Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Err, Remember That Little Problem About Novelty?

arroba Email

The theory of evolution has made many predictions about what we should find in biology. Those predictions have routinely failed and that tells us there is something wrong with the idea. One such prediction is that the genomes and their protein products, from different species, should form a common descent pattern. The graphic shows an example of this prediction from a high school textbook written by evolutionist George Johnson. In that example Johnson informs his young readers that the hemoglobin protein “reveals the predicted pattern.” That was a misrepresentation of the evidence at the time, and since then the failure of this prediction has only grown worse. Another more recent, but related, prediction is that evolution is largely driven by regulatory proteins. These are proteins that regulate the construction of other proteins. These regulatory proteins control the embryonic development stages and the idea was that species evolve by slight modifications to how these proteins function. This prediction has also failed, And even evolutionist are now admitting the evidence contradicts what they were claiming only a few years ago. Here is how one evolutionist explains the failure of these predictions:  Read more

OT: James Shapiro - video playlist https://vimeo.com/humbirdfilms/videos bornagain77
Since I hate to leave the claim that natural selection has insurmountable scientific problems just hanging like that, I will list two illustrations to demonstrate that fact: One insurmountable problem is this:
“Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection." Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79 https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/evolution/16037/
Another insurmountable problem for natural selection is this:
The GS Principle (The Genetic Selection Principle) - Abel - 2009 Excerpt: The GS Principle, sometimes called “The 2nd Law of Biology,” states that selection must occur at the molecular/genetic level, not just at the fittest phenotypic/organismic level, to produce and explain life.,,, Natural selection cannot operate at the genetic level. http://www.bioscience.org/2009/v14/af/3426/fulltext.htm
This devastating ‘princess and the pea’ problem for natural selection is pointed out by Dr. John Sanford at the 8:14 minute mark of this following video,,,
Genetic Entropy – Dr. John Sanford – Evolution vs. Reality – video http://vimeo.com/35088933
Of course more problems could be pointed out, but those two examples get the point across pretty effectively for now. bornagain77
Dr. Hunter, this last article on the page from your link is a beaut also. It turns out that finding out that random mutations/variations are not truly random does not bother committed Darwinists in the least as to questioning if their theory is true or not:
Fully Random Mutations - Kevin Kelly - Jan. 2014 Excerpt: What is commonly called "random mutation" does not in fact occur in a mathematically random pattern. The process of genetic mutation is extremely complex, with multiple pathways, involving more than one system. Current research suggests most spontaneous mutations occur as errors in the repair process for damaged DNA. Neither the damage nor the errors in repair have been shown to be random in where they occur, how they occur, or when they occur. Rather, the idea that mutations are random is simply a widely held assumption by non-specialists and even many teachers of biology. There is no direct evidence for it.,,, Mutations have also been shown to have a higher chance of occurring near a place in DNA where mutations have already occurred, creating mutation hotspot clusters—a non-random pattern.,,, ,,,the lack of direct evidence for actual random mutations has now reached a stage where the idea needs to be retired. There are several related reasons why this unsubstantiated idea continues to be repeated without evidence. The first is fear that non-random mutations would be misunderstood and twisted by creationists,,, http://www.edge.org/responses/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-retirement
Which begs the question, if showing one (or both*) of the two primary presuppositions of your theory to be false cannot call your theory into question scientifically exactly what finding can? (*natural selection has its own insurmountable problems) bornagain77

Leave a Reply