I don’t care why this profbot defends Darwin, but why would anyone go into debt for a degree for this kind of thing:
I realized early on that many instructors teach introductory biology classes incorrectly. Too often evolution is the last section to be taught, an autonomous unit at the end of the semester. I quickly came to the conclusion that, since evolution is the foundation upon which all biology rests, it should be taught at the beginning of a course, and as a recurring theme throughout the semester. As the renowned geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky said: “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” In other words, how else can we explain why the DNA of chimps and humans is nearly 99 percent identical, and that the blood and muscle proteins of chimps and humans are nearly identical as well? Why are these same proteins slightly less similar to gorillas and orangutans, while much less similar to goldfish? Only evolution can shed light on these questions: we humans are great apes; we and the other great apes (gibbons, chimps, gorillas, bonobos, and orangutans) all evolved from a common ancestor.
Soon, every topic and lecture in my class was built on an evolutionary foundation and explained from an evolutionary perspective. My basic biology for non-majors became evolution for non-majors. It didn’t take long before I started to hear from a vocal minority of students who strongly objected: “I am very offended by your lectures on evolution! Those who believe in creation are not ignorant of science! You had no right to try and force evolution on us. Your job was to teach it as a theory and not as a fact that all smart people believe in!!” And: “Evolution is not a proven fact. It should not be taught as if it is. It cannot be observed in any quantitative form and, therefore, isn’t really science.”
We live in a nation where public acceptance of evolution is the second lowest of of thirty-four developed countries, just ahead of Turkey. …
Is Turkey doing that badly?
A Canadian naturally wonders where this dweeb puts Canada, and then decides that no one cares what he thinks. Around here, yeah, the climate. Always the climate. Evolution? Yeah, when we get the time.
And the questions about human evolution remain.
Evolution is not the foundation of biology.
Biology is the working mechanisms one observes or can discover by observation and experiment etc. The origins of biological processes and results is unrelated to actual observable biology. Its not proven about evolution and its irrelevant to biological research.
This prof is wrong and misunderstanding things here.
Common design. We see it every day with our technology.
The Professor’s justification for teaching evolution,,,
,,,is a ‘religious’ justification not a scientific justification:,,
Moreover, sequence similarity between chimpanzess and humans are not nearly as neat and clean as the Professor believes. Richard Dawkins claimed that the FOXP2 gene was among ‘the most compelling evidences’ for establishing that humans evolved from some chimp-like anscestor, yet, as with all the other evidences offered from Darwinists, once the FOXP2 gene was critically analyzed it fell completely apart as proof for human evolution:
In the following paper, even the Darwinists who authored the paper admitted that the FOXP2 gene evidence is ‘tenuous’,,
As well, the primary piece of evidence, at the Dover trial, trying to establish chimp human ancestry from SNP (Single Nuecleotide Polymorphism) evidence was overturned:
In 2013, three major pillars, that were said to strongly support a human-chimp link, crashed
Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins has done a comprehensive analysis of chimpanzee and human chromosomes and the 70% figure he found was drastically different that the 98% figure that Darwinists had misled the general public with for decades
The following study ‘broke the tree’:
The Y chromosome shows “extraordinary divergence”
Moreover, it turns out that inferring relationship from genetic similarity is misleading from another angle as well. It turns out that vastly different creatures can have remarkably similar genetic sequences. Dr. Sternberg comments here:
This same ‘discrepancy’ is found in kangaroo genomes:
As well, the regulatory regions between chimps and humans are far more different than the 70% figure that Dr. Tomkins found for genetic sequences.
I’ve already referenced Dr. Sternberg’s talk in the first link where he speaks of drastic differences in regulatory regions. Here are a few more references to get that specific point across:
Yet mutations to gene regulatory networks are “always catastrophically bad”
Thus, where neo-Darwinists most need plascticity in the genome to be viable as a theory, (i.e. developmental Gene Regulatory Networks), is the place where mutations are found to be ‘always catastrophically bad’. Yet, it is exactly in this area of the genome (i.e. regulatory networks) where ‘substantial’ differences are found between even supposedly closely related species.
Needless to say, this is the exact opposite finding for what Darwinism would have predicted for what should have been found in the genome.
If neo-Darwinism were a normal science instead of a religion, this would have certainly counted as a major falsification of one of its primary theoretical predictions. But alas, Darwinist will ignore this as they do all other failed predictions of neo-Darwinism. It is simply heresy for Darwinists to ever express doubt of neo-Darwinism!
Another major problem with the neo-Darwinian model is that major changes in body plans are not achievable by mutations to DNA.
In other words, the neo-Darwinian, (i.e. the modern synthesis), assumption that mutations to DNA can produce new body-plans does not have any empirical support, but is just another unsupported assumption that Darwinists have made in spite of the contrary evidence!
Needless to say, if you can mutate DNA ’til the cows come home’ and still not produce changes in basic body plan morphology, then perhaps it is time to look for a new theory for how humans originated?
And yes, body plan morphology is far different between man and chimps than Darwinists have misled people to believe:
Of related note:
“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/2.....94821.html
BA77 — if anyone really wanted to understand the issue they would read those many links you provided. Thanks for those. I notice the comments on the profbot’s article are about 95% positive. He’s a genius, a great educator, more needed then ever, etc. I don’t think any of those people or the prof himself have dealt with the contrary findings. Or probably they just want to ignore them.
Man chimp dna likeness is because we have the same body. Not from common descent but from our inability to have our own body that represents our nature. We alone don’t have our own body. so we have the best body in biology for fun and profit and driving cars.
This YEC welcomes 100% likeness in dna with apes. It could only be that we are renting a body type of another creature. We must be in the spectrum of biology and can’t be different enough to justify this is a unique body relative to our identity as Gods image.
Its only a line of reasoning to see this dna likeness as evidence of common descent. Even if true. its not a scientific biological conclusion.
its flawed reasoning from science thinking and only a hunch.