Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Evolution News: There Is No Settled “Theory of Evolution”

Categories
Evolution
Naturalism
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Cornelius Hunter writes:

Photo: Galápagos finch, by kuhnmi, via Flickr.

What is evolution? The origin of species by: natural selection, random causes, common descent, gradualism, etc. Right?

Wrong. Too often that is what is taught, but it is false. That’s according to evolutionists themselves. A typical example? See, “The study of evolution is fracturing — and that may be a good thing,” by Lund University biologist Erik Svensson, writing at The Conversation.

Evolutionists themselves can forfeit natural selection, random causes, common descent, etc. How do I know? Because it is in the literature. 

So, what is evolution? In other words, what is core to the theory — and not forfeitable? It’s naturalism. Period. That is the only thing required of evolutionary theory. And naturalism is a religious requirement, not a scientific one.

Aside from naturalism, practically anything is fair game: Uncanny convergence, rapid divergence, lineage-specific biology, evolution of evolution, directed mutations, saltationism, unlikely simultaneous mutations, just-so stories, multiverses … the list goes on.

But this is where it gets interesting. Because if you have two theories, you don’t have one theory. In other words, you have a multitude of contradictory theories. And you have heated debates because nothing seems to fit the data. In science, that is not a good sign. But it is exactly what evolutionists have had — for over a century now.

There is no such thing as a settled theory of evolution. On that point, textbook orthodoxy is simply false.

Evolution News
Comments
Jerry @19, Haha! Exactly. Except that the blank canvas represents the “understandable gap in the fossil record over millions and millions of years,” also with the teeny-tiny increments of shades of white, which MUSTA been black to start out with . . . Science fantasy or “How to make fantasy appear to be scientific despite being repeatedly falsified.” -QQuerius
November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
Ba77, The "unguided evolution" types will continue the fight. Even though recent research shows that molecular machines are at work in living tings. That living things are designed. Once the public is clear about this, atheistic materialism will disappear, along with its supporters here, as if it never existed. However, the big problem will become keeping this out of schools. When kids find out someone, not some random "it," made them, their worldview will change. That is the real reason the evolution supporters are here, to stop this from happening if they can. They can't and they know it.relatd
November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
"People get things wrong all the time." Translated: People on Our Side don't have to be right about any particular item. We're right even if we're wrong. If they at some point regurgitate "Unguided Evolution" they are invincible. Andrewasauber
November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
JVL @40
Well, it should be obvious that Dr Croonin got it wrong. So?
if Dr Croonin (origin-of-life researcher) got it wrong, then what lay people like you, Seversky, Chuck, Alan Fox and other lay public .... Would you agree, that lay people are being systematically mislead by Darwinian OoL-researchers ? It is not only Croonin.... i posted a link to recent J. Szostak's interview from 2021martin_r
November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
JVL, "That’s just your fantasy." Well, coming from someone who holds to a worldview that says he is a 'neuronal illusion', I consider that 'fantasy' remark to be a compliment. :)
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://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?mcubz=3 “Our experiences of being and having a body are ‘controlled hallucinations’ of a very distinctive kind.” Anil Seth, "The Real Problem" at Aeon - (Nov. 2, 2016) https://evolutionnews.org/2022/10/is-consciousness-a-controlled-brain-hallucination/ “(Daniel) Dennett concludes, ‘nobody is conscious … we are all zombies’.” J.W. Schooler & C.A. Schreiber – Experience, Meta-consciousness, and the Paradox of Introspection – 2004 The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness - Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 Part II The Illusion Of Control Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there's an executive "I" that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion. Steven Pinker - Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University http://www.academia.edu/2794859/The_Brain_The_Mystery_of_Consciousness Sam Harris: “The self is an illusion.” – Michael Egnor Demolishes the Myth of Materialism (Science Uprising EP1) https://youtu.be/Fv3c7DWuqpM?t=267 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
Tell me JVL, why in blue blazes should I give two spits what a Darwinian 'illusion' has to say about reality?
The Illusionist – Daniel Dennett’s latest book marks five decades of majestic failure to explain consciousness. – 2017 Excerpt: “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.” – David Bentley Hart https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-illusionist “The principal argument against materialism is not that illustrated in the last two sections: that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principal argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the contrary, logically, the external world could be denied—though it is not very practical to do so. In the words of Niels Bohr, “The word consciousness, applied to ourselves as well as to others, is indispensable when dealing with the human situation.” In view of all this, one may well wonder how materialism, the doctrine that “life could be explained by sophisticated combinations of physical and chemical laws,” could so long be accepted by the majority of scientists." – Eugene Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, pp 167-177.
Philosophical proof that "I" exist,
I choose to hold that “I” exist —— to be clear, with “I” I refer to my consciousness, my viewpoint. I am the only one who has access to my “I”, put another way: no one but me can possibly have an informed opinion on this particular subject, therefor whatever I choose to believe about my “I” can only be my absolute responsibility, can only be the result of my fully self-determined choice. – – – – – – (1.) I do something. (2.) A thing that does not exist cannot do something —— from nothing nothing comes. From (1.) and (2.) (3.) I exist https://uncommondescent.com/cosmology/from-iai-news-how-infinity-threatens-cosmology/#comment-766606
bornagain77
November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
Martin_r: you are completely wrong … just look at this ‘humble’ guy, he will explain to you: Lee Croonin, origin-of-life researcher, TED talk (2011) Well, it should be obvious that Dr Croonin got it wrong. So? People get things wrong all the time. The real work goes on independent of what some cheerleaders and detractors say. Any fool can check that out if they really want to.JVL
November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: So no ‘real’ scientist who holds to the false doctrine of ‘methodological naturalism’ doubts unguided Darwinian evolution?, i.e. does not doubt that random mutations and natural selection, all by their lonesome, can account for life and all the diversity therein? Actually, if you bothered to keep up with the times, you should know that NO ONE says it's just down to random mutations and natural selection anymore. And, by the way, what percentage of working biologists doubt unguided evolutionary theory? Do you know? The field is not imploding. You can cherry pick bits of speeches where working scientists say: we need to do more work here, or this bit isn't clear yet. But it doesn't mean the whole field is imploding. That's just your fantasy.JVL
November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
BA77 i have noticed Dr. Hunter's latest article over at EN. i like that too:
Here is one reason this contradicts evolutionary theory: the adaptation arises immediately, in direct response to the challenge. Not blindly. Not by random mutation. Not by natural selection.
so beautiful (and true). Darwinism is a hoax. It always was, but today it is too obvious ....martin_r
November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
BA77
“But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, – light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes,,,” – Charles Darwin
i wouldn't blame Darwin saying something like that ... he was just very naive guy ... he didn't have all the 21st-century knowledge, so I can understand his naivety. But these clowns like Croonin, Szostak and Co. know very well what they are dealing with, and in spite of it, they keep misleading lay public that to create life is "trivial....easy.... in a few hours" .... And yet, these clowns, e.g. Szostak, spent so far 30 years in OOL-research, and the result of is effort is , that he got NOTHING. But he still keep saying, that to create life in lab is very trivial ... it is like in some mental hospital .... here is a recent interview with Szostak (2021) https://news.uchicago.edu/big-brains-podcast-unraveling-mystery-lifes-origins-earth PS: i can't stand these people ... these people aren't normal ...martin_r
November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
"(we'll have life in) just a few hours, once we’ve set up the right chemistry." - Lee Cronin Yeah, they'll be selling 'life in a lab' toy kits to kids by Christmas. :)
"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes,,," - Charles Darwin
Something tells me that Lee Cronin and Charles Darwin are, and were,, (because of their personal preference for atheistic naturalism), living in a chemical fantasy-land of their own making.
To Model the Simplest Microbe in the World, You Need 128 Computers - July 2012 Excerpt: Mycoplasma genitalium has one of the smallest genomes of any free-living organism in the world, clocking in at a mere 525 genes. That's a fraction of the size of even another bacterium like E. coli, which has 4,288 genes.,,, The bioengineers, led by Stanford's Markus Covert, succeeded in modeling the bacterium, and published their work last week in the journal Cell. What's fascinating is how much horsepower they needed to partially simulate this simple organism. It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell's lifecycle processes.,,, ,,the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable, and difficult to manage, even given Moore's Law. The M. genitalium model required 28 subsystems to be individually modeled and integrated, and many critics of the work have been complaining on Twitter that's only a fraction of what will eventually be required to consider the simulation realistic.,,, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/to-model-the-simplest-microbe-in-the-world-you-need-128-computers/260198/ "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 (The more we know, the worse the problem gets for materialists) https://youtu.be/r4sP1E1Jd_Y?t=255 Dr. James Tour - (Problems with) Abiogenesis Theory - (9 hour lecture series) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKLgQzWhO4Q 0:00 Reasons for this Series 26:39 Episode 1 - Introduction to Abiogenesis 50:45 Epsode 2 - Primordial Soup 1:03:53 Episode 3 - Hype 1:53:25 Episode 4 - Homochirality 2:19:51 Episode 5 - Carbohydrates 3:05:17 Episode 6 - The Building Blocks of the Building Blocks 3:22:20 Episode 7 - Peptides 4:14:08 Episode 8 - Nucleotides, DNA, and RNA 5:05:57 Episode 9 - Intermediate Summary 5:15:37 Episode 10 - Lipids and the Cell Membrane 6:01:00 Episode 11 - Chiral-induced Spin Selectivity 6:33:12 Episode 12.1 - Cell Construction and the Assembly Problem 7:46:54 Episode 12.2 - Cell Construction and the Assembly Problem 8:34:55 Episode 13 - Summary & Projections Dr. Tour EXPOSES the False Science Behind Origin of Life Research - Oct. 2022 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v36_v4hsB-Y
bornagain77
November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT
JVL @29
The origin of life is certainly a complicated issue ...
you are completely wrong ... just look at this 'humble' guy, he will explain to you: Lee Croonin, origin-of-life researcher, TED talk (2011): https://youtu.be/unNRCSj0igI?t=845
Lee Cronin (transcript): So many people think that life took millions of years to kick in. We're proposing to do it in just a few hours, once we've set up the right chemistry.
????? in just a few hours ????? JVL, do you copy ? :)))))) it is not a complex issue at all :)))))) NOT AT ALL :))))) IT IS EASY ... ONLY A FEW HOURS ... PS: Lee Cronin perfectly illustrates insanity of Darwinists .... They perfectly understand what they are dealing with, but they can't resist making this absurdly absurd claims .... of course, one reason might be to receive more grand money or to trick their sponsors or brainwash people like Seversky, JVL, Chuck, Alan Fox .... or i don't know why they enjoy to look stupid ....martin_r
November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT
As to this claim from atheists, "This debate is a threat to evolution in pretty much the same way that the lively debate between different interpretations of quantum mechanics is a threat to quantum mechanics: which is to say, none at all." So, according to this line of 'reasoning' from atheists linking Darwinism to quantum mechanics, there is something of an idealist, and/or 'instrumentalist', interpretation that is allowed within evolution theory that directly challenges their atheistic/naturalistic worldview?
The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 2017 Excerpt: Today there are two widely followed approaches to quantum mechanics, the “realist” and “instrumentalist” approaches,9 which view the origin of probability in measurement in two very different ways. For reasons I will explain, neither approach seems to me quite satisfactory.10,,,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11,,,, ,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,, In the realist approach the history of the world is endlessly splitting; it does so every time a macroscopic body becomes tied in with a choice of quantum states. This inconceivably huge variety of histories has provided material for science fiction. 12 http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/466-17/QuantumMechanicsWeinberg.pdf Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism (v2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM0IKLv7KrE
Contrary to what the atheists here on UD tried to imply by linking Darwinism to quantum theory, 'some' interpretations of quantum mechanics directly challenge their atheistic/materialistic/naturalistic worldview. Yet, as Dr. Hunter pointed out in the OP of this very thread, such doubting of 'atheistic naturalism' is simply not allowed within evolutionary thinking. i.e. You can doubt anything within evolution theory save for doubting atheistic naturalism itself!
There Is No Settled “Theory Of Evolution” - Nov. 2022 Excerpt: What is evolution? The origin of species by: natural selection, random causes, common descent, gradualism, etc. Right? Wrong. Too often that is what is taught, but it is false. That’s according to evolutionists themselves. A typical example? See, “The study of evolution is fracturing — and that may be a good thing,” by Lund University biologist Erik Svensson, writing at The Conversation. Evolutionists themselves can forfeit natural selection, random causes, common descent, etc. How do I know? Because it is in the literature. So, what is evolution? In other words, what is core to the theory — and not forfeitable? It’s naturalism. Period. That is the only thing required of evolutionary theory. And naturalism is a religious requirement, not a scientific one. Aside from naturalism, practically anything is fair game: Uncanny convergence, rapid divergence, lineage-specific biology, evolution of evolution, directed mutations, saltationism, unlikely simultaneous mutations, just-so stories, multiverses … the list goes on. But this is where it gets interesting. Because if you have two theories, you don’t have one theory. In other words, you have a multitude of contradictory theories. And you have heated debates because nothing seems to fit the data. In science, that is not a good sign. But it is exactly what evolutionists have had — for over a century now. There is no such thing as a settled theory of evolution. On that point, textbook orthodoxy is simply false. - Dr. Cornelius Hunter. https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/at-evolution-news-there-is-no-settled-theory-of-evolution/
Moreover, far from quantum theory supporting Darwinian atheism, advances in quantum biology have given us evidence for a transcendent component to our being, i.e. a 'soul', that is not reducible to the materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution.
,,, Personally, I consider these recent findings from quantum mechanics and quantum biology to rival all other scientific discoveries over the past century. Surpassing even the discovery of a beginning of the universe, via Big Bang cosmology, in terms of scientific, theological, and even personal, significance. - Nov. 2022 https://uncommondescent.com/mind/at-evolution-news-does-a-new-scientific-study-offer-evidence-of-life-after-death/#comment-769693 As Jesus once asked his disciples along with a crowd of followers, “Is anything worth more than your soul?” Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul?
bornagain77
November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT
JVL @29
... The origin of life is certainly a complicated issue but, ....
so suddenly it is a complicated issue .... Because i heard so many times from people like Nick Lane, Jack Szostak, Lee Cronin, that life can emerge easily ...martin_r
November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT
JVL: "Unguided evolution is certainly not imploding",,, So no 'real' scientist who holds to the false doctrine of 'methodological naturalism' doubts unguided Darwinian evolution?, i.e. does not doubt that random mutations and natural selection, all by their lonesome, can account for life and all the diversity therein? Really??? So who are all these 'naturalistic' scientists who are daring to doubt that unguided Darwinian processes are capable of explaining life and all the diversity therein?,, chopped liver???
Darrel Falk Downplays the Ramifications of the 2016 Royal Society Meeting Brian Miller – June 2, 2021 Excerpt: In the opening talk, organizer Gerd Müller stated that the SEM, (the standard evolutionary model), could explain the modification or duplication of existing traits, but it could not explain such key challenges as the following (here, here): *The origin of complex new traits such as eyes (here, here, here). *The consistent pattern in the fossil record of the sudden appearance of radically new organisms followed by periods of no significant change (here, here). *The distribution of genetic variation in species. He was referring to the fact that no genetic variation exists in any species that would allow for large-scale transformations (here, here). For instance, crossbreeding dogs will only produce dogs since dogs only have dog genes. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/darrel-falk-downplays-the-ramifications-of-the-royal-society-meeting/ 5 Royal Problems with Macro-Evolution - Stephen Meyer & Doug Axe - January 7, 2017 https://streamer1.afa.net/afr-aod/crossexamined/ft_20170107.mp3 Frank Turek interviews Stephen Meyer & Doug Axe - The Royal Society called for a meeting to revise the standard theory of evolution because of the many issues with such theory. Our two guests who are experts in the field went there and are here to talk about the top 5 problems with the Neo-Darwinian, Macro-Evolution, theory. - 11:30 minute mark - 1. Fossil Record 2. Origin of Information 3. Necessity for Early Mutations (in embryological development) 4. Epigenetic or Structural Information 5. Universal Design Intuition we all have "Physiology Is Rocking the Foundations of Evolutionary Biology": Another Peer-Reviewed Paper Takes Aim at Neo-Darwinism - Casey Luskin - March 31, 2015 Excerpt: Noble doesn't mince words: "It is not only the standard 20th century views of molecular genetics that are in question. Evolutionary theory itself is already in a state of flux (Jablonka & Lamb, 2005; Noble, 2006, 2011; Beurton et al. 2008; Pigliucci & Muller, 2010; Gissis & Jablonka, 2011; Shapiro, 2011). In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved." Noble then recounts those assumptions: (1) that "genetic change is random," (2) that "genetic change is gradual," (3) that "following genetic change, natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population," and (4) that "inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible." He then cites examples that refute each of those assumptions,,, He then proposes a new and radical model of biology called the "Integrative Synthesis," where genes don't run the show and all parts of an organism -- the genome, the cell, the body plan, everything -- is integrated. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/physiology_is_r094821.html Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? - 2014 Excerpt: YES, URGENTLY — Kevin Laland and colleagues https://www.nature.com/articles/514161a Nature Admits Scientists Suppress Criticisms of Neo-Darwinism to Avoid Lending Support to Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin October 8, 2014 Excerpt: "The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day. Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders -- such as physiologists or developmental biologists -- flood into their field." (Kevin Laland, Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee, "Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently," Nature, Vol. 514:161-164 (October 9, 2014) ) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/nature_admits_s090321.html The Third Way - James Shapiro and company Excerpt: Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process. https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com The Third Way - List of scientists who think a fresh look at evolution is needed Except: James A. Shapiro Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; University of Chicago Denis Noble Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics; University of Oxford Raju Pookottil B.Tech, MBA; Author, engineer, entrepreneur Eva Jablonka The Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas; Tel Aviv University Evelyn Fox Keller Professor of the History and Philosophy of Science, Emerita (STS); Massachusetts Institute of Technology Gerd B. Müller Department of Theoretical Biology; University of Vienna Guenther Witzany Telos-Philosophische Praxis; Buermoos, Austria Eviatar Nevo Professor emeritus; University of Haifa, Israel Corrado Spadafora Institute of Translational Pharmacology, National Research Council; Rome, Italy Frantisek Baluska Institute of Cellular and Molecular Biology; University of Bonn, Germany Joachim Bauer Specialist in psychotherapeutic medicine; University Hospital Freiburg, Germany Stuart A. Newman Department of Cell Biology & Anatomy; New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY John S. Torday Departments of Pediatrics and Ob/Gyn, Evolutionary Medicine Program, David Geffen School of Medicine; University of California- Los Angeles Robert H. Austin Research Group in Biophysics; Princeton University John Odling-Smee Emeritus Research Fellow; Mansfield College at the University of Oxford John Dupré Director, Centre for the Study of Life Sciences (Egenis), and Professor, Department of Sociology, Philosophy and Anthropology; University of Exeter Lynn Helena Caporale Independent Scholar; - biochemist Richard Irwin (“Dick”) Vane-Wright Honorary Professor of Taxonomy, Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE); Honorary Professor at University of Kent Scott F. Gilbert Institute of Biotechnology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; Department of Biology, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA, USA Kalevi Kull Professor, Department of Semiotics; University of Tartu Peter A. Corning Institute for the Study of Complex Systems; Michael J. Joyner Frank R. and Shari Caywood Professor of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic; Frank P. Ryan Honorary Senior Lecturer Department of Medical Education; The University of Sheffield, UK Andrew Packard Retired - formerly Reader in Physiology, Edinburgh, Scotland and Professor of Zoology, Naples, Italy; Denis M. Walsh Professor and Canada Research Chair in Philosophy of Biology; Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto Jonathan T. Delafield-Butt Lecturer, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences; University of Strathclyde, Scotland, U.K. Mariusz Nowacki Professor, Institute of Cell Biology; University of Bern, Switzerland Robert K. Logan Department of Physics; University of Toronto Ehud Lamm The Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science; Tel Aviv University Mart Krupovic Department of Microbiology; Institut Pasteur, Paris Louise Westling Professor, Department of English; University of Oregon Wendy Wheeler Emeritus Professor of English Literature and Cultural Inquiry, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities; London Metropolitan University Keith Baverstock Department of Environmental Science; University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio Campus, Kuopio, Finland Andreas Werner Institute for Cell and Molecular Biosciences; Newcastle University Mae-Wan Ho Director/Institute of Science in Society, UK ; Jan Sapp Department of Biology; York University, Toronto Peter Saunders Co-Director, Institute of Science in Society, London; Emeritus professor of Applied Mathematics, King’s College London. Ricardo Flores Institute for Cellular and Molecular Plant Biology, Valencia, Spain; Research Professor of the Spanish Research Council (CSIC) Yoav Soen Department of Biological Chemistry; Weizmann Institute of Science Adrian Bejan Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science; Duke University Gustavo Caetano-Anollés Department of Crop Sciences; University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Stephen L. Talbott The Nature Institute; Ghent, New York Karin Moelling Prof em and Director em of Institute of medical Virology, University of Zürich; Senior Research Guest at Max-Planck-Institute for Molecular Genetics, Berlin. Guest Prof. at Heinrich Pette-Institute for Virology, Hamburg David S. Moore Pitzer College (Psychology Field Group); Claremont Graduate University (Division of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences) Arnold De Loof Department of Biology, Animal Physiology Research Group; University of Leuven-KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Franklin M. Harold Retired. Affiliate Professor, Department of Microbiology; University of Washington, Seattle. Robert Lickliter Professor, Department of Psychology; Florida International University, Miami, FL Shi Huang State Key Laboratory of Medical Genetics; Xiangya Medical School, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China Giorgio Bernardi Visiting Professor, Department of Science; Roma Tre University, Rome David B. Edelman Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego; Adjunct faculty, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of San Diego Kenneth M. Weiss Evan Pugh Professor Emeritus, Department of Anthropology; Penn State University Bernd Rosslenbroich Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Morphology, Centre for Biomedical Education and Research; Witten/Herdecke University, Germany Didier Raoult Aix-Marseille Université, France; Eric Bapteste Institut de Biologie Paris Seine; Department of evolutionary biology; University Pierre et Marie Curie Gertrudis Van de Vijver Full Professor, department of philosophy and moral sciences; Ghent University, Belgium Luis P Villarreal Professor Emeritus, Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, School of Biological Sciences; University of California, Irvine Marilyn J. Roossinck Professor of Virus Ecology, Department of Plant Pathology and Environmental Microbiology; Pennsylvania State University Victoria N. Alexander Director, Dactyl Foundation; Fulbright Specialist, US Dept of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Máximo Sandín Departamento de Biología; Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Jordi Gómez Department of Molecular Biology; Institute of Parasitology y Biomedicine “Lopez-Neyra” (IPBLN) in Granada. Spain (IPBLN) .; Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) Erik L. Peterson Assistant Professor of the History of Science/Technology/Medicine, Department of History; The University of Alabama Nathalie Gontier Director of the Applied Evolutionary Epistemology Lab, Centre for Philosophy of Science, Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Faculty of Science; University of Lisbon, Portugal Donald Favareau University Scholars Programme; National University of Singapore Addy Pross Emeritus Professor, Department of Chemistry; Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva, Israel William S. Peters Affiliate Faculty Advisor, Matai Medical Research and Imaging Lab, Gisborne, New Zealand; Department of Paediatric and Congenital Cardiac Surgery, Starship Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand Azra Raza Professor of Medicine, Director of MDS Center; Columbia University, New York Jacques Demongeot Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Medicine; University Grenoble Alpes Pierangelo Luporini Emeritus Professor in Zoology; University of Camerino Robert Root-Bernstein Professor of Physiology,; Michigan State University Axel Lange Department of Theoretical Biology; University of Vienna Ben Callif Research & Mindset Director; Bader Philanthropies, Inc. Henry H. Heng Center for Molecular Medicine and Genomics; Wayne State University J. Scott Turner Emeritus Professor of Biology; SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York Jan J. Spitzer Retired; Industrial R&D Ben Bradley Professor Emeritus, School of Psychology; Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, NSW 2795, Australia Luca Munaron Full Professor of Physiology, Department of Life Sciences and Systems Biology; University of Torino, Italy Amelia Lewis Affiliate/ Independent Researcher; School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University, Belfast Arto Annila Former Professor of Biophysics; University of Helsinki https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people Scientists stunned by the public’s doubt of Darwin - April 22, 2014 Excerpt: (Stephen) Meyer said that view under-represents the real facts being discovered in evolutionary biology. “Very few leading evolutionary biologists today think that natural selection and random mutation are sufficient to produce the new forms of life we see arising in the history of life,” Meyer said. “And then when the public is catching wind of the scientific doubts of Darwinian evolution and expresses them in a poll like this, these self-appointed spokesmen for science say that the public is ignorant. But actually, the public is more in line with what’s going on in science than these spokesmen for science.” https://world.wng.org/2014/04/scientists_stunned_by_the_publics_doubt_of_darwin
bornagain77
November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT
This debate is a threat to evolution in pretty much the same way that the lively debate between different interpretations of quantum mechanics is a threat to quantum mechanics: which is to say, none at all.
Les chiens aboient. La caravane passe.Alan Fox
November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT
@14
If you actually read the article by Erik Svensson, you get a much different picture than suggested by the OP. Instead of being on the precipice of disaster per the OP, Svensson sees evolution as a thriving debate among biologists with much work left to do from many specialties in biology.
Exactly so. One wouldn't know it from what Hunter, but Svensson is just discussing the fact that there's a lively debate between the gene-centric and organism-centric ways of thinking about evolution. Personally, I agree with Denis Walsh in his Organisms, Agency, and Evolution that organism-centrism is not only the correct view but also a return to what Darwin originally accomplished. To use Lewin and Lewontin's terms from their "The Organism as Subject and as Object of Evolution", evolution needs to treat organisms not only as objects of evolutionary processes but also as subjects whose purposive, intentional behavior causes evolution. (Put otherwise, natural selection is not a cause of anything; it is an effect of what tends to happen to populations as a result of what organisms tend to do.) This debate is a threat to evolution in pretty much the same way that the lively debate between different interpretations of quantum mechanics is a threat to quantum mechanics: which is to say, none at all.PyrrhoManiac1
November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT
Tammie Lee Haynes: I sincerely empathize with how you must feel nowadays, with materialism tanking in the face of the Creationist assendancy caused by 1) Fine Tuning, 2) Orgin of Life, and as pointed out here, the implosion of Evolution. My question is this: Which of these 3 issues has you most depondent? Creationist eh? Don't tell Kairosfocus. I'm guessing the third thing (unnumbered) is the implosion of evolution. I also assume you meant despondent. None of those three things have me despondent. Unguided evolution is certainly not imploding; you have that opinion because of the sources you spend time with all of which want that to be true. No one knows if it is even possible to 'fine tune' the constants of the universe! It's pretty clear, in fact, that the process of evolution has fine tuned life on Earth to match the conditions on Earth. The origin of life is certainly a complicated issue but, as work on the issue has only been going on for a relatively short period of time and because we are gaining new analytic methods I can't imagine throwing in the towel now. Of course, all we will ever be able to do is to provide a plausible path since it's unlikely we will ever be able to 'see' what actually happened billions of years ago. So, I'd say you got it wrong.JVL
November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
12:31 AM
12
12
31
AM
PDT
As a creationist, I got a question for our nice Athesit Friends. I sincerely empathize with how you must feel nowadays, with materialism tanking in the face of the Creationist assendancy caused by 1) Fine Tuning, 2) Orgin of Life, and as pointed out here, the implosion of Evolution. My question is this: Which of these 3 issues has you most depondent? Myself, when I try to put myself in your shoes, I figure its Origin of Life. For about 160 years theyve been trying to show that life can start without Divine intervention. Matersts have had the Top Gurus, and Nobel Pprize winners, with boatloads of funding, for generations, and nothing nothing to show for it. So all you got today is denial, smokescreens, censorhip, and lame check in the mail BS. Fellas, did I figure right?TAMMIE LEE HAYNES
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT
Ba77 at 26, A very important finding. I'm glad the epi in epigenetics has been explained. I read the technical literature, and while I understand the scientific terms need to be precise, for average readers it needs to be broken down into plain English to speed comprehension. When science becomes more accessible, and easier to understand, for the layman, it improves retention.relatd
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
New post up from Dr. Hunter,,
Why Epigenetics Contradicts Evolutionary Theory - Cornelius Hunter - November 14, 2022 Excerpt: Epigenetics (epi means “above” genetics) is a term given to mechanisms that do not alter genes in our DNA, but rather turn genes off or on (or influence whether they are turned off or on). Epigenetic mechanisms are complicated and enable organisms to adapt intelligently and rapidly to challenging environments. Here is one reason this contradicts evolutionary theory: the adaptation arises immediately, in direct response to the challenge. Not blindly. Not by random mutation. Not by natural selection. Epigenetic mechanisms are ubiquitous in biology, and extremely important. Because of epigenetics, organisms with otherwise identical genes (e.g., twins) can be quite different.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2022/11/why-epigenetics-contradicts-evolutionary-theory/
bornagain77
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
Andrew at 24, :) :) :)relatd
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
"You mean the teenie, weenie, unobserved gradual changes gives you Creature B?" Relatd, Yes. The Precursors. Can you imagine how many of them there were? Evolution must be true. Andrewasauber
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
Andrew at 22, You mean the teenie, weenie, unobserved gradual changes gives you Creature B? :)relatd
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
"When did it change from Creature A to Creature B?" Relatd, Millions and Trillions of Billions of years ago... unless, you ask us about Creature A or B, then there's no such thing as either one. Tails we win, Heads we win, and Tails evolving into Heads we win, and vice versa. Andrewasauber
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
Andrew at 20, And there you have it: claims without evidence. "Hey! We found this fossil in a rock!" Yeah, so? When did it change from Creature A to Creature B?relatd
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Remember, Evolution did it's "heavy lifting" millions and millions of years ago, so we're sorry we can't provide evidence from back then, and we're sorry we can't say Creature A evolved from Creature B, because there was never a Creature A or Creature B and still isn't, and it's not our fault that Natural Selection doesn't select anything, and that anything that ever is obviously designed couldn't possibly be designed because we remove design a priori from anything and everything that could be discussed. Andrewasauber
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
This is a painting of a cow eating grass.
Similar. Visa commercial of artist. Posted a few times before. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11EwyJ5fcBI Artist’s canvas is evolutionary biology evidence for natural Evolution.jerry
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Jerry @ 16,
Chuckdarwin: Svensson sees evolution as a thriving debate among biologists with much work left to do from many specialties in biology
Gosh, imagine that! And to think that Darwinian evolution was once elevated to the level of "Fact"! The science was supposedly settled. But now there's debate? Much work left to do? I'm shocked, shocked! LOL Darwinism is science fantasy that's finally collapsing under its own weight of speculation, wishful thinking, and complete baloney. Artist: This is a painting of a cow eating grass. Observer: Where's the grass? Artist: The cow has eaten it. Observer: Where's the cow? Artist: After eating the grass, the cow has left to find more grass. -QQuerius
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
ScuzzaMan @13, Indeed. What's funny is how many of the Darwinian explanations are presented with a Lamarckian perspective, and evolution is even somewhat personified. -QQuerius
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
Svensson sees evolution as a thriving debate among biologists with much work left to do from many specialties in biology
ChuckDarwin just endorsed ID. Has this debate produced anything? Remember the objective is finding naturalized Evolution. Not necessarily supporting a failed hypothesis such as Darwinian Evolution. Will both be failures. Sounds of Silence. ChuckDarwin confirms. Chuck, remember your assignment. You’re supposed to mock ID not endorse it. Thank you anyway Chuck!!!     Let’s Go Finches jerry
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply