From Granville Sewell at Evolution News & Views:
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, who studied mutations for 25 years as a research scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Köln, Germany, is now retired but still writes often on the topic of Darwinism and intelligent design. He is one of those old-school scientists who believes evidence matters even when it comes to questions of biological origins.
…
Dr. Lönnig has repeatedly offered examples that defy a gradualist explanation. For example, listen to this interview where he discusses carnivorous plants, whose complicated traps were clearly useless until almost perfect. His discussion of the aquatic bladderwort begins at the 8:30 mark.
…
Loennig has recently written an article, “Plant Galls and Evolution,” which falsifies Darwinism on this criterion also. More.
Sewell is recapping the story he wrote here at UD. But there is a long and entertaining back story at UD as well:
You see, Loennig is best known around here as a design-friendly expert on carnivorous plants. Readers may recall him in connection with the carnivorous plant that tried to eat commenter Nick Matzke (or something like that anyway; the details are here, here, here, here, and here).
Of course, these days, “Falsify Darwinism” is the new “Take a number and wait (forever).” An entrenched bureaucracy and the lobbies that feed off it are the equivalent of evidence in terms of sheer power, though not efficacy. And who needs efficacy? Once post-modernism is well established in science, all talk of evidence must be treated as an offense against “woke”-ness.
See also: Carnivorous plant expert: Complex systems in nature point to an intelligent origin for life
Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig Falsifies Darwinism
and
From Biology Direct: Darwinism, now thoroughly detached from its historical roots as a falsifiable theory, “must be abandoned”
Lonning is probably one of the most respected creationist in the world, which means he is also the most hated one by Darwinists…
Why?
He is an experimental scientist of the caliber of Craig Venter, who all his life dealt with mutation breading…Based on his experimental findings he formulated the law of recurrent variation, which pretty much killed the neo-Darwinian belief in the the main mechanism of evolution; natural selection acting on random (genetic) variation…
Lonnig’s experiments have proven that mutation breeding produces similar or the same phenotype and have never produced a new species that would survive in the wild…
After reading his paper on the Law of Recurrent Variation, I have concluded that Darwinists who have read it and are familiar with this law, and still believe that random mutations and natural selection can build new species that require adaptive and coordinated changes to life systems, simply lie to themselves…that it if they actually believe in neo-Darwinism in the first place…
http://www.weloennig.de/Loenni.....iation.pdf
Suggesting people are confused about the role that evidence plays isn’t the same as saying evidence doesn’t matter. After having corrected this multiple times, what else am I supposed to think other than ID proponents are simply dishonest and intentionally misleading?
From the paper..
Sounds like click-bait, doesn’t it?
Except, Neo-Darwinism isn’t the survival of the fittest organisms. It is the survival of the fittest genes. Specifically, knowledge is information that plays a causal role in being retained when instantiated in a storage medium.
So, this entire article is a non-starter.
Wow! The referenced article is full of hyperbole. For example…
Is this really supposed to be an serious argument?
It’s unfortunate that Darwinism happens to intersect with the theistically proscribed role of designing the biosphere. Such comparisons are expected, given that people rest, evolution doesn’t. People get distracted. Evolution doesn’t, etc.
Furthermore, people create explanatory knowledge that has substantial reach, while Darwinism creates non-explanatory knowledge, which has limited reach. IOW, in the 150 years since Darwin’s theory, we’ve seen significant advances in how traits are passed on (DNA) and epistemology (Popper’s theory of knowledge) etc., which indicate significant distinctions from an omnipotent being, without diminishing its role.
So, I would say that this supposed omnipotence is in the mind of the author, because it intersects with something that was attributed to God.