Nature does not make jumps. That old canon of natural history, as Darwin called it, goes back centuries and was heartily endorsed and adopted by evolutionary theory. Here are representative quotes from Origin, 1st edition, explaining important this doctrine was to Darwin: Read more
6 Replies to “Early Complexity: A Case Study of Evolutionary Theory”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Very interesting. Thanks.
explaining important this doctrine was to Darwin
explaining [how] important this doctrine was to Darwin
?
I think some of the new Darwinian theories depart from Darwin on this point by allowing for jumps (genetic drift, emergence, etc.). Anything to keep the theory relevant.
Although Darwinists refuse to accept falsification from mathematics and/or empirical evidence for their theory, their theory has, none-the-less, been falsified by mathematics and empirical evidence:
The falsification from mathematics is particularly interesting. Besides the fact that probability calculations show Darwinian evolution to be beyond impossible,,, For example:
Besides the fact that probability calculations show Darwinian evolution to be beyond impossible, Darwinian evolution is based on a materialistic view of reality which denies that anything beyond material reality exists. Yet, on the other hand, Mathematics, which provides the backbone for all of science, engineering and technology,,, Mathematics itself, exists in a transcendent, beyond space and time, realm which is not reducible any possible material explanation. This transcendent mathematical realm has been referred to as a Platonic mathematical world.
Simply put, Mathematics itself, contrary to the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, does not need the material world in order to exist. And yet Darwinists, although they deny that anything beyond the material realm exists, need this transcendent world of mathematics in order for their theory to be considered scientific in the first place. The predicament that Darwinists find themselves in regards to denying the reality of this transcendent world of mathematics, and yet needing validation from this transcendent world of mathematics in order to be considered scientific in the first place, should be the very definition of self-refuting.
And although Darwinian evolution has been refuted by many lines of empirical evidence,, for example,,
Although Darwinian evolution has been refuted by many lines of empirical evidence, two particularly devastating falsifications of Darwinian evolution from empirical evidence are, number one, Biological form is not even reducible to mutations in DNA in the first place:
Simply put, since Darwinian explanations, i.e. reductive materialistic explanations, are grossly inadequate for explaining how any particular organism might achieve its basic form, then Darwinian speculations for how one type of organism might have transformed into another type of organism are based on pure fantasy and have no discernable experimental basis in reality.
The second devastating empirical falsification for Darwinism comes from falsification of its randomness postulate. Firstly mutations are now shown not to be random as Darwinists had presupposed,,,
Secondly, although Darwinists presupposed that biological molecules would be based on ‘random’ Brownian motion and to therefore be “randomly colliding with each other”’.
Although Darwinists presupposed that biological molecules would be based on ‘random’ Brownian motion and to therefore be “randomly colliding with each other”, the fact of the matter is that Brownian motion in biology is, for all practical purposes, not to be found in biological life. In fact, it is now found that “living organisms have a certain order. A structure to them that’s very different from the random thermodynamic jostling of atoms and molecules in inanimate matter of the same complexity. In fact, living matter seems to behave in its order and its structure just like inanimate cooled down to near absolute zero.”
Thus, although Darwinists have refused to accept falsification for their theory from mathematics and empirical evidence, Darwinian evolution has, none-the-less, been thoroughly falsified by both.
and let’s not forget Dr. Michael Behe’s (via White) empirical falsification of Darwinian evolution: