At Evolution News and Science Today, we learn that Darrel Falk is still around? Why do people care about Christian evolutionism when even the big Darwin guys like Kevin Laland are looking for non-Darwin answers? Oh well, if Darrel Falk is funded, he is around, right? And we’re not getting dinged for it. So really what?
No surprise, Falk doesn’t like Steve Meyer’s new book, The Return of the God Hypothesis. Anyway, we hear:
In his critical review of Return of the God Hypothesis for BioLogos, to which Brian Miller and I have been responding (here, here, and here), biologist Darrel Falk argued that Stephen Meyer “does not fully appreciate the power of gene duplication and mutation in generating new proteins and changing the way that gene regulatory networks function.” We saw in a previous post that Meyer discussed these topics extensively in both his latest book and his previous book, Darwin’s Doubt. He showed how they do not explain the origin of animal body plans. Falk never addresses Meyer’s specific criticisms of both processes as mechanisms of evolutionary innovation. But he does argue that one “mystery” that seems to be solvable is how fins evolved into limbs.
Casey Luskin, “Revealing Darrel Falk’s Overstatements about Limb Bones in Fish Fins” at Evolution News and Science Today
Some of us have at least a plausible hope of living long enough to hear that limbs evolved first. We shall see.
Fun:
Things that just don’t change come what may? See the best Canadian folk song: Four Strong Winds:
But living things do change over time. We are different from our ape-like ancestors from hundreds of thousands of years ago. Who know what we’ll be like hundreds of thousands of years from now, assuming we’re still around, of course. Is that what creationists and ID proponents most dislike about evolution, that we might change out of all recognition rather than staying as we are for all eternity?
No that’s actually not what ID and creationists really dislike about evolution
It’s when you use evolution as a tool or weapon to eliminate A belief you disagree with
When evolution is used as a massive “god of gaps” argument to explain everything away and then is leveraged as an excuse to attack God and call people who believe in God stupid and ignorant
That is the problem
Sev I never had a problem with evolution
I never questioned my belief when I learned about it and I went through all of my ap and college classes in science with no issue My first major was supposed to be micro biology and chemistry two subjects I was very excited about.
However I managed to be very lucky and had not encountered the raging atheists that hated my religion
It wasn’t until I got into a college course in debate that I encountered this for the first time and then I never ever stopped in countering it
In fact it almost became a daily thing where I even encountered friends that I knew for years that apparently were raging atheist and suddenly had no problem telling me that I believed in a magic man in the sky even when I didn’t bring it up with them
I always kept my religious opinion to myself for many years because I couldn’t stand it when Mormons would proselytize to me so I wouldn’t do it to anybody else
And then I found out that people were using evolution To reduce and explain everything you do
Nothing was ever truly unique to you it could all be explained by evolution nothing was just yours, it evolved, you are a puppet of evolution
And then everything that made this life enjoyable had to have evolution tacked to it
All the mystery and joy is wiped away with the power of evolution The corrosive acid that erodes tradition and leaves revolution!!!!
What it really did was it ruined every perspective I had, made everything meaningless, and suck the joy from everything
Everything is selfish to be honest with you pain is the only unselfish thing when it comes to evolution because at least pain is trying to save your life by telling you it’s in danger
Evolution steals purpose away and destroys meaning
The idea of evolution that creatures progress and change over time was never an issue for me and many others
It’s when it’s used to reduce everything down to meaningless crap such as love and friendship, the things that make life enjoyable
And then when you use it as a weapon to explain one of the most important things to these people away “God” You can’t expect them to have any different reaction to it
Because for a lot of people like me, meaning stems from God first and I need meaning to exist because I don’t value my own made up crap meaning enough to give me reasons to be happy and to exist in the first place
If that sums it up for you
At least that’s how I view it because that’s how I experienced it
What is disliked about those who cling to evolution, are the assumptions made. Assumptions make for good fiction, but rather poor science. Science, not as those who wish to bastardize it wish for it to be, is based on what is witnessed. Remove the assumptions and evolutionists have no argument. It has never been witnessed and the results never replicated. Without witnessing and replication, it is fiction. Evolutionists most common defense is to assume facts that are not in evidence.
Scientific theory, no matter how much it’s bastardized, remains what is witnessed and can it be replicated. Has speciation ever been witnessed? No. Has speciation ever been replicated? No.
Unless the answer to both is yes, evolution is not a valid theory.
Probably after mainstream science accepts the obvious truth that the DNA bases are chosen in an intelligent way, then still only the Christian evolutionists will keep going, because of having the motivation to do anything, by belief in God.
Seversky claims that,
Well since the scientific evidence itself says that man is in a state of genomic decay instead of genomic advancement, i.e. mutations are shown to be overwhelmingly detrimental,,
,,, since man is found to be in a state of genomic decay, then man, if things remain as they are and his genome continues to deteriorate, and if man has not gone extinct by then, will be, physically speaking, in a much sadder state than he is now,
Needless to say, if Darwinian evolution were actually true, and things stay there present course, then that is a pretty bleak and hopeless future for man.
Whereas, on the other hand, within Christian Theism all hope is not lost.
In Christianity It is held that man, sometime in the future, will be, “in the twinkling of an eye,” radically transformed, ‘imperishable’.
Moreover, ignoring the fact that mutations are now known to be overwhelmingly detrimental, Seversky simply has no scientific evidence that it is possible to extrapolate variations witnessed within a species (micro-evolution), to the radical transformations, i.e. unlimited plasticity, he imagines (macro-evolution) in his just-so story of man evolving from some ape-like creature.
As Jonathan Wells explains, Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly.
Biological form simply is not reducible to mutations in DNA as Darwinists had falsely imagined.
Contrary to what Darwinists believe, DNA is not a ‘blueprint’ that dictates what form any organism may take:
So, directly contrary to what Darwinists believe with their ‘selfish gene’ model, it is not the genes that dictate what form an organism may take, or that differentiate one species from another species, but it is how the genes get used that differentiate one species from another species.
And when we look at how genes get used in organisms, via alternative splicing patterns, we find that the genomes of species are designed to be radically different from one another.
As the following article states, “As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes, collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms”
Moreover, besides the genetic evidence falsifying Darwinian claims, the fossil record, when scrutinized in detail, also falsifies the Darwinian narrative of human evolution
Just recently an article, from the American Museum of Natural History no less, stated that, “Overall, the researchers found that most stories of human origins are not compatible with the fossils that we have today.”
Ouch! I can just imagine the hostile backlash that the American Museum of Natural History received from militant Darwinists for daring to tell the truth about the fossil record being incompatible with the various stories Darwinists tell about human evolution.
The fossil record, like the genetic evidence, simply does not support the grand Darwinian claim that man ‘randomly’ evolved from some ape-like creature.
So when the genetic and fossil evidence is scrutinized soberly and objectively, instead of with Darwinian rose-colored glasses on, we find that Darwinists are severely lacking any compelling scientific evidence that their narrative for human evolution is actually true.
Indeed, there is much scientific evidence that has recently come forward, (such as quantum criticality), that indicates that their Darwinian narrative can’t possibly be true.
As the following article entitled “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules”
states, “the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
And as this follow up article stated, “There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,”
To say that finding quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules is problematic for the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution is to make a severe understatement. It is a straight-up empirical falsification of the materialistic premises that undergird Darwinian evolution.
What is so devastating to Darwinian presuppositions with the finding pervasive quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement within molecular biology, is that quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement is a non-local, beyond space and time, effect that requires a beyond space and time cause in order to explain its existence. As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” stated, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, simply have no beyond space and time cause that they can appeal so as to be able to explain the non-local quantum coherence and/or entanglement that is now found to be ubiquitous within biology. Whereas Christians readily do have a beyond space and time cause that they can appeal to so as to explain quantum entanglement. As Colossians 1:17 states, “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
it is also important to realize that quantum information is conserved. As the following article states, In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.
The implication of finding ‘non-local’, (beyond space and time), and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created nor destroyed), quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious.
That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, “the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
Verses:
Seversky
to Seversky, JVL & Co.
A interesting debate at a mainstream-science website (Researchgate.net):
someone posted the following question:
Where are all the “common ancestor species” in the fossil record?
In evolutionary theory, rarely is it stated that one species is directly descended from another but rather that they share a common ancestor species from whom both are descended (one obvious example being Neanderthals and modern humans). However, I have not seen convincing evidence in the fossil record for these common ancestors. For example, the common ancestor of chimps and humans has not been identified, nor has the common ancestor of humans, chimps and gorillas, nor the common ancestor of all of the great apes. We can take this as far back as needs be, like the common ancestor of all mammals, but no fossil evidence has every emerged of the existence of such a creature even though some scientists have speculated what it might have looked like: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matte.....s-revealed So, despite a wealth of fossil evidence out there, why do common ancestors remain so elusive? Is DNA inference sufficient evidence?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Where_are_all_the_common_ancestor_species_in_the_fossil_record
could you guys comment on that?
WHERE ARE ALL THE COMMON ANCESTORS ??????
martin_r,
methinks you suffer from a lack of imagination. 😉
seversky is just a question-begging, gullible fool. There isn’t any evidence that humans evolved from n on-humans. There aren’t any known materialistic processes that can do such a thing. You lose.