Books of interest Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design

A reader reflects on Science Uprising #9: Spot on but the problem is an old one

Spread the love

After watching the film, reader Stephen Batzer kindly writes to reflect:


I’ve read some terrific books on fossils, new and old. Same problems, new and old books.

Peter Ungar’s book from 2010 Mammal Teeth: Origin, Evolution and Diversity is interesting:

The Origin(s) of Teeth – Most researchers believe that teeth first evolved from pharyngeal or skin structures resembling the placoid scales of sharks or rays…Evidence for the first teeth is equivocal, though they surely evolved as early experiments with vertebrate biomineralization … Regardless of when or where teeth first appeared … (p. 223)


So, as attorneys might ask me in a deposition, “The bottom line is, you just don’t know, do you?”

Ungar doesn’t know the mechanism of teeth origin or change. This is just about teeth and the guy (whom I’ve met, great guy) has spent his entire career on “food reduction.” No real knowledge of teeth origin, just description of progression in the fossil record.

Barbarah Stahl’s book, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, is delightful. Phillip Johnson relied on it heavily, as you know.

If phyletic gradualism were “a thing” then we wouldn’t have “punctuated equilibrium” — the “get rich quick” scheme of evolution. That is why those buzz words were thought up, like, 50 years ago.

Of course there are always new fossil discoveries, but they tend to produce more questions than not. Think “Burgess Shale.”

One thing I always come back to is the “March of Progress” of horses. If we can’t get that one lineage figured out, the topic is hopeless. We have lots of horse fossils across multiple continents. What do we have? A dodge.

An arrangement of fossil horses is put in size order, and the reader is invited to “connect the dots.” However, as far as I know, no reputable anybody claims that the small horse to the left is the ancestral species to the marginally larger horse to the right. Remember, there is no genetic tree of life. If there isn’t, then there is no common ancestor. Full stop.

Schindewolf’s Basic Questions in Paleontology” is wonderful.

St. Mivart’s On the Genesis of Species is worth reading. It is, however, very much a product of its time.

Carroll’s book, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, is an absolute delight.

So, we’ve had, plus or minus, two centuries of fossil studies. Right now we’re getting revolutionary findings that fundamentally change our understanding of the whole enterprise I call nonsense. An appeal to secret knowledge: “Yes, I can see how you could reach those conclusions by reading these antiquated and obsolete manuscripts, but if you were familiar with the current literature, etc.?

Pffft. Species don’t change substantially, and we know why, genetically. If they departed indefinitely from type, we could breed a dog into a cat. As Phil J queried, if we can’t do this using skill and persistence, what makes us think that blind natural processes can do it?

I’ll tell you what makes some people think this, their philosophical allegiance to naturalism. It’s nature or nature.


You may also wish to read: Science Uprising # 9: Unvarnished fossil record is bad news for Darwin. Fossils, we are told, demonstrate the Truth of Darwinism as the history of life. But that’s only if you don’t look too closely. Science Uprising #9 looks too closely.

25 Replies to “A reader reflects on Science Uprising #9: Spot on but the problem is an old one

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    As to teeth,

    “The Origin(s) of Teeth – Most researchers believe that teeth first evolved from pharyngeal or skin structures resembling the placoid scales of sharks or rays…Evidence for the first teeth is equivocal, though they surely evolved as early experiments with vertebrate biomineralization … Regardless of when or where teeth first appeared” … (p. 223)
    Peter Ungar’ – Mammal Teeth: Origin, Evolution and Diversity – 2010

    So, as attorneys might ask me in a deposition, “The bottom line is, you just don’t know, do you?
    Ungar doesn’t know the mechanism of teeth origin or change. This is just about teeth and the guy (whom I’ve met, great guy) has spent his entire career on “food reduction.” No real knowledge of teeth origin, just description of progression in the fossil record.

    “At present, the problem of biological form remains unsolved” for Darwinists

    On the problem of biological form – Marta Linde-Medina (2020)
    Excerpt: Embryonic development, which inspired the first theories of biological form, was eventually excluded from the conceptual framework of the Modern Synthesis, (neo-Darwinism), as irrelevant.,,,
    At present, the problem of biological form remains unsolved.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12064-020-00317-3

    There are several lines of empirical evidences that establish that biological form is forever beyond the scope of the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinists. One of the empirical evidences that establish that biological form is forever beyond the scope of the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinists is the following, “developing tooth buds were moved so that the incisors and the molars were switched. The tooth buds became the tooth appropriate to the switched location, not the original one, in direct contrast to what we would expect from a genecentric view.”

    DNA doesn’t even tell teeth what they should look like – April 3, 2014
    Excerpt: A friend writes to mention a mouse experiment where developing tooth buds were moved so that the incisors and the molars were switched. The tooth buds became the tooth appropriate to the switched location, not the original one, in direct contrast to what we would expect from a genecentric view.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....look-like/

    Of related note, since teeth are, by far, the most complete fossil evidence that we can have for testing the Darwinian claims for human origins,,,,

    Why are teeth the most abundant fossil of hominids?
    Tooth enamel is densely packed with a durable mineral called hydroxyapatite, which makes teeth much better than bones at withstanding the chemical and physical degradation that occurs during fossilization. As a result, teeth are the most abundant elements in the primate fossil record.
    https://www.sidmartinbio.org/why-are-teeth-the-most-abundant-fossil-of-hominids/

    Since teeth are, by far, the most complete fossil evidence that we can have for testing the Darwinian claims for human origins, I consider the following study to be a fairly compelling piece of empirical evidence that undermines the entire Darwinian ‘narrative’ for human evolution.

    “No known hominin species matches the expected dental morphology of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans,” relies on fossils of approximately 1,200 molars and premolars from 13 species or types of hominins — humans and human relatives and ancestors. Fossils from the well-known Atapuerca sites have a crucial role in this research, accounting for more than 15 percent of the complete studied fossil collection.,,, They conclude with high statistical confidence that none of the hominins usually proposed as a common ancestor, such as Homo heidelbergensis, H. erectus and H. antecessor, is a satisfactory match. “None of the species that have been previously suggested as the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans has a dental morphology that is fully compatible with the expected morphology of this ancestor,” Gómez-Robles said.”
    – Indiana University, “No Known Hominin Is Common Ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans, Study Suggests” at ScienceDaily (October 21, 2013)
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131021153202.htm

    Supplemental notes:

    November 2021 – Human evolution? – the evidence from the fossil record refutes Darwinian evolution
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740239
    November 2021 – Human evolution? – the evidence from genetics, (and the mathematics of population genetics), when viewed in its entirety, instead of just piecemeal as Darwinists are prone to do, actually falsifies, instead of supports, the Darwinian claim that humans evolved some chimp-like ancestor.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740245
    November 2021 – Human exceptionalism refutes Darwinian evolution
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740249

    Genesis 1:26-27
    And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

  2. 2
    chuckdarwin says:

    For folks interested in the actual state of research on the evolution of teeth without the predictively snarky ID editorializing, this podcast is outstanding: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0003zbg
    Be forewarned, though, they talk about evolution….

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    ChuckyD, you do realize that your referenced site has Peter Ungar prominently cited do you not?

    Peter S. Ungar, Teeth: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2014)
    Peter S. Ungar, Evolution’s Bite: A Story of Teeth, Diet and Human Origins (Princeton University Press, 2018)

    So ChuckyD, your site does absolutely nothing to refute what News quoted Ungar himself as saying.

    News quoted Ungar precisely as saying, quote-unquote, “Evidence for the first teeth is equivocal,,,”.

    And in case you are having trouble understanding exactly what the word ‘equivocal’ actually means,

    e·quiv·o·cal
    adjective
    *open to more than one interpretation; ambiguous.
    *uncertain or questionable in nature.

  4. 4
    chuckdarwin says:

    Of course, I’m aware of the site’s content and reading list–I’m the one that referenced it. I’m also aware that Ungar is one of the most respected paleoanthropologists and evolutionary biologists in the business. Let me see if I have a grasp on the word “equivocal”: According to Bornagain, since chuckdarwin is a materialist, Darwinist, evolutionist, and, possibly atheist, evidence of his existence is equivocal. Or would it be certain–I get so confused…..

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    ^^^^^^ Huh? what in the world does that have to do with overturning what Ungar himself stated about the origin of teeth??? “Evidence for the first teeth is equivocal,,,”.

    Saying he is “one of the most respected paleoanthropologists and evolutionary biologists in the business” only accentuates his claim that “Evidence for the first teeth is equivocal,,,”. and does not detract away from it.

    Moreover, it is not me who is claiming that your sense of self is a neuronal illusion, but it is the worldview of Darwinian materialism itself, (which you defend tooth and nail), that is claiming that. So don’t pretend as if I am the one making such an absurd claim. That patently absurd claim that you don’t actually exist as a real person is arising from Darwinian materialism itself!

    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/279485.....sciousness

    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

    Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? Dr. Dennis Bonnette – video 37:51 minute mark
    Quote: “It turns out that if every part of you, down to sub-atomic parts, are still what they were when they weren’t in you, in other words every ion,,, every single atom that was in the universe, that has now become part of your living body, is still what is was originally. It hasn’t undergone what metaphysicians call a ‘substantial change’. So you aren’t Richard Dawkins. You are just carbon and neon and sulfur and oxygen and all these individual atoms still.
    You can spout a philosophy that says scientific materialism, but there aren’t any scientific materialists to pronounce it.,,, That’s why I think they find it kind of embarrassing to talk that way. Nobody wants to stand up there and say, “You know, I’m not really here”.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s

    Atheist Philosopher Thinks “We Never Have Direct Access To Our Thoughts”
    Michael Egnor – July 20, 2016
    Excerpt: Materialist theories of the mind border on the insane. If a man walks into a doctor’s office and says “I never have direct access to my thoughts and I have no first person point of view,” the man will be referred to a psychiatrist and may be involuntarily hospitalized until it is established that he is not a danger to himself or others.
    If the same guy walks into the philosophy department at Duke University, he gets tenure.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2016/07/atheist_philoso/

  6. 6
    Seversky says:

    So, as attorneys might ask me in a deposition, “The bottom line is, you just don’t know, do you?”

    To which the answer is, “No, we don’t know for certain and neither does anyone else but the hypothesis we have is the best fit to what little evidence there is. If you have anything better then bring it on.” That usually results in *crickets*.

    If phyletic gradualism were “a thing” then we wouldn’t have “punctuated equilibrium” — the “get rich quick” scheme of evolution. That is why those buzz words were thought up, like, 50 years ago.

    Evolution can run both slow and fast, depending on circumstances. Darwin mentioned that about 100 years earlier.

    One thing I always come back to is the “March of Progress” of horses. If we can’t get that one lineage figured out, the topic is hopeless. We have lots of horse fossils across multiple continents. What do we have? A dodge.

    A narrative which fits the fragmentary evidence we have is an hypothesis. Dodge is what intelligent design creationists do when challenged to come up with anything better.

    Pffft. Species don’t change substantially, and we know why, genetically. If they departed indefinitely from type, we could breed a dog into a cat.

    Dogs and cats are thought to have split from a weasel-like common ancestor around 40 million years ago. You aren’t going to replicate that in a lab, not in just a couple of centuries. But if you can book lab-time for 40 million years, who knows what you might come up with.

    As Phil J queried, if we can’t do this using skill and persistence, what makes us think that blind natural processes can do it?

    “Skill and persistence” for how long? Decades? Centuries? Millennia? Can Phil J tell us if it has ever been given a fair trial?

    I’ll tell you what makes some people think this, their philosophical allegiance to naturalism. It’s nature or nature.

    What else is there that isn’t natural?

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/3

    News quoted Ungar precisely as saying, quote-unquote, “Evidence for the first teeth is equivocal,,,”.

    That’s right. “Equivocal” meaning “uncertain” or “questionable in nature”. It doesn’t mean “wrong”, it means we don’t know for certain yet, like whole lot in science. If you want unfounded certainty then your religion is there to supply it for you.

  8. 8
    Upright BiPed says:

    ;
    Seversky.

    To which the answer is, “No, we don’t know for certain and neither does anyone else but the hypothesis we have is the best fit to what little evidence there is. If you have anything better then bring it on.”

    When it is “brought on” you run from it at every turn. You refuse to engage. You have no response to the science behind the design inference. You have no response to the history of science behind the design inference.. You have no response to the reasoning that supports the design inference. You have a defensive blank stare as to how dynamics resulted in the quiescent descriptions that are fundamental to biology and open-ended potential. You have absolutely nothing. You have nothing at all. You have no-thing.

    That usually results in *crickets*.

    Dodge is what intelligent design creationists do when challenged to come up with anything better.

    Total dishonesty on your part … demonstrated on there pages over and over and over again..

  9. 9
    zweston says:

    Sev @ 6… Your are just story telling… you are substantiating anything you said. Just another “just so” story. None of what you are saying is proven and maybe not even provable. it’s mythological.

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky at 7 states,

    That’s right. “Equivocal” meaning “uncertain” or “questionable in nature”. It doesn’t mean “wrong”, it means we don’t know for certain yet, like whole lot in science. If you want unfounded certainty then your religion is there to supply it for you.

    Yet Seversky is telling only part of the story. Although a thousand experiments establishing the validity of a theory is not enough to tell us with 100% absolute certainty that a scientific theory is unquestionably true or not, we can, none-the-less, know for 100% absolute certainty when a scientific theory is false. As Einstein explained,

    “The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says “Yes” to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says “Maybe,” and in the great majority of cases simply “No.” If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter “Maybe,” and if it does not agree it means “No.”
    – Albert Einstein

    And as Richard Feynman stated,

    “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    – Richard Feynman

    And please note that both Einstein’s General Relativity, and Feynman’s Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) are both confirmed to be true to almost absurd levels of precision, (confirmed to be true to 14 or so decimal places,,, confirmed to be true as far as current technology and measurement accuracy will allow!).

    The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science – May 5, 2011
    Excerpt: So, which of the two (general relativity or QED) is The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science??It’s a little tough to quantify a title like that, but I think relativity can claim to have tested the smallest effects. Things like the aluminum ion clock experiments showing shifts in the rate of a clock set moving at a few m/s, or raised by a foot, measure relativistic shifts of a few parts in 10^16. That is, if one clock ticks 10,000,000,000,000,000 times, the other ticks 9,999,999,999,999,999 times. That’s an impressively tiny effect, but the measured value is in good agreement with the predictions of relativity.
    In the end, though, I have to give the nod to QED, because while the absolute effects in relativity may be smaller, the precision of the measurements in QED is more impressive. Experimental tests of relativity measure tiny shifts, but to only a few decimal places. Experimental tests of QED measure small shifts, but to an absurd number of decimal places. The most impressive of these is the “anomalous magnetic moment of the electron,” expressed is terms of a number g whose best measured value is:?g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 73 (28)
    Depending on how you want to count it, that’s either 11 or 14 digits of precision (the value you would expect without QED is exactly 1, so in some sense, the shift really starts with the first non-zero decimal place), which is just incredible. And QED correctly predicts all those decimal places (at least to within the measurement uncertainty, given by the two digits in parentheses at the end of that).
    http://scienceblogs.com/princi.....sted-theo/

    And as David Berlinski pointed out, Darwinian simply has nothing to offer in comparison with the experimental accuracy achieved in General Relativity and QED.

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    – Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003

    Shoot, as Robert Marks and company have demonstrated, Darwinian evolution doesn’t even have a realistic mathematical model to experimentally test against in the first place.

    Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017
    Excerpt: There exists no (computer) model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Period. By “model,” we mean definitive simulations or foundational mathematics required of a hard science.,,,
    There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,
    ,,, there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/

    But regardless of the fact that Darwinism doesn’t even qualify as a hard and testable science in the first place, we still, via the principle of falsification, be absolutely 100% certain that Darwinian evolution is false.

    In fact, the ‘potential’ ability of a theory to be falsified by experimentation is exactly why Popper’s falsification criteria is considered, by many, as the gold standard in science for judging whether a theory is even qualifies as a scientific theory or not.

    “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
    – Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery

    And Darwinian evolution has been, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, falsified six ways from Sunday., (and thus we can, as Einstein himself explained, be absolutely 100% certain that Darwinian evolution is a false scientific theory)

    1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’.

    2. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute.

    3. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke.

    4. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever.

    5. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late).

    6. Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species.

    7. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”

    8. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.”

    9. Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’.

    10. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place!

    11. Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!.

    12. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy.

    13. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science!

    14. Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.

    Darwinism vs. Falsification – list and link to defence of each claim
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/edit

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    Test all things; hold fast what is good.

    Of supplemental note: As to Intelligent Design (ID) and falsification, there is currently a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person who can falsify a primary claim of ID that only Intelligent minds can create the coded information that is necessary to explain life, and that it is, therefore, impossible for unguided material processes to ever create the coded information that is necessary to explain life.

    Evolution 2.0 Prize: Unprecedented $10 Million Offered To Replicate Cellular Evolution – Jan 2020
    Excerpt: An incentive prize ten times the size of the Nobel – believed to be the largest single award ever in basic science – is being offered to the person or team solving the largest mystery in history: how genetic code inside cells got there, and how cells intentionally self-organize, communicate, then purposely adapt.
    This $10 million challenge, the Evolution 2.0 Prize can be found at http://www.evo2.org.,,
    The Evolution 2.0 Prize is designed by Chicago engineer-turned-marketer-turned-business consultant Perry Marshall and his A-list team of partners. They include top genetic experts from Harvard and Oxford, plus a diverse group of investors from private banking, healthcare and biotechnology, software, real estate, publishing and more.
    “A germ resisting antibiotics does more programming in 12 minutes than a team of Google engineers can do in 12 days,” said Marshall. “One blade of grass is 10,000 years ahead of any computer. If a single firm in Silicon Valley held a fraction of the secrets of this natural code inside a single cell, they’d set the NASDAQ on fire. Organisms self-edit and reprogram in real time in a way that dwarfs anything manmade. If we crack this, it will literally change the course of aging, disease, A.I. and humanity.”
    https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/evolution-2-0-prize-unprecedented-10-million-offered-to-replicate-cellular-evolution-875038146.html

    To repeat David Berlinski, “What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”

  11. 11
    Querius says:

    Bornagain77 @10,

    “What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”

    The answer to David Berlinksi’s question is “Plenty!”

    Darwinists can
    • Deny the functionality of “junk” DNA
    • Mock proponents of Intelligent Design
    • Promote the falsified concept of “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” (as in Hegel’s embryos)
    • Ignore the spectacular falsification of more than one hundred so-called “vestigial organs”
    • Suppress carbon dating of soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils
    • Rationalize the discovery of numerous “living fossils”
    • Deny hiring and tenure of professors that don’t adhere strictly to Darwinian orthodoxy
    • Avoid investigation into trans-strata and out of place fossils
    • Withhold non-Darwinian research grants
    • Reject publication of non-Darwinian scientific papers
    • Accept low-quality papers that promote Darwinian orthodoxy for publication
    • Disinvite heretical researchers from attending or presenting at scientific conferences

    I probably missed some, but this is a start.

    -Q

  12. 12
    vividbleau says:

    My all time Berlinski favorite, just hilarious.

    On the Derivation of Ulysses from Don Quixote

    I imagine this story being told to me by Jorge Luis Borges one evening in a Buenos Aires cafe.

    His voice dry and infinitely ironic, the aging, nearly blind literary master observes that “the Ulysses,” mistakenly attributed to the Irishman James Joyce, is in fact derived from “the Quixote.”

    I raise my eyebrows.

    Borges pauses to sip discreetly at the bitter coffee our waiter has placed in front of him, guiding his hands to the saucer.

    “The details of the remarkable series of events in question may be found at the University of Leiden,” he says. “They were conveyed to me by the Freemason Alejandro Ferri in Montevideo.”

    Borges wipes his thin lips with a linen handkerchief that he has withdrawn from his breast pocket.

    “As you know,” he continues, “the original handwritten text of the Quixote was given to an order of French Cistercians in the autumn of 1576.”

    I hold up my hand to signify to our waiter that no further service is needed.

    “Curiously enough, for none of the brothers could read Spanish, the Order was charged by the Papal Nuncio, Hoyo dos Monterrey (a man of great refinement and implacable will), with the responsibility for copying the Quixote, the printing press having then gained no currency in the wilderness of what is now known as the department of Auvergne. Unable to speak or read Spanish, a language they not unreasonably detested, the brothers copied the Quixote over and over again, re-creating the text but, of course, compromising it as well, and so inadvertently discovering the true nature of authorship. Thus they created Fernando Lor’s Los Hombres d’Estado in 1585 by means of a singular series of copying errors, and then in 1654 Juan Luis Samorza’s remarkable epistolary novel Por Favor by the same means, and then in 1685, the errors having accumulated sufficiently to change Spanish into French, Moliere’s Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, their copying continuous and indefatigable, the work handed down from generation to generation as a sacred but secret trust, so that in time the brothers of the monastery, known only to members of the Bourbon house and, rumor has it, the Englishman and psychic Conan Doyle, copied into creation Stendhal’s The Red and the Black and Flaubert’s Madame Bovary, and then as a result of a particularly significant series of errors, in which French changed into Russian, Tolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Ilyich and Anna Karenina. Late in the last decade of the 19th century there suddenly emerged, in English, Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest, and then the brothers, their numbers reduced by an infectious disease of mysterious origin, finally copied the Ulysses into creation in 1902, the manuscript lying neglected for almost thirteen years and then mysteriously making its way to Paris in 1915, just months before the British attack on the Somme, a circumstance whose significance remains to be determined.”

    I sit there, amazed at what Borges has recounted. “Is it your understanding, then,” I ask, “that every novel in the West was created in this way?”

    “Of course,” replies Borges imperturbably. Then he adds: “Although every novel is derived directly from another novel, there is really only one novel, the Quixote.”

    Vivid

  13. 13
    martin_r says:

    ‘evolution’ of teeth

    the same with bones / skeleton …

    They just don’t know … not a single evidence of how skeleton/ bones evolved …

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Querius as to your list at 11 answering “What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”, if I might add one more thing to your list,

    *Unimaginable Horror and Misery

    Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes – Foundational Darwinian influence in their political ideologies
    July 2020
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-on-the-relationship-between-darwinism-and-totalitarianism/#comment-707831

    Atheism’s Body Count *
    It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world.
    https://www.scholarscorner.com/atheisms-body-count-ideology-and-human-suffering/

  15. 15
    jerry says:

    This OP is about the DNA model which nearly everyone at ID and evolutionary biology is fixated on. Why not follow the science and spend time looking for what had to be necessary for a macro evolution event to happen.

    Even the dog/cat scenario would require more than just creating/removing alleles. In other words the difference between two species is much more than a DNA exchange or a DNA addition.

    What is it?

  16. 16
    BobRyan says:

    It is human arrogance to use human lifespan as the sole means of determining how long it takes for a species to evolve, if evolution occurs, which has never been witnessed by anyone.

    There were no rats in the Americas until Europeans brought them on ships. They have since flooded both continents. Due to their shot life spans, millions of years have passed for them without a single genetic change to show any rat, no matter how distantly removed from Europe, to be anything other than a rat.

  17. 17
    Belfast says:

    @vividbleau
    Thanks for that, I heard of it, but without knowing it was Berlinski, I couldn’t find the quote.
    Thanks again.

  18. 18
    Seversky says:

    Querius/11

    Bornagain77 @10,

    “What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”

    The answer is a theory, which even some ID proponents have conceded they do not have.

    • Deny the functionality of “junk” DNA

    Most of it is genetic debris and not even ENCODE has been able to prove otherwise. They just used a somewhat elastic definition of “function”

    • Mock proponents of Intelligent Design

    Pot, kettle, black.

    • Promote the falsified concept of “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” (as in Hegel’s embryos)

    It was Haeckel and his theory was rejected a long time ago.

    • Ignore the spectacular falsification of more than one hundred so-called “vestigial organs”

    Really? Such as?

    • Suppress carbon dating of soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils

    Really? You know about it. I’ve read about it. How is it being suppressed?

    • Rationalize the discovery of numerous “living fossils”

    How is that wrong? I thought you were all in favor of rationality.

    • Deny hiring and tenure of professors that don’t adhere strictly to Darwinian orthodoxy

    If by “Darwinian orthodoxy” you mean panadaptationism, there are plenty of biologists who are pluralists.

    • Avoid investigation into trans-strata and out of place fossils

    How would we know of “trans-strata and out of place fossils” if they weren’t being investigated?

    • Withhold non-Darwinian research grants

    You have evidence of research grants being withheld specifically because the applicants held “non-Darwinian” views?

    • Reject publication of non-Darwinian scientific papers

    You have evidence of scientific papers that were rejected only because the authors endorsed “non-Darwinian” views?

    • Accept low-quality papers that promote Darwinian orthodoxy for publication

    Examples?

    • Disinvite heretical researchers from attending or presenting at scientific conferences

    Here, at least, we agree. Holding unorthodox or even “heretical’ views should not be a reason to disinvite researchers to scientific conferences.

    As for the rest, it’s standard conspiracy-theorizing. Explain everything you don’t like as the result of some secret but enormously powerful cabal of Darwinists or Marxists or socialists or Jews or Islamists or Satanists or cannibalistic pedophiles or reptilians or alien shape-shifters or any other group you can stereotype as the “bad guys”.

    Personally, if I were inclined to conspiracy theorizing – which I’m not – I would be pointing towards Christian Dominionists or Reconstructionists who would love to establish the Christian equivalent of an Islamic theocracy here in the United States. It’s just as likely as some of the QAnonsense that passes for rational thought I some quarters.

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky claims that Darwinism is a scientific theory and that Intelligent Design is not.

    Yet, Seversky, the fact of the matter is that you wouldn’t know a scientific theory if it bit you on the rear end!

    Imre Lakatos, who was considered one of the top three philosophers of science in the 20th century,

    How science fails – (Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos)
    Excerpt: Imre Lakatos, science degenerates unless it is theoretically and experimentally progressive,,,
    https://aeon.co/essays/imre-lakatos-and-the-philosophy-of-bad-science

    Imre Lakatos, (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) was a Hungarian philosopher of mathematics and science, known for his thesis of the fallibility of mathematics and its “methodology of proofs and refutations” in its pre-axiomatic stages of development, and also for introducing the concept of the “research programme” in his methodology of scientific research programmes.,,,
    A Lakatosian research programme[20] is based on a hard core of theoretical assumptions that cannot be abandoned or altered without abandoning the programme altogether. More modest and specific theories that are formulated in order to explain evidence that threatens the “hard core” are termed auxiliary hypotheses.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos

    ,,, Imre Lakatos, who was considered one of the top three philosophers of science in the 20th century, stated that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific,”

    Does Evolution have a Hard Core ?
    Excerpt: “ people think that there are goodies and baddies among scientific theories, and once you have defined a demarcation criterion. you should divide all your theories between the two groups. You would end up. for example, with a goodies list including Copernicus’s (Theory1), Galileo’s (T2), Kepler’s (T3), Newton’s (T4) … and Einstein’s (T5), along with but this is just my supposition Darwin’s (T6). Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for.”
    – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote was as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
    So basically, the demarcation problem is a fun mind-game philosophers enjoy playing, but when they realize the implications regarding the theory of evolution, they quickly back off…
    http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosm.....ore_pg.htm

    And as Wikipedia itself, (certainly no friend of Intelligent Design), noted, “20 years after Lakatos’s 1973 challenge to the scientificity of Darwin,,, Helena Cronin, attempted to establish that Darwinian theory was empirically scientific… She wrote that “our usual idea of corroboration as requiring the successful prediction of novel facts…Darwinian theory was not strong on temporally novel predictions.” …

    In his 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture 1[12] he (Lakatos) also claimed that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”.
    Almost 20 years after Lakatos’s 1973 challenge to the scientificity of Darwin, in her 1991 The Ant and the Peacock, LSE lecturer and ex-colleague of Lakatos, Helena Cronin, attempted to establish that Darwinian theory was empirically scientific in respect of at least being supported by evidence of likeness in the diversity of life forms in the world, explained by descent with modification. She wrote that
    “our usual idea of corroboration as requiring the successful prediction of novel facts…Darwinian theory was not strong on temporally novel predictions.” …
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....27s_theory

    In short, Lakatos, when he stated that, “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” was basically claiming that Darwinian evolution did not have a ‘hard core’

    And the reason that Darwinian evolution does not have a scientific ‘hard core’ is simply because Darwinian evolution has no mathematical model to test against. As Dr. Robert Marks states “Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. ,,, there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”

    “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”
    – Robert J. Marks II – Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – June 12, 2017
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/

    And the primary reason why nobody has ever been able to build a realistic mathematical model of Darwinian evolution for us to test against is simply because there is no ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for mathematicians and physicists to ever build a realistic mathematical model upon:

    Laws of science
    1 Conservation laws
    1.1 Conservation and symmetry
    1.2 Continuity and transfer
    2 Laws of classical mechanics
    2.1 Principle of least action
    3 Laws of gravitation and relativity
    3.1 Modern laws
    3.2 Classical laws
    4 Thermodynamics
    5 Electromagnetism
    6 Photonics
    7 Laws of quantum mechanics
    8 Radiation laws
    9 Laws of chemistry
    10 Geophysical laws
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

    As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.”

    The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 (page 2 of 14)
    Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.
    ,,, And so that’s what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C.pdf

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation that Ernst Mayr did and states, ,,, “Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.”

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014
    Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on.
    ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
    Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation.
    http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468

    Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
    https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf

    Despite Darwinists constantly speaking as if their theory is on par with, say, general relativity, there simply is no physical and/or natural ‘law of evolution’ within the known universe that we can possibly measure in laboratory, (and thus provide a foundation for Darwinists to ever build a realistic mathematical model upon),,,

    As Brian Miller recently noted, “To fully comprehend the critique, one simply needs to imagine attempting to craft an evolutionary barometer that measures the selection pressure driving one organism to transform into something different (e.g., fish into an amphibian). The fact that no such instrument could be constructed highlights the fictitious nature of such mystical forces”

    Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection Has Left a Legacy of Confusion over Biological Adaptation
    Brian Miller – September 20, 2021
    Excerpt: Evolutionary biologist Robert Reid stated:
    “Indeed the language of neo-Darwinism is so careless that the words ‘divine plan’ can be substituted for ‘selection pressure’ in any popular work in the biological literature without the slightest disruption in the logical flow of argument.”
    Robert Reid, Biological Emergences: Evolution by Natural Experiment, PP. 37-38
    To fully comprehend the critique, one simply needs to imagine attempting to craft an evolutionary barometer that measures the selection pressure driving one organism to transform into something different (e.g., fish into an amphibian). The fact that no such instrument could be constructed highlights the fictitious nature of such mystical forces.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2021/09/darwins-theory-of-natural-selection-has-left-a-legacy-of-confusion-over-biological-adaptation/

    Moreover, the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science directly, or almost directly, contradicts the primary Darwinian claim that greater and greater levels of functional complexity can easily be had and/or ‘naturally selected’ for over long periods of time. Indeed, entropy’s main claim is that, over long periods of time, everything in the universe will eventually decay into simpler and simpler states until what is termed thermodynamic equilibrium is finally reached.

    Why Tornados Running Backward do not Violate the Second Law – Granville Sewell Professor of Mathematics at University of Texas – El Paso – May 2012 – article with video
    Excerpt: So, how does the spontaneous rearrangement of matter on a rocky, barren, planet into human brains and spaceships and jet airplanes and nuclear power plants and libraries full of science texts and novels, and supercomputers running partial differential equation solving software , represent a less obvious or less spectacular violation of the second law—or at least of the fundamental natural principle behind this law—than tornados turning rubble into houses and cars? Can anyone even imagine a more spectacular violation?
    – per uncommon decent

    This is not a minor problem for Darwinists. As Eddington himself explained, “if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it to collapse in deepest humiliation.”

    “The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations – then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation – well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
    – Arthur Eddington, New Pathways in Science

    And whereas Darwinian evolution has no known law of nature to appeal to so as to build a realistic mathematical model and establish itself as a proper, testable, ‘hard’ science, Intelligent Design does not suffer from such an embarrassing disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ (Dembski, Marks, etc..) in order to establish itself as a proper, testable, and rigorous ‘hard’ science.

    Conservation of information, evolution, etc – Sept. 30, 2014
    Excerpt: Kurt Gödel’s logical objection to Darwinian evolution:
    “The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation].”
    Gödel – As quoted in H. Wang. “On `computabilism’ and physicalism: Some Problems.” in Nature’s Imagination, J. Cornwall, Ed, pp.161-189, Oxford University Press (1995).
    Gödel’s argument is that if evolution is unfolding from an initial state by mathematical laws of physics, it cannot generate any information not inherent from the start – and in his view, neither the primaeval environment nor the laws are information-rich enough.,,,
    More recently this led him (Dembski) to postulate a Law of Conservation of Information, or actually to consolidate the idea, first put forward by Nobel-prizewinner Peter Medawar in the 1980s. Medawar had shown, as others before him, that in mathematical and computational operations, no new information can be created, but new findings are always implicit in the original starting points – laws and axioms.,,,
    http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.u.....ution-etc/

    Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence – June 17, 2015
    Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search — unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with “natural evolution.” ,,,
    ,, Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,,
    What Marks and Dembski (mathematically) prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can’t prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can’t derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....96931.html

    In fact, as pointed out previously at post 10 in this thread, there is a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person who can falsify the theory of Intelligent Design,

    Evolution 2.0 Prize: Unprecedented $10 Million Offered To Replicate Cellular Evolution – Jan 2020
    Excerpt: An incentive prize ten times the size of the Nobel – believed to be the largest single award ever in basic science – is being offered to the person or team solving the largest mystery in history: how genetic code inside cells got there, and how cells intentionally self-organize, communicate, then purposely adapt.
    This $10 million challenge, the Evolution 2.0 Prize can be found at http://www.evo2.org.,,
    The Evolution 2.0 Prize is designed by Chicago engineer-turned-marketer-turned-business consultant Perry Marshall and his A-list team of partners. They include top genetic experts from Harvard and Oxford, plus a diverse group of investors from private banking, healthcare and biotechnology, software, real estate, publishing and more.
    “A germ resisting antibiotics does more programming in 12 minutes than a team of Google engineers can do in 12 days,” said Marshall. “One blade of grass is 10,000 years ahead of any computer. If a single firm in Silicon Valley held a fraction of the secrets of this natural code inside a single cell, they’d set the NASDAQ on fire. Organisms self-edit and reprogram in real time in a way that dwarfs anything manmade. If we crack this, it will literally change the course of aging, disease, A.I. and humanity.”
    https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/evolution-2-0-prize-unprecedented-10-million-offered-to-replicate-cellular-evolution-875038146.html

    To repeat David Berlinski, “What can Darwinian theory (possibly) offer in comparison?”

    So thus in conclusion, and directly contrary to Seversky’s claim that Darwinism is a scientific theory, the fact of the matter is that Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a ‘hard science’ in the first place in that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”. And the primary reason why nobody has, or ever will, find a “demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” is simply because there is no natural and/or physical law in the known physical universe for Darwinists to ever build a realistic mathematical model upon.

    In short, Darwin’s theory, for all intents and purposes, is built entirely upon the imaginations of men, and is not, unlike every other ‘hard’ scientific theory, built upon a rigorous mathematical framework that is based on some known physical law of the universe.

    “Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection.
    Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.”
    – Stephen Jay Gould – Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – 1978 – New Scientist

    Oct. 2021: – In short, and in conclusion, Darwinists, intentionally or not, constantly confuse their imaginary ‘just-so stories’ with actual empirical science. Darwinists simply have no evidence that Darwinian processes can create anything, not even a single protein, much less do they have any evidence that Darwinian processes can actually produce any particular trait in question, such as the intricacies of the birth canal.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/twisted-human-birth-canal-evolved-to-be-good-design/#comment-739510

    Verse:

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

  21. 21
    ET says:

    seversky is either a liar or just willfully ignorant. Perhaps both. There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution.

    seversky:

    Most of it is genetic debris…

    No one has been able to demonstrate that. No one.

    Dogs and cats are thought to have split from a weasel-like common ancestor around 40 million years ago.

    Clueless. There isn’t any naturalistic mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes given starting populations of prokaryotes. That also means there isn’t any naturalistic mechanism capable of producing metazoans. You have nothing but your lies and ignorance.

    Good luck with that.

  22. 22
    ET says:

    Earth to chuckdarwin- there isn’t any naturalistic mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes or metazoans. Your alleged “research” is pure lies.

  23. 23
    JVL says:

    ET: There isn’t any naturalistic mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes given starting populations of prokaryotes.

    So, you find the possible explanations insufficient. What, in particular, do you think is wrong with those possibilities?

  24. 24
    chuckdarwin says:

    ET is so ragged at me he is now ascribing other people’s posts/ideas to me…. 😉

  25. 25
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    JVL
    What, in particular, do you think is wrong with those possibilities?

    What, in particular, do you think is right with those possibilities?

Leave a Reply