Editor in chief of WORLD News Group Marvin Olasky interviews Biologic Institute’s interviews Ann Gauger,
Olasky: I used to work at DuPont, the inventor in the 1930s of nylon—and 40 years later scientists found a bacterium with an enzyme dubbed nylonase that was able to digest nylon, which is a synthetic chemical not found in nature. Evolutionists use that as proof that new proteins can rapidly evolve, but you found a different story.
Gauger: It wasn’t what we call a frameshift mutation, a DNA deletion or insertion that shifts the whole way a sequence is read. I discovered a whole body of literature by some Japanese workers who had found pre-existing protein folds. There was no new protein, no novel protein fold, no new mutation.
Olasky: And now you’re undermining what we’ve seen frequently reported in newspapers and magazines: that a special creation of Adam and Eve, one couple from whom all of us are descended, could not have happened.
Gauger: Most of my scientific career seems to be involving people asking me questions and then I start down a path. In this case, a philosopher asked me how strong was the genetic evidence against Adam, because everywhere it’s been proclaimed we had to come from a population of 10,000. It’s led to people in the church suggesting there is no such thing as a historical Adam. So when the philosopher asked me, I said, “I don’t know. I’ll go look.” I started with a paper that Francisco Ayala, a very famous evolutionary biologist, wrote to disprove the possibility of a first pair. Marvin Olasky, “Science vs. Darwinism” at World Magazine
Gauger found two papers a few years later which suggested that the number of variants was much smaller. She is working on “an alternative population genetics model that doesn’t depend on evolutionary assumptions.”
Follow UD News at Twitter!
See also: John Sanford on claims about brand new nylonase genes
and
Could there have been a literal Adam & Eve?
From the OP: ” … you’re undermining what we’ve seen frequently reported in newspapers and magazines: that a special creation of Adam and Eve, one couple from whom all of us are descended, could not have happened.”
But this just in – tada … tada … tada
” … scientists in the U.S. and Switzerland have made an astonishing discovery: All humans alive today are the offspring of a common father and mother – an Adam and Eve – who walked the planet 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, which by evolutionary standards is like yesterday. Moreover, the same is true of nine out of every 10 animal species, meaning that nearly all of Earth’s creatures living today sprang into being recently from some seminal, Big Bang-like event. … ”
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/did-a-mysterious-extinction-event-precede-adam-and-eve
Seems the science here is a bit unsettled.
From the Foxnews article:
” … That is, humans, elephants, birds, you name it – Earth’s creatures tend to stand and fall in unison, like the rising and falling of the tides. And even though we don’t know what Svengali is directing the show, we now have scientific evidence that it wipes the slate clean far more frequently than we ever imagined.”
Seems to suggest that Adam & Eve lived at multiple times in the far distant “deep time.” Sort of like a Multiverse sort of thing. I’m sure Steven Hawking will be pleased to hear this.
Was this Adam the first human, and were these two people a couple?
I ask the question in #3 because I recall some studies relating to a genetic Adam and Eve saying these genetic Adams and Eves were not the first humans and probably were not a couple. In fact, some say that they perhaps didn’t even live at the same time. I don’t have this recent paper cited in the Fox News article, though.
An article from 2013 states:
I don’t know if this applies to this more recent discovery.
If daveS would have read the article in the OP he would have found,,,
Moreover, before we even ask if it is possible for some chimp-like creature to evolve into a human, we first have to ask if it is even possible, according to the laws of nature, for evolution to even occur in the first place. And the answer to that question is a resounding NO.
And Godel’s incompleteness theorem has now been extended to physics:
In the following article entitled ‘Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics’, which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
Simply put, the implications of Godel’s incompleteness theorem for neo-Darwinian evolution are,,,
Moreover, unlike other rigorous theories in science, Neo-Darwinian evolution is based on no known physical law.
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.”
In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
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.”
In fact, not only is there no ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for Darwinists to build a realistic mathematical model upon, as the following video shows,,,
,,,the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science, 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 decay into simpler and simpler states until what is termed thermodynamic equilibrium is finally reached.
Moreover, it was recently shown that when realistic rates of detrimental mutations are included in Fisher’s Theorem, then Fisher’s Theorem gets flipped on its head and shows that “Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase is also falsified.
And as Dr. Sanford recently highlighted at his talk at the National Institute of Health, when realistic rates of detrimental mutations are taken into consideration then Darwinian evolution becomes completely unfeasible:
John Sanford also recently co-authored a book, “Contested Bones” which clearly shows that the fossil record for supposed human evolution is far more ‘un-Darwinian’ than is popularly believed:
Moreover, recently two different studies found that Chimp DNA is only 84% similar to Human DNA not 98.5% as is popularly believed
Moreover, completely contrary to Darwinian thought, kangaroos and Dolphins are far more genetically similar to us than was presupposed under Darwinian thought:
Where you find dramatic differences between different species is in the Alternative Splicing patterns:
Moreover, alternative splicing patterns are part of the developmental Gene Regulatory Network. Mutations to the developmental Gene Regulatory Network are ‘always catastrophically bad’.
You can’t START a “new” species with an INITIAL population of 10,000. Unless you’re arguing: DAY -1: no humans anywhere; DAY 0: POOF! 10,000 humans EXACTLY divided into 5,000 ADULT males AND 5,000 ADULT females.
Ya wanna explain an ALTERNATE process that MAGICALLY gets you 10,000?! individuals, each one FULLY a member of the New Species, AT THE SAME TIME.
The more logical alternative is for there to be a SINGLE new baby who is Fully Human. And since he or she is COMPLETELY helpless, you need a nursemaid rather more delicate and caring than a chimp or gorilla. And so Nursemaid dotes on the helpless baby human until he or she is 8 or 10!! years old, and has SOME chance of finding food and defending himself or herself.
And IN PARALLEL, there MUST BE a SINGLE new baby of the alternate sex. A single Nursemaid could easily take care of both babies at the same time, but humans have a LONG period of immaturity.
Alternately, if you have some huge Alien breeding factory (like for Storm Troopers in Star Wars), then YES you can generate 10,000 mixed male and female adults in a single afternoon. And we have, um, ah, hmmm, ZERO known examples of any such breeding factory.
And WHO exactly is it that BUILT the breeding factory, and WHERE did the factory go once humans began producing puppies “naturally”?
There would of course still be the problem that teenagers who have NEVER experienced RAISING an infant to adolescence are probably going to KILL a fair percentage of the young, even if only by simple neglect. THERE is NOTHING in all of human experience that suggests the CREATION of an “initial” pool of 10,000 humans, ALL of the SAME age.
The Deity could of course do this no problem. But doesn’t it make more sense that the “first production models” of the new species are Female #1 and Male #1? And isn’t it then logical that the Deity, either directly or through Agents (the so-called Angels), RAISED the helpless little humans to the point (as in “Blue Lagoon”) where they “realized they were NAKED”. And Boy #1 LIKED the naked Girl #1, and the pair went off into the bushes to explore all their new discoveries.
I am willing to accept that at some arbitrary point in Ancient History, there was a “bottleneck” that severely reduced the total number of living humans. And that all modern humans are descended from the parents who didn’t get killed during the Bottleneck.
I can’t believe ANY scientist producing Hybrid plants or animals shoots the works and generates 10,000 hybrids in the FIRST generation without bothering to tinker in the lab for a few generations.
10,000 humans in the FIRST generation sounds a WHOLE lot like one of the Barbarian creation stories. I mean, I’m sure Odin or the Dagda could have just waved their swords and POOF!: 10,000 adult humans, mixed 51% female and 49% male. No Science required.
Oh, does this “minimum of 10,000” apply to OTHER species? I don’t think ANY of the Endangered Species of large mammals have populations over 10,000 today. How many gorillas are there in Africa? Did their ancient HUGE population COLLAPSE to only a few hundred today? Does this mean they are already “extinct” for practical purposes, since they “need” 10,000 or more individuals to “exist”?
I’m not sure if you’re trolling vmahuna, but species arise when one species (perhaps with thousands or millions of individuals) splits into two. Theres is no requirement that either the new species have only a few individuals.
The 10,000 number doesn’t apply to all species. It’s a number inferred from the diversity of modern humans.
Mimus claims:
Yet Darwinists have no evidence for this claim:
Minus then claims:
Yes, but there is a requirement that one should be able to define exactly what a species is in the first place. The entire concept of species, like the concepts of personhood and mathematics,,
The entire concept of species, like the concepts of personhood and mathematics, is an abstract, immaterial, concept that simply cannot be grounded within the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution.
In other words, it is impossible for Darwinists to ever accurately define exactly what a species is in the first place without ‘borrowing’ the unifying, abstract, immaterial, concept of species from Theists.
As their inability to ground the unifying, abstract, immaterial, concept of species illustrates, (as well as their inability to ground the unifying, abstract, immaterial, concepts of mathematics, persons, etc.. illustrates), Darwinists simply are unable to ground any given abstract, immaterial, “context” of any particular group of particles that they may wish to classify as a particular group.
As Pastor Joe Boot points out in the following video, “If you have no God,, you are confronted with is innumerable brute facts that are unrelated pieces of data. They have no meaningful connection to each other because there is no overall structure. There’s no design plan.”
Any given ‘context’ simply can never find any grounding within the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution. As the following article succinctly states, “The whole is required to give meaning to the part.”
And as Godel states,
And as was pointed out in post 6, Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem has now been extended to physics,
Simply put, the devastating implications of Godel’s incompleteness theorem for neo-Darwinian evolution are,,,
Minus then claims that:
Yet the “diversity of modern humans” is arrived at, (like the ‘diversity of dogs’ as was referenced earlier), by a loss of genetic diversity not by a gain of genetic diversity.
Of related note:
Verse and study of the overall pattern of the fossil record: