michio Kaku - The Collapse Of Physics As We Know It ? - video http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x305gt8

The main conflict of reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics appears to arise from the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the Zero/Infinity conflict that crops up in different places of each theory:

THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today's physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. "The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common - and what they clash over - is zero.",, "The infinite zero of a black hole -- mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely -- punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.",, "Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge. http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit01_02/edit6_mar02.htm

Moreover, the extreme ‘mathematical difficulty' of reconciling General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, because of the zero/infinity conflict, into the much sought after 'Theory of Everything' was actually somewhat foreseeable from previous work earlier in the 20th century, in mathematics, by Godel. In fact, it was by studying the 'logic of infinity' itself that Godel was able to finally derive the proof for his 'incompleteness' of mathematics theorem.

Cantor, Gödel, & Turing: Incompleteness of Mathematics – video (excerpted from BBC’s ‘Dangerous Knowledge’ documentary) https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1119397401406525/?type=2&theater THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010 Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/08/the-god-of-the-mathematicians

In fact, the belief that there should be a unification between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, or a 'theory of everything', does not follow from the math in the first place, but is instead a belief that is born purely out of Theistic presuppositions. Steve William Fuller, who is a philosopher in the field of science and technology studies, puts the hidden, but blatant, Theistic presupposition that scientists, who are trying to find a ‘theory of everything’, have like this:

“So you think of physics in search of a “Grand Unified Theory of Everything”, Why should we even think there is such a thing? Why should we think there is some ultimate level of resolution? Right? It is part, it is a consequence of believing in some kind of design. Right? And there is some sense in which that however multifarious and diverse the phenomena of nature are, they are ultimately unified by the minimal set of laws and principles possible. In so far as science continues to operate with that assumption, there is a presupposition of design that is motivating the scientific process. Because it would be perfectly easy,, to stop the pursuit of science at much lower levels. You know understand a certain range of phenomena in a way that is appropriate to deal with that phenomena and just stop there and not go any deeper or any farther.”,,, You see, there is a sense in which there is design at the ultimate level, the ultimate teleology you might say, which provides the ultimate closure,,” Steve Fuller – Professor of philosophy Steve Fuller discusses intelligent design in Cambridge – Video – quoted at the 17:34 minute mark https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/news/in-cambridge-professor-steve-fuller-discusses-why-the-hypothesis-of-intelligent-design-is-not-more-popular-among-scientists-and-others/

And indeed professor Steve Fuller is completely correct to say,,,,

“it would be perfectly easy,, to stop the pursuit of science at much lower levels. You know understand a certain range of phenomena in a way that is appropriate to deal with that phenomena and just stop there and not go any deeper or any farther.”

The reason professor Steve Fuller is completely correct to say what he said is because there are an infinite number of true mathematical theorems that exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.

The Limits Of Reason – Gregory Chaitin – 2006 Excerpt: Unlike Gödel’s approach, mine is based on measuring information and showing that some mathematical facts cannot be compressed into a theory because they are too complicated. This new approach suggests that what Gödel discovered was just the tip of the iceberg: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms. http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/sciamer3.pdf

bornagain77

To claim that Darwinian evolution is in a ‘better position’ than physics reveals either a profound ignorance of physics, and of science in general, or a ‘person’ that is willing to tell any lie in order to try to protect his own dogmatic belief in Darwinian evolution.

My comment was slightly tongue in cheek - I was making the serious point that falsification doesn't work on historical grounds (it doesn't work on philosophical grounds either, BTW). As a matter of history, there have been a lot of falsifications of physics that are currently accepted. Basically, serious philosophers of science don't now use falsification as a demarcation criterion. Bob O'H

bornagain77: Physicists have thrown every test they can imagine at General Relativity, Quantum Electrodynamics, and Quantum Theory with each theory becoming confirmed to more and more levels of accuracy. Well, except for the fact that General Relativity and Quantum Theory are incompatible, both theories breaking down, such as at a black hole singularity. Zachriel

On the other hand, (besides have no rigid mathematical basis), Darwinists blatantly ignore empirical results that falsify Darwinian claims (as well as blatantly ignoring the math that falsifies Darwinian claims):

Michael Behe - Observed Limits of Evolution - video - Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines 25:56 minute quote - "This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not." 27:50 minute mark: no known, or unknown, evolutionary process helped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory - 2008 Abstract: Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent “fatal flaws” which are well known to population geneticists, but which have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades—based upon logic and mathematical formulations. However population geneticists have generally been very reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to surround each issue. Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. The program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel) was developed for this purpose, and it is the first biologically-realistic forward-time population genetics numerical simulation program. This new program is a powerful research and teaching tool. When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person. http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Using-Numerical-Simulation-to-Test-the-Validity-of-Neo-Darwinian-Theory.pdf The waiting time problem in a model hominin population - 2015 Sep 17 John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,, Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information. While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man. It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/ Genetic Entropy – references to several numerical simulations analyzing the feasibility of natural selection and random mutations and finding them severely wanting ,,, (via John Sanford and company) http://www.geneticentropy.org/#!properties/ctzx

bornagain77

To claim that Darwinian evolution is in a 'better position' than physics reveals either a profound ignorance of physics, and of science in general, or a 'person' that is willing to tell any lie in order to try to protect his own dogmatic belief in Darwinian evolution. My bet is on the latter. Physicists have thrown every test they can imagine at General Relativity, Quantum Electrodynamics, and Quantum Theory with each theory becoming confirmed to more and more levels of accuracy. (to within measurement accuracy)

“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 "When this paper was published (referring to the circa 1970 Hawking, Penrose paper) we could only prove General Relativity's reliability to 1% precision, today we can prove it to 15 places of decimal." Hugh Ross PhD. Astrophysics - quote taken from 8:40 mark of the following link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF1xSErF_f4 Einstein Is Right About General Relativity — Again - by Jesse Emspak - October 27, 2015 Excerpt: Time after time, experiments have proved that Einstein's theory of general relativity, which describes the way gravity behaves, especially when dealing with high speeds and large masses. In the new study, physicists looked at gobs of data on planetary orbits to look for tiny anomalies that couldn't be explained by either Isaac Newton's theory of gravity — in which gravity is a force between objects that depends on their masses — or Einstein's general relativity theory, which says gravity is a warping of space-time itself. And Einstein's theory holds up, once again.,,, To quantify the difference between the current predictions of general relativity and the actual observations, physicists use numbers called Standard Model Extension coefficients, or SMEs, which should be zero if relativity and Newton's laws account for all of each planet's motions. The SMEs weren't necessarily zero, though they were really small, with ranges from 10^-9 (one in a billion) to 10^-12 (one in a trillion), which means they agree with Einstein's laws to at least one part in 10,000 to one part in 100,000. http://www.livescience.com/52600-einstein-is-right-about-general-relativity.html Clumped galaxies give General Relativity its toughest test yet – June 24, 2014 Excerpt: Nearly 100 years since Albert Einstein developed General Relativity, the theory has passed its toughest test yet in explaining the properties of observable Universe. The most precise measurements to date of the strength of gravitational interactions between distant galaxies show perfect consistency with General Relativity’s predictions. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140624215938.htm The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science - May 5, 2011 Excerpt: So, which of the two (general relativity or QED) is The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science? It’s a little tough to quantify a title like that, but I think relativity can claim to have tested the smallest effects. Things like the aluminum ion clock experiments showing shifts in the rate of a clock set moving at a few m/s, or raised by a foot, measure relativistic shifts of a few parts in 10^16. That is, if one clock ticks 10,000,000,000,000,000 times, the other ticks 9,999,999,999,999,999 times. That’s an impressively tiny effect, but the measured value is in good agreement with the predictions of relativity. In the end, though, I have to give the nod to QED, because while the absolute effects in relativity may be smaller, the precision of the measurements in QED is more impressive. Experimental tests of relativity measure tiny shifts, but to only a few decimal places. Experimental tests of QED measure small shifts, but to an absurd number of decimal places. The most impressive of these is the “anomalous magnetic moment of the electron,” expressed is terms of a number g whose best measured value is: g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 73 (28) Depending on how you want to count it, that’s either 11 or 14 digits of precision (the value you would expect without QED is exactly 1, so in some sense, the shift really starts with the first non-zero decimal place), which is just incredible. And QED correctly predicts all those decimal places (at least to within the measurement uncertainty, given by the two digits in parentheses at the end of that). http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2011/05/05/the-most-precisely-tested-theo/ Introduction to The Strange World of Quantum Mechanics Excerpt: quantum mechanics is the most successful theory that humanity has ever developed; the brightest jewel in our intellectual crown. Quantum mechanics underlies our understanding of atoms, molecules, solids, and nuclei. It is vital for explaining aspects of stellar evolution, chemical reactions, and the interaction of light with matter. It underlies the operation of lasers, transistors, magnets, and superconductors. I could cite reams of evidence backing up these assertions, but I will content myself by describing a single measurement. One electron will be stripped away from a helium atom that is exposed to ultraviolet light below a certain wavelength. This threshold wavelength can be determined experimentally to very high accuracy: it is 50.425 929 9 ± 0.000 000 4 nanometers. The threshold wavelength can also be calculated from quantum mechanics: this prediction is 50.425 931 0 ± 0.000 002 0 nanometers. The agreement between observation and quantum mechanics is extraordinary. If you were to predict the distance from New York to Los Angeles with this accuracy, your prediction would be correct to within the width of your hand. In contrast, classical mechanics predicts that any wavelength of light will strip away an electron, that is, that there will be no threshold at all. http://www.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/StrangeQM/intro.html

etc.. etc.. etc.. bornagain77

I said THE primary problem with Darwinian evolution is that it is a unfalsifiable pseudo-science.

Ah, OK. At least we're in a better position than physics, who cling to theories that were falsified shortly after they were proposed (in at last one case - kinetic theory - in the work that proposes it). Bob O'H

Arthur Hunt: Epigenetics is but a source of variability. LoL! Mung

Well then you are talking something else than evolution theory and creation theory. Some structuralist theory that the forms of organisms are inherent to the main structure of mathematics??? The DNA world is the command level, the DNA world is not the same thing as the DNA. The computercode for the 3D game is not the same as the 3D game. There is no obvious need for a command level on top of that, although there might be. DNA can communicate, it sends out a radio signal, there is evidence of this. That is the control and overview. All sorts of things can be explained with DNA worlds theory, like some genetically based fear of snakes or spiders. A representation of a spider or a snake in the DNA world is more or less easily explained. mohammadnursyamsu

If you say it is impossible to make a representation of the brain in the DNA world, then aren’t you equally saying it is impossible for DNA to make a physical brain?

Yes. Besides the 3D information it also lacks overview and control for such a task.

Command would be from the DNA worlds obviously. So it means the DNA in each cell is equally the center of command.

Without a command level above the level of DNA in individual cells, embryo development makes sense to you? Origenes

If you say it is impossible to make a representation of the brain in the DNA world, then aren't you equally saying it is impossible for DNA to make a physical brain? The DNA world theory is mostly a theory about how the DNA is organized. Evolution theory predicts a jumbled mess of instructions littered with junk DNA. DNA world theory predicts DNA to be ordered according to the requirements of the DNA world. According to evolution theory the boeing 747 is produced with stacks of post it notes , without any overall blueprint of the boeing 747, without a 3D model. Command would be from the DNA worlds obviously. So it means the DNA in each cell is equally the center of command. mohammadnursyamsu

mohammadnursyamsu: It’s inconceivable to me that development of an organism to adulthood, can occur without a representation of the finished product of the adult organism in the DNA, to guide the development. There must be a 3D DNA world.

1. DNA can contain a lot of information, but is it conceivable that DNA contains, besides everything else, a 3D representation of the brain which includes some 100 trillion nerve connections? 2. How does a representation of the adult organism in DNA help, during embryonic development, if central overview and central command is lacking? Origenes

I did not say the problem was with Darwinists learning new stuff. I said THE primary problem with Darwinian evolution is that it is a unfalsifiable pseudo-science. Darwinian Evolution is a Unfalsifiable Pseudo-Science (i.e. no demarcation/falsification criteria)– Mathematics – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1132659110080354/?type=2&theater bornagain77

It's inconceivable to me that development of an organism to adulthood, can occur without a representation of the finished product of the adult organism in the DNA, to guide the development. There must be a 3D DNA world. Epi-genetics is just 1 more pointer to the reality of this DNA world, among the many. The existence of human imagination shows that it is possible for such worlds to exist in nature. Isn't our human imagination based of a DNA world? Other pointers than just common sense include, - that evidence of the guy who invented the hiv medicine indicating that DNA has a radio receive send function - Rowlands and Hill showing that the mathematical ordering in biology is the same as that of physics - feeling a phantom leg, after the leg has been removed by surgery. - the way tissue regenerates without close contact with DNA mohammadnursyamsu

No, ba77. We never have any problem with learning about the real world. Biology is about explaining the real world, and we are learning new things about it all the time. Because of that we have to update our explanations of the real world. We do science. It advances, so must we. we have already discarded many of Darwin's presuppositions (e.g. theories of inheritance). Bob O'H

'we don’t have a problem with epigenetics' And that is exactly THE primary problem with Darwinian evolution. You guys NEVER have any problem with any finding that runs contrary to basic Darwinian presuppositions no matter how contrary the finding might run to basic Darwinian presuppositions.

"Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought." ~ Cornelius Hunter “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.” Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge Darwinian Evolution is a Unfalsifiable Pseudo-Science – Mathematics – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1132659110080354/?type=2&theater

bornagain77

News @ 8 - really? Are you an expert on epigenetics, and thus able to understand whether the writer was representing the field fairly? Honestly - we don't have a problem with epigenetics. I'm part of a Special Programme in Germany researching rapid adaptation, and some of the projects are looking at epigenetics. And nobody has complained about them. Bob O'H

Darwin's theory in a nutshell: 1. All life shares a common ancestry. 2. The various forms of life arose via descent with modification, by natural selection acting on heritable variation. Epigenetics is but a source of variability. To the extent that epigenetic effects are heritable, they are completely compatible with Darwin. Those effects that are not heritable are irrelevant when it comes to the matter of descent with modification. This is why informed people read inane screeds about the incompatibilities of epigenetics and Darwin and wonder about the author(s). As for the article in the New Yorker, I found it to be a good, entertaining read, and I appreciated the attempt to personalize the exciting research of the hilighted scientists. People who get bent out of shape because transcriptional and more canonical forms of posttranscriptional control are not mentioned are being silly, to be frank. Arthur Hunt

Yoo hoo to Bob O'H at 4: That guy would not have "stepped on a land mine" if your alternative reality coincided much with the real one. Nature would not have written about this. No one big would be listening to Jerry Coyne. This is all just Darwin's Boys' way of telling New Yorker that the extended synthesis is not Cool. So it comes down to a question of who decides what is Cool? Darwin's Boys or the New Yorker? Make mine double double. See also an explanation of why the sea is boiling hot. News

Also of related interest to epigenetics, and completely contrary to materialistic thought, 'mind' has been now been shown to be able to reach all the way down to the genetic level of out bodies and have pronounced, ‘epigenetic’ effects on the gene expression of our bodies:

Scientists Finally Show How Your Thoughts Can Cause Specific Molecular Changes To Your Genes, - December 10, 2013 Excerpt: “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,” says study author Richard J. Davidson, founder of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and the William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,” says Perla Kaliman, first author of the article and a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Research of Barcelona, Spain (IIBB-CSIC-IDIBAPS), where the molecular analyses were conducted.,,, the researchers say, there was no difference in the tested genes between the two groups of people at the start of the study. The observed effects were seen only in the meditators following mindfulness practice. In addition, several other DNA-modifying genes showed no differences between groups, suggesting that the mindfulness practice specifically affected certain regulatory pathways. http://www.tunedbody.com/scientists-finally-show-thoughts-can-cause-specific-molecular-changes-genes/

And contrary to the 'reality' that Darwinists live in. A 'reality' that is apparently 'OK with epigenetics', the fact of the matter is that epigenetics should soundly falsify neo-Darwinism as a 'scientific' theory;

Chuan He: Evolution Created Epigenetics - Cornelius Hunter - PhD in Biophysics - May 3, 2015 Excerpt: They never predicted it, then they denied it could be heritable, and then they denied it could cause lasting change. “It” in this case is epigenetics and in spite of being wrong, wrong and wrong again, and in spite of the fact that there is no scientific explanation for how epigenetics could have evolved, evolutionists nonetheless insist that it, in fact, must have evolved. Evolution loses every battle but claims to win the war. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2015/05/chuan-he-evolution-created-epigenetics.html

The reason why epigenetics does not falsify Neo-Darwinism as a scientific theory is because Neo-Darwinism was never a scientific theory in the first place but was, and is, merely a pseudo-science with no rigid falsification criteria. A rigid falsification criteria to allow Darwinian evolution to be tested. A falsification criteria as all other proper theories of science, including Intelligent Design, have.

"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge

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, in so far as math can be applied to Darwinian claims, mathematics constantly shows us that Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely),,

Darwinian Evolution is a Unfalsifiable Pseudo-Science - Mathematics – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1132659110080354/?type=2&theater

Of related interest to Karl Popper:

“Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.” Karl Popper - Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1976) unsourced variant: “Evolution is not a fact. Evolution doesn't even qualify as a theory or as a hypothesis. It is a metaphysical research program, and it is not really testable science.” Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution By John Horgan on July 6, 2010 Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection "almost a tautology" and "not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program." Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin's theory dissatisfying. "One ought to look for alternatives!" Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/

bornagain77

Or related interest to accurately perceiving 'reality', in the following study, researchers who had a bias against Near Death Experiences being real, set out to prove that they were merely hallucinations of the brain by setting up a clever questionnaire that could differentiate which memories a person had were real and which memories a person had were merely imaginary. They did not expect the results they got:

'Afterlife' feels 'even more real than real,' researcher says - Wed April 10, 2013 Excerpt: "If you use this questionnaire ... if the memory is real, it's richer, and if the memory is recent, it's richer," he said. The coma scientists weren't expecting what the tests revealed. "To our surprise, NDEs were much richer than any imagined event or any real event of these coma survivors," Laureys reported. The memories of these experiences beat all other memories, hands down, for their vivid sense of reality. "The difference was so vast," he said with a sense of astonishment. Even if the patient had the experience a long time ago, its memory was as rich "as though it was yesterday," Laureys said. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/health/belgium-near-death-experiences/ Memories of Near Death Experiences (NDEs): More Real Than Reality? - Mar. 27, 2013 Excerpt: University of Liège ,,,researchers,, have looked into the memories of NDE with the hypothesis that if the memories of NDE were pure products of the imagination, their phenomenological characteristics (e.g., sensorial, self referential, emotional, etc. details) should be closer to those of imagined memories. Conversely, if the NDE are experienced in a way similar to that of reality, their characteristics would be closer to the memories of real events. The researchers compared the responses provided by three groups of patients, each of which had survived (in a different manner) a coma, and a group of healthy volunteers. They studied the memories of NDE and the memories of real events and imagined events with the help of a questionnaire which evaluated the phenomenological characteristics of the memories. The results were surprising. From the perspective being studied, not only were the NDEs not similar to the memories of imagined events, but the phenomenological characteristics inherent to the memories of real events (e.g. memories of sensorial details) are even more numerous in the memories of NDE than in the memories of real events. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130327190359.htm

A few testimonies as to the 'more real than real' aspect of NDEs:

A Doctor's Near Death Experience Inspires a New Life - video Quote: "It's not like a dream. It's like the world we are living in is a dream and it's kind of like waking up from that." Dr. Magrisso http://www.nbcchicago.com/on-air/as-seen-on/A-Doctor--186331791.html Medical Miracles – Dr. Mary Neal’s Near Death Experience – video (More real than real 37:49 minute mark) https://youtu.be/WCNjmWP2JjU?t=2269 "More real than anything I've experienced since. When I came back of course I had 34 operations, and was in the hospital for 13 months. That was real but heaven is more real than that. The emotions and the feelings. The reality of being with people who had preceded me in death." - Don Piper - "90 Minutes in Heaven," 10 Years Later - video (2:54 minute mark) https://youtu.be/3LyZoNlKnMM?t=173 Dr. Eben Alexander Says It's Time for Brain Science to Graduate From Kindergarten - 10/24/2013 Excerpt: To take the approach of, "Oh it had to be a hallucination of the brain" is just crazy. The simplistic idea that NDEs (Near Death Experiences) are a trick of a dying brain is similar to taking a piece of cardboard out of a pizza delivery box, rolling it down a hill and then claiming that it's an identical event as rolling a beautiful Ferrari down a hill. They are not the same at all. The problem is the pure materialist scientists can be so closed-minded about it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ingrid-peschke/near-death-experiences_b_4151093.html

bornagain77

as to:

This must be a different reality to the one I live in.

This statement is humorous. First off, there is no 'reality' for Darwinists. Given Darwinian premises everything becomes illusory for the Darwinist. In fact, given materialistic premises, not only are our interpretations of reality held to be somewhat flawed, but even our perceptions of reality itself are shown to be untrustworthy and thus ‘illusory’ given materialistic premises.

Why Atheism is Nonsense Pt.5 - "Naturalism is a Self-defeating Idea"video Excerpt: "Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life." Richard Dawkins - quoted from "The God Delusion" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff-5rsrDRGM Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? - Video - 9:59 minute mark Quote: “fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes.,,, Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it is fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality. Others see just part of the reality. And some see none of the reality. Only fitness. Who wins? Well I hate to break it to you but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality, but are just tuned to fitness, drive to extinction that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those (accurate) perceptions of reality go extinct. Now this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?” https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY?t=601 Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself - Nancy Pearcey - March 8, 2015 Excerpt: Steven Pinker writes, "Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not." The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion -- and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value. So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality. The reason so few atheists and materialists seem to recognize the problem is that, like Darwin, they apply their skepticism selectively. They apply it to undercut only ideas they reject, especially ideas about God. They make a tacit exception for their own worldview commitments. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar094171.html Also see Plantinga's 'evolutionary argument against naturalism'

Moreover, as Nancy Pearcey alluded to in her article, given the materialistic premises of Darwinian evolution, not only are our perceptions of reality itself held to be illusory, but even our sense of self, i.e. the belief that we really exist as real persons, which is the most sure thing we can know about reality, becomes illusory too. In other words, given the materialistic premises of Darwinian evolution, there really is no such person named Richard Dawkins, or Jerry Coyne, or etc.. etc.., there is only an illusion of a brain who thinks, (if illusions could think), that it is a person named Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne or etc.. etc..

The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/darwinism/evolution-shows-our-perceptions-are-not-real/#comment-603820 Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? – video 37:51 minute mark Quote: "You can spout a philosophy that says scientific materialism, but there aren't any scientific materialists to pronounce it.,,, That's why I think they find it kind of embarrassing to talk that way. Nobody wants to stand up there and say, "You know, I'm not really here". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that: "consciousness is an illusion" A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion… what isn’t?”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s

Thus, it is quite humorous for a Darwinist to speak about the 'reality' that 'he' lives in for 'he' himself, given his Darwinian premises, becomes an illusion. Moreover, 'he' becomes an illusion whose perceptions of reality are illusory. And why in blue blazes should anyone trust what illusions having illusions say about reality? bornagain77

The reality Darwin’s boys inhabit does not include epigenetics.

This must be a different reality to the one I live in. Here evolutionary biologists live in a reality that is OK with epigenetics, and the criticisms of the article were mainly that it ignored several important epigenetic effects. Bob O'H

Darwin thugs warning Mukherjee that he “stepped on a land mine” means very little today. The house of cards known as Darwinism is being blown apart by modern science. It was easy to promote Darwinism when the cell was thought to be just a lump of jelly-like substance, but today we know better. Darwinism has been exposed as a pseudo science built on atheistic philosophical assumptions. It is a dying secular religion. Good riddance! Truth Will Set You Free

Soundburger at 1, in some circles, "starving hack" is a term of distinction. Someone with a solid story Mr. Big don't like. News

why belittle the writer by calling him a 'starving hack'? It appears that he is neither. soundburger