Alleged sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein pledged $30 million for Harvard evolution program

OT:

New Science Uprising Episode: Mutations: X-Men Flub Evolution (Science Uprising 06) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ivgQFIST1g Are chance mutations really “the key to our evolution” like they claim in the X-Men films? Or are there strict limits to what mutations can accomplish, limits that point to the need for an overarching designer and the failure of Darwinian evolution to create fundamentally new things?

bornagain77

As to:

Our current research topics include: evolution of cooperation, cancer, viruses, evolutionary game/graph/set theory, prelife, protocells, eusociality, evolution of construction, population structure, evolution of language, experimental games, and evolutionary economics. Our ambitious goals include curing the world of cancer, infectious disease, selfishness, and inclusive fitness theory.

,,, "evolution of cooperation" HA! Yes that would be a bit of an enigma for a theory based on survival of the fittest and selfish genes. In fact altruistic and/or cooperative behavior of any sort is an outright falsification of Darwin's theory:

(May 2019) the amorality inherent within atheistic materialism (i.e. blind pitiless indifference, Dawkins), and indeed the ‘anti-morality’ inherent within Darwin’s theory itself when one couples the amorality inherent within atheistic materialism with Darwin’s mechanism of ‘survival of the fittest’, (i.e. red in tooth and claw, Dawkins), does falsify the validity of Darwin’s theory. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/david-klinghoffer-racism-is-integral-to-darwinian-thinking-like-an-irremediable-birth-defect/#comment-677416

as to, "cancer". Shoot, besides Darwinian just so stories being completely useless for medical research,,

Darwinian Medicine and Proximate and Evolutionary Explanations – Michael Egnor – neurosurgeon – June 2011 Excerpt: 4) Evolutionary explanations by themselves are worthless to medicine. All medical treatments are based on detailed proximate explanations. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/darwinian_medicine_and_proxima047701.html

In fact, besides being useless to medicine, Darwinian evolution, to the extent it has influenced medical diagnostics and research, has been harmful to medicine (i.e. malpractice) - December 2016 https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/evolution/what-exactly-does-evolutionary-medicine-do-that-requires-this-expensive-outlay/#comment-622443 ,,, besides Darwinian just so stories being completely useless , even harmful, to medical research,, a Darwinist once claimed that cancer was actually proof that evolution could, of all things, innovate and create

Jonathan Wells Dismantles Joshua Swamidass’s Argument for Evolution from Cancer https://evolutionnews.org/2017/09/jonathan-wells-dismantles-joshua-swamidasss-proof-for-evolution-from-cancer/

as to "prelife, protocells",, see Dr. Tour's recent devastating critique of current 'evolutionary' Origin of life research:

"We have no idea how to put this structure (a simple cell) together.,, So, not only do we not know how to make the basic components, we do not know how to build the structure even if we were given the basic components. So the gedanken (thought) experiment is this. Even if I gave you all the components. Even if I gave you all the amino acids. All the protein structures from those amino acids that you wanted. All the lipids in the purity that you wanted. The DNA. The RNA. Even in the sequence you wanted. I've even given you the code. And all the nucleic acids. So now I say, "Can you now assemble a cell, not in a prebiotic cesspool but in your nice laboratory?". And the answer is a resounding NO! And if anybody claims otherwise they do not know this area (of research).” - James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained - 4:20 minute mark https://youtu.be/r4sP1E1Jd_Y?t=255

As to "evolution of language". That is the most laughable area of research of all for a Darwinist to donate money to. Much like the origin of information in life, Darwinists have ZERO hope of ever explaining the origin of language in humans. In fact, the unique ability of man to be able to utilize language, and more specifically, the unique ability of man to be able to infuse information into material substrates, is a VERY powerful proof that man was indeed 'made in the image' of God:

Although the purported evidence for human evolution is far weaker and illusory than most people realize, it is interesting to note that leading Darwinists themselves admit that they have no clue how evolution could have produced the particular trait of language in humans.,,, It is hard to imagine a more convincing scientific proof that we are made ‘in the image of God’ ,,, than finding both the universe, and life itself, are both ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and, moreover, have come to ‘master the planet’ precisely because of our unique ability infuse information into material substrates. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/comparing-human-and-chimp-dna-using-a-software-analogy/#comment-654635

Each and every other area of research listed by News, that Epstein donated to, is also a completely hopeless area of research for a Darwinist to take up. Which is not surprising. Darwinian evolution simply is not a science by any reasonable measure one may wish to invoke but is much more realistically, at least how Darwinists treat their theory, classified as a unfalsifiable pseudoscientific religion for atheists.

‘What in blue blazes does biology have to do with Darwinian evolution in the first place?” https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/j-p-moreland-on-when-it-is-right-to-reject-science/#comment-679195

bornagain77

Aaron - apparently Nowak & Epstein were friends: Nowak has said in interviews that he has visited Epstein's island lair (that's not the phrase he used!), where they talked physics. I haven't seen any allegations that are more salacious about them, so I think it's worth keeping an open mind about this (I can see Nowak being slightly naïve, especially if he wasn't invited to those sorts of parties, but I would also agree that a lot of scepticism is warrented). I hope more information will come out soon. Bob O'H

One niggle: There seems to be something wrong with the second paragraph of the description. Much as the Program’s participants might hate inclusive fitness theory, they can’t really intend “curing the world” of it. More likely, some grammatical signposts are missing. They may, in reality, be well disposed toward inclusive fitness theory.

You've actually covered this issue on UD (search for "Nowak"). Nowak thinks that inclusive fitness theory is wrong, and group selection theory right. He managed to convince E.O. Wilson, but virtually nobody else, probably because we already knew they two are equivalent (oh yes, and his arguments didn't hold water). Bob O'H

Hey just keep in mind that as bad as this looks this guy might just be trying to look good with the academics of Harvard AaronS1978