Genetics Intelligent Design

Direct experimental falsification of Darwinism?

Spread the love
genome
CCO Public Domain

Researchers: Body cells have a lot to say about which germ cells are allowed to divide:

Scientists… have discovered that body cells which are in direct contact with the germ cells in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans are responsible for controlling the stability of the genome in primordial germ cells (PGCs) …

For more than a hundred years, inheritance of genetic information was thought to be autonomously controlled by the germ cells, explaining why acquired traits cannot be genetically inherited. Scientists believed that mutations occurring only in germ cells were responsible for any heritable genetic changes—be it during evolution or as cause of genetic disorders. Schumacher and his team now challenge this assertion.

The DNA of an organism constantly gets damaged. Not only environmental influences, but also by-products of the body’s energy metabolism damage the molecular structure of the genome in every cell. The scientists investigated how the genome integrity of PGCs is controlled. PGCs need to survey their genomes particularly rigorously because they give rise to all sperm or eggs of the organism. Damaged PGCs are particularly dangerous because they are hereditary and can lead to serious genetic disorders. PGCs thus need to stop dividing when their genomes are damaged until the DNA is repaired. Special niche cells are responsible for signalling to the PGCs that they need to stop dividing and repair before generating further germ cells. If they fail to do so, the PGCs might pass on dangerous mutations to the next generation.

To fulfil this important function, the niche cells are in intimate contact with the PGCs and instruct them whether to divide and generate germ cells or whether to stay inactive. “This means that the body is responsible for controlling the integrity of heritable genomes,” Schumacher remarked. “The parental body thus has somatic control over the integrity of PGC genomes, controlling the quality of the heritable genetic information.” Since studying PGCs in mammals is a complicated endeavour, Schumacher’s team used C. elegans as a simple animal model to shed new light on to how PGCs control the integrity of the genomes they will pass on to their offspring. University of Cologne, July 24, 2019, “Genome research shows that the body controls the integrity of heritable genomes” at Phys.org

(The Selfish Gene was heard to sob uncontrollably in the background.)

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

See also: Yet another new type of intercellular communication discovered

Follow UD News at Twitter!

18 Replies to “Direct experimental falsification of Darwinism?

  1. 1
    AaronS1978 says:

    Well then that’s incredibly fantastic And possibly one of the coolest things I’ve read

  2. 2
    Bob O'H says:

    I agree with Aaron – fascinating. I’ve no idea how it falsifies Darwinism though.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob O’H states that

    I’ve no idea how it falsifies Darwinism though.

    You tell her Bob. Darwinism, at least how Darwinists treat it, isn’t a falsifiable science but is more properly classified as a unfalsifiable pseudoscientific religion for atheists.

    But for those of us who are not so enamored to embrace, as a unfalsifiable religion, the nihilistic insanity inherent within the Darwinian worldview, then this experimental finding falsifies a central assumption behind the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinism. Specifically this finding falsifies what is known as the “Weismann barrier”, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment.

    ,, In the following video, Dr Denis Noble states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976. It’s main assumptions are, first of all, is that it is a gene centered view of natural selection. The process of evolution can therefore be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome. It would be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations, followed by selection. (Now an important point to make here is that if that process is genuinely random, then there is nothing that physiology, or physiologists, can say about that process. That is a very important point.) The second aspect of neo-Darwinism was the impossibility of acquired characteristics (mis-called “Larmarckism”). And there is a very important distinction in Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ between the replicator, that is the genes, and the vehicle that carries the replicator, that is the organism or phenotype. And of course that idea was not only buttressed and supported by the Weissman barrier idea, but later on by the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. Then Dr. Nobel pauses to emphasize his point and states “All these rules have been broken!”.
    Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences.
    Denis Noble – Rocking the foundations of biology – video
    http://www.voicesfromoxford.or.....iology/184

    More interesting still, “the modern synthesis’ and/or the mathematics of population genetics itself, math which is more or less directly based on the Darwinian postulates of random variation and natural selection, also falsifies Darwinian evolution,

    Fisher’s proof of Darwinian evolution has been flipped?
    – December 27, 2017
    Excerpt: we re-examine Fisher’s Theorem, showing that because it disregards mutations, and because it is invalid beyond one instant in time, it has limited biological relevance. We build a differential equations model from Fisher’s first principles with mutations added, and prove a revised theorem showing the rate of change in mean fitness is equal to genetic variance plus a mutational effects term. We refer to our revised theorem as the fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations. Our expanded theorem, and our associated analyses (analytic computation, numerical simulation, and visualization), provide a clearer understanding of the mutation–selection process, and allow application of biologically realistic parameters such as mutational effects. The expanded theorem has biological implications significantly different from what Fisher had envisioned.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fishers-proof-of-darwinian-evolution-has-been-flipped/

    The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations – June 2018
    Excerpt: Because the premise underlying Fisher’s corollary is now recognized to be entirely wrong, Fisher’s corollary is falsified. Consequently, Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase is also falsified.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-017-1190-x

    The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17
    John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner
    Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,,
    Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information.
    While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man.
    It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC4573302/

    Here are a few more falsifications of Darwinian evolution that Darwinists, since they treat Darwinian evolution as their religion instead of as a science, simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory:

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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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 sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that 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).

    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.

    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.”

    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 the modern versions of it.”

    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’.

    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!

    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!.

    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.

    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!

    Darwinist’s, 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.

    On top of all that, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on intelligent design and is certainly not based on methodological naturalism as is presupposed by Darwinists.
    From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science, (i.e. that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results, from top to bottom science itself is certainly not ‘natural’.
    Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever just found laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analysed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial mathematics and logic that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.

    In fact, (as I have pointed out several times now), assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft).
    Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    – Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video – 39:45 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387

    Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    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;

  4. 4
    AaronS1978 says:

    It would falsify one component which is genetically assumed within the theory of Darwinism. But it doesn’t really falsify Darwinism. Darwinism is a philosophical survival strategy to explain everything, it’s metaphysics, I’m not exactly sure how you ever can falsify it, because you can describe this using the same way we did back in the post with quantum mechanics and Darwinism. I created the universe with it.

    I can use Darwinism and simply say only organisms capable of monitoring their own genetics for fatal mutations would survive and be selected by natural selection

    It’s literally that simple

    If it has a benefit, plus time, it will always be selected by natural selection and there for survive

    This is also a major problem that is always ignored blatantly and that’s why I hate it

  5. 5
    Bob O'H says:

    Aaron – what component does it falsify, and how? I’m honestly not seeing it.

  6. 6
    ET says:

    Darwinism needs a methodology to test it claims before anyone thinks of falsifying it. You don’t need to falsify that which cannot be tested.

  7. 7
    PaV says:

    As News says: “The Selfish Gene was heard to sob uncontrollably in the background.”

    The point is this: Darwinism essentially says that variation is in charge of evolution. Certainly Fisher’s Theorem codifies this. So, any organism is essentially ‘built’ from the ground up. This finding suggests that the organism is very much in charge of the mutations/variation, and thus, the organism functions from the top down, and not the ground up. It’s simply another nail in Darwin’s coffin.

    [Actually, only a stake through the heart will work when it comes to Darwinism]

    Meyer’s Darwin’s Dilemna points out that the ‘evolution’ of new and higher taxa are from the top down, and not from the ground up—as seen in the fossil record. IOW, the Cambrian Explosion reveals phyla emerging from the very beginning of multi-cellular life, not after a significant period of evolving forms. Darwin fully expected that the fossil record would show this type of development; and, guess what, we don’t see it. Darwin is falsified.

    But, as I said, only a “stake through the heart” can do that.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob (and weave) O’ Hara states at 5:

    what component does it falsify, and how? I’m honestly not seeing it.

    Well DUH, that is because Darwinian evolution prevents you from seeing reality as it really is! 🙂

    Donald Hoffman has shown, through numerous computer simulations of Darwinian evolution, that if Darwinian evolution were actually true then ALL of our observations of reality would be illusory.

    Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? – Video – 9:59 minute mark
    Quote: “Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it is fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality. Others see just part of the reality. And some see none of the reality. Only fitness. Who wins? Well I hate to break it to you but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality, but are just tuned to fitness, drive to extinction that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those (accurate) perceptions of reality go extinct. Now this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?”
    https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY?t=601

    The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality – April 2016
    The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.
    Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.”
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

    The Interface Theory of Perception – 2015
    Donald D. Hoffman & Manish Singh & Chetan Prakash
    http://people.psych.cornell.ed.....erface.pdf
    http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/image.....15_PBR.pdf (follow-up discussion)

    What If Evolution Bred Reality Out Of Us? – September 6, 2016
    Excerpt: Fundamentally, Hoffman argues, evolution and reality (the objective kind) have almost nothing to do with each other.,,,
    “Given an arbitrary world and arbitrary fitness functions, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but that is just tuned to fitness.”,,,
    So imagine you have two kinds of creatures living in an environment. The first is tuned to respond directly to objective reality — the actual independent reality out there. The other creature has behavior only tuned to its, and the environment’s, fitness function. The second creature could care less about what’s really going on in reality. What Hoffman’s theorem says is the fitness-tuned critter will — almost always — win the evolution game.,,,
    “We assume the ‘predicates’ of perceptions — space, time, physical objects, shapes — are the right ones to describe physical reality. And this theorem says that [such] predicates are [the wrong ones] almost surely.”
    In other words, evolution could care less if you perceive objective reality. It only wants you to have sex successfully.,,,
    http://www.npr.org/sections/13.....-out-of-us

    The Case Against Reality – May 13, 2016
    Excerpt: Hoffman seems to come to a conclusion similar to the one Alvin Plantinga argues in ch. 10 of Where the Conflict Really Lies: we should not expect — in the absence of further argument — that creatures formed by a naturalistic evolutionary process would have veridical perceptions.,,,
    First, even if Hoffman’s argument were restricted to visual perception, and not to our cognitive faculties more generally (e.g., memory, introspection, a priori rational insight, testimonial belief, inferential reasoning, etc.), the conclusion that our visual perceptions would be wholly unreliable given natural selection would be sufficient for Plantinga’s conclusion of self-defeat. After all, reliance upon the veridicality of our visual perceptions was and always will be crucial for any scientific argument for the truth of evolution. So if these perceptions cannot be trusted, we have little reason to think evolutionary theory is true.
    Second, it’s not clear that Hoffman’s application of evolutionary game theory is only specially applicable to visual perception, rather than being relevant for our cognitive faculties generally. If “we find that veridical perceptions can be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality” (2010, p. 504, my emphasis), then why wouldn’t veridical cognitive faculties (more generally) be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality? After all, evolutionary theory purports to be the true account of the formation of all of our cognitive faculties, not just our faculty of visual perception. If evolutionary game theory proves that “true perception generally goes extinct” when “animals that perceive the truth compete with others that sacrifice truth for speed and energy-efficiency” (2008), why wouldn’t there be a similar sacrifice with respect to other cognitive faculties? In fact, Hoffman regards the following theorem as now proven: “According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness” (Atlantic interview). But then wouldn’t it also be the case that an organism that cognizes reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that cognizes none of reality but is just tuned to fitness? On the evolutionary story, every cognitive faculty we have was produced by a process that was tuned to fitness (rather than tuned to some other value, such as truth).
    http://www.gregwelty.com/2016/.....t-reality/

    Yet, despite what the mathematics of population genetics say, reliable observation is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method.

    Steps of the Scientific Method
    Observation/Research
    Hypothesis
    Prediction
    Experimentation
    Conclusion
    http://www.sciencemadesimple.c.....ethod.html

    Thus, since Darwinian evolution denies ‘reliable observation’, which is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method itself, then Darwinian evolution can never be based upon the scientific method and is therefore falsified once again in its claim to be a scientific theory.

    Moreover, completely contrary to what Hoffman found for Darwinian theory, it turns out that accurate perception, i.e. conscious observation, far from being unreliable and illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable of reality, than the mathematics of population genetics predicted. In the following experiment, it was found that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.

    New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015
    Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,,
    “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said.
    Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
    http://themindunleashed.org/20.....at-it.html

    Apparently science itself could care less if atheists are forced to believe, because of the mathematics of population genetics, that their observations of reality are illusory!

    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.”

    The Scientific Method – Richard Feynman – video
    Quote: “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.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

  9. 9
    AaronS1978 says:

    Bob OH
    It just undermines the gene centric view of variation if you an effective overseer telling germ cells when they can or cannot divide

    In other words it’s assumed that the gene is what causes the cells stop dividing if there’s a problem or continue to divide if there is a problem when It’s an external cell that is doing the signaling to the other cells to do so

    I’m not sure I explain that correct but instead of having your notes on your notepad telling you to continue to write (notes equal genes) I am the one that actually signals whether you’re write or you stop writing instead.

    When is more commonly assumed that is the gene that is doing that

    It doesn’t directly falsifying which you’re absolutely right about that and just undermines it

    You can just say that the cells that are doing the signaling have a gene that causes them to do that

    Or that’s how they involved to help the rest the organism survive

    PaV explained it better I suck right now :-/ just woke up

  10. 10
    Bob O'H says:

    Aaron – thanks for that explanation. But I think you need to read more Dawkins (sorry, I know). In the Selfish Gene he uses the analogy of rowing teams: what is most successful is the boat (=the organism), not the individual rower (=the gene). If a gene “wants” to replicate successfully, it helps to be in a good team. The discovery here is an example of how this can work: the organism has a mechanism to identify teams that will probably be bad, and remove them.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob (and weave) states, “the organism has a mechanism to identify teams that will probably be bad, and remove them.”

    So are you saying its the organism controlling the DNA and not the DNA controlling the organism? And you believe that this is just what Darwinism predicted, save, of course, for all those years that it predicted the exact opposite that it was the DNA controlling the organism? i.e. You know that whole central dogma thing?.

    Must be nice to have a theory that can predict completely opposite things without even a bat of an eye.

    Here is a powerpoint presentation by Dr. Wells, starting around the 15:00 minute mark of the following video, showing that the central dogma of Darwinian evolution, i.e. “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us”, is incorrect at every step.

    Design Beyond DNA: A Conversation with Dr. Jonathan Wells – video (14:36 minute mark) – January 2017
    https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE?t=876

    A few more notes:

    At the 10:30 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Trifonov states that the concept of the selfish gene ‘inflicted an immense damage to biological sciences’, for over 30 years:
    – Second, third, fourth… genetic codes – One spectacular case of code crowding – Edward N. Trifonov – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDB3fMCfk0E

    Die, selfish gene, die – The selfish gene is one of the most successful science metaphors ever invented. Unfortunately, it’s wrong – Dec. 2013
    Excerpt: But 15 years after Hamilton and Williams kited [introduced] this idea, it was embraced and polished into gleaming form by one of the best communicators science has ever produced: the biologist Richard Dawkins. In his magnificent book The Selfish Gene (1976), Dawkins gathered all the threads of the modern synthesis — Mendel, Fisher, Haldane, Wright, Watson, Crick, Hamilton, and Williams — into a single shimmering magic carpet (called the selfish gene).
    Unfortunately, say Wray, West-Eberhard and others, it’s wrong.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-heard-of/

    Information killed the Central Dogma too – April 10, 2014
    Abstract: The classical view of information flow within a cell, encoded by the famous central dogma of molecular biology, states that the instructions for producing amino acid chains are read from specific segments of DNA, just as computer instructions are read from a tape, transcribed to informationally equivalent RNA molecules, and finally executed by the cellular machinery responsible for synthesizing proteins. While this has always been an oversimplified model that did not account for a multitude of other processes occurring inside the cell, its limitations are today more dramatically apparent than ever. Ironically, in the same years in which researchers accomplished the unprecedented feat of decoding the complete genomes of higher-level organisms, it has become clear that the information stored in DNA is only a small portion of the total, and that the overall picture is much more complex than the one outlined by the dogma.
    The cell is, at its core, an information processing machine based on molecular technology, but the variety of types of information it handles, the ways in which they are represented, and the mechanisms that operate on them go far beyond the simple model provided by the dogma.
    http://link.springer.com/chapt.....-30574-0_2

    Intelligent Design and the Advancement of Science – Brian Miller – December 11, 2017
    Excerpt: DNA was expected to be the primary source of causality behind the operation and development of life. Such beliefs have previously raised concerns from leading scientists and mathematicians. For instance, physicist Walter Elsasser argued that the unfathomable complexity of the chemical and physically processes in life was “transcomputational” — beyond the realm of any theoretical means of computation. Moreover, the development of the embryo is not solely directed by DNA. Instead, it requires new “biotonic” principles. As a result, life cannot be reduced to chemistry and physics. An unbridgeable gap separates life from non-life.
    Similarly, mathematician René Thom argued that the 3D patterns of tissues in an organism’s development from egg to birth and their continuous transformation cannot be understood in terms of isolating the individual proteins generated by DNA and other molecules produced in cells. The problem is that the individual “parts” composing tissues and organs only take on the right form and function in the environment of those tissues and organs. More recent work by Denis Noble further has elucidated how every level of the biological hierarchy affects every other level, from DNA to tissues to the entire organism. Based partly on these insights, Thom concluded in his book Structural Stability and Morphogenesis that the process of development should be thought of as being controlled by an “algebraic structure outside space-time itself” (p. 119). Likewise, Robert Rosen argued that life can only be understood as a mathematical abstraction consisting of functional relationships, irreducible to mechanistic processes. He observed that life is fundamentally different from simple physics and chemistry. It embodies the Aristotelian category of final causation, which is closely related to the idea of purpose. The conclusions of these scholars challenge materialistic philosophy at its core.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/12/intelligent-design-and-the-advancement-of-science/

    “The genome is an ‘organ of the cell’, not its dictator”
    – Denis Noble – President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences

    “Biology today is at a crossroads. The molecular paradigm, which so successfully guided the discipline throughout most of the 20th century, is no longer a reliable guide. Its vision of biology now realized, the molecular paradigm has run its course.”,,,
    “The cells we know are not just loosely coupled arrangements of quasi-independent modules. They are highly, intricately, and precisely integrated networks of entities and interactions. … To think that a new cell design can be created more or less haphazardly from chunks of other modern cell designs is just another fallacy born of a mechanistic, reductionist view of the organism.”
    Carl Woese – A New Biology for a New Century – Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews – 2004
    http://mmbr.asm.org/content/68/2/173.long

    Ask an Embryologist: Genomic Mosaicism – Jonathan Wells – February 23, 2015
    Excerpt: I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It’s the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism.
    per evolution news

    “The body plans, as far as we know, are nor mapped out by DNA”
    Jonathan Wells – Body Plans Are Not Mapped-Out by the DNA – Jonathan Wells – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meR8Hk5q_EM

    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate (27:15 minute mark – how quantum information theory relates to the ‘positional information’ of molecular biology)
    https://youtu.be/4f0hL3Nrdas?t=1635

  12. 12
    AaronS1978 says:

    Bob OH
    No no I understand, I am very aware of that analogy of his, It’s also used in social context and getting along in society, it’s the same Ideology

  13. 13
    Brother Brian says:

    BS77

    Well DUH, that is because Darwinian evolution prevents you from seeing reality as it really is!

    As opposed to seeing the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast?

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Brother Brian states,

    BA77: Well DUH, that is because Darwinian evolution prevents you from seeing reality as it really is!

    BB: As opposed to seeing the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast?

    Anyone who has watched BB operate on UD for any length of time knows that he does not defend the supposed ‘science’ for his Darwinian worldview in any detail, (in fact he, nor any other Darwinian can defend the supposed science of Darwinism since, as briefly outlined in post 3, the science actually refutes Darwinism time and time again), but that BB’s main modis operandi is to insult people and to insult Christianity in particular.

    In fact, I hold that BB’s primary motivation for being a atheistic troll on UD is not his love for the truth of science but is his hatred for God and for Christianity in particular. In fact, when backed into a corner on the science, he has, many times, simply thrown up his hands in ignorance or just simply walked away from the exchange without acknowledging the error of any particular claim he may have made in the exchange. Only to reappear later with another trollish comment.

    Yet, if BB were ever actually interested in finding out the truth about things, instead of just trolling people, and dissing Christianity in particular, his “seeing the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast” example is actually a very interesting juxtaposition between Christianity and Darwinism to think about.

    BB apparently wants to believe that all the evidence for Christianity is imaginary. i.e. People “seeing the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast”. But, besides the fact that I’ve never heard a single pastor preach on “seeing the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast” as being evidence for Christianity, but have instead seen pastors defend the historicity of the resurrection, the reliability of scriptures, the validity of the Shroud of Turin. as well as reference countless present day miracles in people’s personal lives,

    The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ by Gary R. Habermas
    https://www.amazon.com/Historical-Jesus-Ancient-Evidence-Christ/dp/0899007325

    The Historical Evidences Of The Truth Of The Scripture Records
    https://www.amazon.com/Historical-Evidences-Truth-Scripture-Records/dp/1246921901

    RELIABILITY OF THE GOSPELS – Dr. Timothy McGrew – videos
    https://ichthus77.com/2015/04/30/reliability-of-the-gospels-lecture-series-tim-mcgrew/

    Study of data from 1988 Shroud of Turin testing suggests mistakes
    by Bob Yirka – JULY 24, 2019
    Excerpt: A team of researchers from France and Italy has found evidence that suggests testing of the Shroud of Turin back in 1988 was flawed. In their paper published in Oxford University’s Archaeometry, the group describes their reanalysis of the data used in the prior study, and what they found.
    https://phys.org/news/2019-07-shroud-turin.html

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ

    Miracles: What They Are, Why They Happen, and How They Can Change Your Life – October 13, 2015
    by Eric Metaxas
    https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-What-They-Happen-Change/dp/0147516498

    ,,,, besides the fact that I’ve never heard a single pastor preach on “seeing the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast” as being evidence for Christianity,,,, besides that fact,,, it interesting to note that all the evidence put forth for Darwinian evolution is of the imaginary “seeing the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast” variety of evidence, that BB rightly finds to be laughable, and is not of the ‘hard empirical science’ variety of evidence..

    There is simply not one piece of real time empirical evidence that Darwinists can point to substantiate their grandiose claims that all life on earth, in all its unfathomable complexity, arose by the unguided random stochastic processes of Darwinian evolution:

    Darwin vs. Microbes – video (where’s the substantiating evidence)
    https://youtu.be/ntxc4X9Zt-I

    Thus without any real time empirical evidence to support their claims, Darwinists are very much like the naive person who falsely imagines he is “seeing the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast”.

    But, in regards to naively living in a world of imagination and make believe, it gets much worse for Darwinists than it can ever possibly get for the naive Christian. Much, much worse.

    (As I have pointed out several times now), assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft).
    Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    – Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video – 39:45 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387

    Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    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;

    On top of all that, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on intelligent design and is certainly not based on methodological naturalism as is presupposed by Darwinists.
    From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science, (i.e. that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results, from top to bottom science itself is certainly not ‘natural’.
    Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever just found laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analysed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.

    Bottom line, if BB were really concerned about the truth of science, and defending the integrity of science from the unrestrained imaginations of man, (i.e. ” seeing the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast” and/or believing man evolved from ape because of the march of man cartoon), instead of just trolling and mocking people who believe in God, as BB currently does, then he should rightly become an Intelligent Design advocate and even, IMHO, become a Christian.

    But alas, from everything I’ve seen of BB’s actions, BB could care less about the actual truth of the matter as is quite happy to aimlessly float in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to, just so long as he never has to accept God into his personal life.

    Whatever BB is doing on UD it certainly is not science.

  15. 15
    AaronS1978 says:

    This is not an attack on Bob O’H bro chacho (rhymed couldn’t help it) This is just my old opinion on dawkins selfish Gene

    I actually wanted to try to address something with the selfish Gene. It is something it’s always bothered me and I never agreed with it. Every time the selfish Gene is brought up it presupposes goal directedness. The gene selfishly replicates and continues to replicate itself to perpetuate its existence

    That is a fundamental flaw of the thought

    The gene perpetuating its own existence is absolutely fallacious and assumes that it has some form of cognitive function even relative to an animal trying to continue its own existence.

    It does so to the point of working together with other genes to full fill the goal of its own survival as those genes that continues to exist continued to work with other genes, (oarsmen in Dawkins analogy)

    Now here’s the issue with this whole analogy the reactions that are being addressed here, are just that, simply chemical reactions with organic compounds. Nothing more.

    The gene is not seeking to replicate itself, it just does, it’s part of the reaction and if it happens to run its reaction into the path of other genes reacting, than that is simply by chance, as the gene did not seek out partner genes to collaborate with.

    It just turned out that the reaction of gene A worked well with the reaction of gene B

    This also presupposes that the reaction would’ve always worked well with each other and that’s built into our physics

    These chemical reactions didn’t seek them selves out to continue to replicate them selves as a team. They didn’t even have a self to do that with

    Furthermore genes by themselves require system around them they don’t just self replicating they need something around them to dictate that they need to cell, a living organism.

    Without that living organism you can pull DNA out of a creature and it will just sit there and it will not self replicate

    And so far we have created no chemical reaction that somehow can assemble a cell to help protect itself so it can continue to self replicate

    In a way your attributing the power of self application and directedness to the oars of the boatsmen and not to the boatsmen using the oars, a cell uses dna, Mitochondria would be the man in the boat

    Another problem I have is no other chemical reaction in the world seems to do that try to continue to replicate it just simply runs it’s course and then it stops

    So for anything to be selfish and has to be aware to a degree of what it needs to do to Perpetuate itself. He needs to have a goal and it needs to work towards that goal of its continued existence and then two other genes would have to work together to perpetuate that goal and work in tandem.

    The reality is it’s nothing more than a combination of chemical reactions, whose Physics work really well together and that’s it no selfishness to it it actually is just plain dumb luck or planned engineering and I have always found it quite odd that our beautifully fine-tune universe would have that built into it’s physics because that chemical reaction had to move existed long before we were aware of it

    And there is nothing selfish about any of that it’s just how that works.

  16. 16
    Brother Brian says:

    AaronS1978@15, I didn’t read The Selfish Gene in the same way you did. I don’t think Dawkins was saying (or inferring) that the gene was goal oriented. I saw it as simply approaching evolution from a different perspective. Much like perceiving a Necker cube in one way, and then perceiving it a different way a minute later. Neither perception is wrong or right.

  17. 17
    ET says:

    Dawkins needs to approach evolution from a different perspective as the norm hasn’t helped him find any evidence to support his claims.

  18. 18
    AaronS1978 says:

    I always took it from his talks and even from the book that he was anthropomorphizing a chemical reaction to show that it was competing with something else, which would fit into the idea of competition and fitness with in the Darwinian perspective.

    Again, and this might be the way I look at it, but competition is goal oriented around survival which presupposes system. The idea that genes are competing to self replicate always irritated me. There is no competition in chemical reactions, they don’t compete. They either don’t react, react poorly, react, react really well, based off of conditions and environment

    I saw his parallels as attempts to try to connect Darwinian evolution with chemical reactions. Genes are just organic chemical reactions. This is a very simplistic analogy for them but their notes for the cell

    So when certain chemicals look like they’re working together to continue to survive it’s not to survive it’s because it turned out that those two chemical reactions happen to work really well together

    And I always thought that was astounding because that has to pre-exist in our physics to work. Built it from an ID prespective

    The only time I see things starting to compete is when they start being alive and that’s a whole new ballgame.

Leave a Reply