Evolutionist: Let’s Admit it, We Don’t Fully Understand How Evolution Works

_{Cornelius Hunter

April 27, 2013

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Philip Ball’s opinion piece in this week’s Nature, the most popular science magazine in the world, is news not because he stated that we don’t fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level, but because he urged his fellow evolutionists to admit it. On this 60th anniversary of the discovery of the DNA double helix, Ball reviews a few of the recent findings that have rebuked the evolution narrative that random mutations created the biological world. Unfortunately Ball fails to take his own advice and ends up doing precisely what he advises other evolutionists against—whitewashing the science. Read more

Comments

You accept abiogenesis because you have many ideas about how it could have happened. You should have stopped there. The statement that these ideas are "plausible and supported by scientific evidence" is a complete lie.shader_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

Joe, there is absolutely ZERO evidence for abiogenesis. Perhaps you need to re-learn what the word "evidence" means.shader_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

So again, let me just get this straight? That all of your arguments are based on the fact that because scientists currently cannot explain how some cellular machinery and processes arose, that this means there has to have been an intelligent designer? Sorry, but thats a terrible argument based on lack of evidence. I accept abiogenesis because we have numerous ideas about how it could have happened, all plausible and supported by scientific evidence from studies and observation.Joealtle_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

"Of course we don't fully understand evolution, that's how science works. We admit when we don't understand something. What DO we understand? Well, we're still hashing out the details, a bunch of stuff happens over millions of years I guess.. oh yea, natural selection, too. It is definitely evolution, though."lifepsy_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

"It has a good amount of scientific evidence that backs it, which is a lot more than and ID argument can say." Many contend that there is a much much greater degree of speculation based on unobserved assumptions behind the conjecture. Whereas the applicable hallmarks of design have been shown over and over and over again to have significant relevance. Real "science" doesn't required neodarwinian evolution. However, what is really a philosophy, nde, requires the guise of science to claim legitimacy.bpragmatic_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

"which is a lot more than any ID argument can say." says the man who just produced more functional information by his own intelligence than anyone has ever observed being produced by purely material processes.
Book Review - Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Excerpt: As early as the 1960s, those who approached the problem of the origin of life from the standpoint of information theory and combinatorics observed that something was terribly amiss. Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created. Now of course, elementary particles aren't chemical laboratories, nor does peptide synthesis take place where most of the baryonic mass of the universe resides: in stars or interstellar and intergalactic clouds. If you look at the chemistry, it gets even worse—almost indescribably so: the precursor molecules of many of these macromolecular structures cannot form under the same prebiotic conditions—they must be catalysed by enzymes created only by preexisting living cells, and the reactions required to assemble them into the molecules of biology will only go when mediated by other enzymes, assembled in the cell by precisely specified information in the genome. So, it comes down to this: Where did that information come from? The simplest known free living organism (although you may quibble about this, given that it's a parasite) has a genome of 582,970 base pairs, or about one megabit (assuming two bits of information for each nucleotide, of which there are four possibilities). Now, if you go back to the universe of elementary particle Planck time chemical labs and work the numbers, you find that in the finite time our universe has existed, you could have produced about 500 bits of structured, functional information by random search. Yet here we have a minimal information string which is (if you understand combinatorics) so indescribably improbable to have originated by chance that adjectives fail. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_726.html The Theist holds the Intellectual High-Ground - March 2011 Excerpt: To get a range on the enormous challenges involved in bridging the gaping chasm between non-life and life, consider the following: “The difference between a mixture of simple chemicals and a bacterium, is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant.” (Dr. Robert Shapiro, the late Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, NYU) To clarify as to how the 500 bit universal limit is found for 'structured, functional information': Dembski's original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150, 10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe. 10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur. 10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds. Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang. How many bits would that be: Pu = 10-150, so, -log2 Pu = 498.29 bits Call it 500 bits (The 500 bits is further specified as a specific type of information. It is specified as Complex Specified Information by Dembski or as Functional Information by Abel to separate it from merely Ordered Sequence Complexity or Random Sequence Complexity; See Three subsets of sequence complexity) Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information - Abel, Trevors http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29 This short sentence, "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" is calculated by Winston Ewert, in this following video at the 10 minute mark, to contain 1000 bits of algorithmic specified complexity, and thus to exceed the Universal Probability Bound (UPB) of 500 bits set by Dr. Dembski Proposed Information Metric: Conditional Kolmogorov Complexity - Winston Ewert - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm3mm3ofAYU Here are the slides of preceding video with the calculation of the information content of the preceding sentence on page 14 http://www.blythinstitute.org/images/data/attachments/0000/0037/present_info.pdf
bornagain77_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

I dont accept abiogenesis on faith, I accept it on the grounds of scientific evidence for it. Yes there may be competing ideas, yes we do not have the whole story yet, but it is the best hypothesis on how life arose. It has a good amount of scientific evidence that backs it, which is a lot more than and ID argument can say.Joealtle_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

OT: What is Phenotypic Plasticity and Why is it Important? http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/Agrawal/pdfs/whitman-and-agrawal-2009-Ch_1-Phenotypic-Plasticity-of-Insects.pdf [1] Department of Biological Sciences, Illinois State University [2] Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University
Abstract Phenotypic plasticity, the capacity of a single genotype to exhibit variable phenotypes in different environments, is common in insects and is often highly adaptive. Here we review terminology, conceptual issues, and insect plasticity research, including variance partitioning, reaction norms, physiological mechanisms, adaptive value, and evolution. All plasticity is physiological, but can manifest as changes in biochemistry, physiology, morphology, behavior, or life history. Phenotypic plasticity can be passive, anticipatory, instantaneous, delayed, continuous, discrete, permanent, reversible, beneficial, harmful, adaptive or non-adaptive, and generational. Virtually any abiotic or biotic factor can serve to induce plasticity, and resulting changes vary from harmful susceptibilities to highly integrated and adaptive alternative phenotypes. Numerous physiological mechanisms accomplish plasticity, including transcription, translation, enzyme, and hormonal regulation, producing local or systemic responses. The timing, specificity, and speed of plastic responses are critical to their adaptive value. Understanding plasticity requires knowing the environment, physiological mechanisms, and fitness outcomes. Plasticity is thought to be evolutionarily favored under specific conditions, yet many theoretical predictions about benefits, costs, and selection on plasticity remain untested. The ecological consequences of plasticity range from simple environmental susceptibilities to mediating interspecific interactions, and extend to structuring of ecological communities, often through indirect effects. Phenotypic plasticity, through its ecological effects, can facilitate evolutionary change and speciation. Plasticity is important because it is an encompassing model to understand life on earth, it can increase fitness, generate novelity, and facilitate evolution, it structures ecological communities, and it has numerous practical applications. As such, all biologists should understand phenotypic plasticity.

Introduction A young caterpillar feeds on oak flowers and develops into a stunning mimic of an oak catkin (Fig 1b.). A second caterpillar from the same egg batch feeds on leaves and becomes a twig mimic (see Chapter 4, this volume). In response to low-quality, fibrous food, a grasshopper develops larger mandibles and mandibular muscles (Thompson 1992), and another develops a larger gut (Yang and Joern 1994). A different grasshopper alters the number of chemosensilla on its antennae in response to the number of plant chemicals it encounters (Chapman and Lee 1991, Rogers and Simpson 1997). In a nearby aphid colony, females are busy adjusting the future morphology and behavior of their offspring in response to predator threats. When ant bodyguards are absent, females rapidly produce soldier offspring (Shingleton and Foster 2000), and produce winged offspring when predators invade the colony (Weisser et al. 1999). Close by, a gravid fly, unable to locate her normal host plant, deposits her eggs on a novel host. Surprisingly, the larvae survive on the new host, and chemically imprint on it before dispersing as adults. The flies subsequently orient to the novel plant to mate and oviposit, instead of their ancestral plant (Feder et al. 1994, see Chapter 18, this book). In the same tree, a caterpillar bites into a leaf. A plant sensory mechanism detects the caterpillar saliva and signals the entire plant to begin synthesis of anti-herbivore toxins and the release of volatile pheromones. The latter dissipate to neighboring plants, alerting them to the presence of herbivores, and stimulating them to synthesize their own chemical defenses. But, the plant’s clever counter-ploys do not go unchallenged; in response to increasing plant toxins, the caterpillar synthesizes detoxifying gut enzymes, effectively negating the plant’s chemical escalation (see Chapter 7). On the ground below, a Drosophila maggot, feeding inside a sun-exposed fruit, responds to near-lethal temperatures by mounting a full-fledged biochemical counter-response. Rapid transcription and translation floods the cells with protective heatshock proteins that stabilize thermal-labile proteins, preventing death. In a nearby shaded sibling, no heat shock proteins are produced (Chapter 17). Across the meadow, a different insect is trapped on a poor-quality host. This inadequate diet profoundly alters her life history and fecundity by reducing her development and growth rates, body size (Figs. 1f, 4i), number of ovarioles, and clutch size and egg size, which, in turn, alters the life history and fecundity of her offspring (Chapter 11). A beetle larva, sensing its fungal competitor, accelerates its development (Roder et al. 2008). As fall turns to winter, the adult, exposed to short day lengths, radically switches its behavior and physiology. It stops feeding, burrows into the soil, changes color, dramatically lowers its metabolism, and fortifies its tissues with cyroprotectants, enabling survival at frigid temperatures. Its sibling, kept in long-day conditions, exhibits none of these changes and is killed by mildly cold temperatures (Chapter 16).
This is all quite fascinating.
Some plastic responses are highly specific in either requisite stimuli or response. For example, some plants possess receptor proteins that detect only their most common natural enemy (Zhao et al. 2005). Such specificity is seen in corn plants that increase defense in response to saliva from young, but not old armyworm caterpillars, perhaps because the plastic defense is only effective against young caterpillars (Takabayahshi et al. 1995). Elm trees produce volatiles attractive to egg parasitoids, in response to oviposition by its primary beetle herbivore, but not to beetle feeding (Meiners and Hilker 2000). Following fires, some grasshoppers will respond to altered light quality by adaptively changing their body color to black (see Uvarov 1966). Other grasshopper species fail to respond to light, but change color specifically in response to temperature, humidity, food, or crowding, or to some combination of these cues (Rowell 1971, Tanaka 2004, Chapters 5, 6).
I wonder if industrial soot could possibly trigger a similar response in this or other species of insects. One must also wonder if plasticity mechanisms can respond to specific environmental conditions which alter things like beak morphology in certain bird species. ;)Chance Ratcliff_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

JDH @ 10. Indeed there are. I tell my clients when I am estimating the amount of time their trial will take, that a make my most gloomy estimate and then double it and after that I am usually off by half.Barry Arrington_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

I love the principle in one of the articles from the comments about complexity of biological systems.
Finally, consider the Complexity Principle: Biological systems are almost always more complex than you think – even when you allow for the fact that they are more complex than you think.
Of course there is the corollary to this that most people have personal experience with - The Moving Principle: Any move almost always takes much longer than you think -- even when you allow extra time for the fact that the move will take longer than you think. I am sure there are other corollaries.JDH_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

"The fact that we dont know EVERYTHING about molecular mechanisms of evolution, does not mean much of anything, nor is it much of an argument against evolution." What is it that is "known" about so called molecular evolution that gets such speculation to the status of requiring "an argument against" it in the idea's refutation?bpragmatic_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

Joe, with someone whose faith commitments are as strong as yours, it is hard to imagine any argument against Darwinian evolution that you would find remotely plausible, much less convincing.Barry Arrington_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Im suggesting that you can understand evolution with a moderate level of understanding at both the molecular level and above. The fact that we dont know EVERYTHING about molecular mechanisms of evolution, does not mean much of anything, nor is it much of an argument against evolution.Joealtle_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Joe@5. Are you suggesting that someone can understand how evolution works generally while having no idea how it works at the molecular level? You funny Joe.Barry Arrington_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

I like how you conveniently leave out "at the molecular level" in your title. Sensationalism at its best.Joealtle_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

"Philip Ball’s opinion piece in this week’s Nature, the most popular science magazine in the world, is news not because he stated that we don’t fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level, but because he urged his fellow evolutionists to admit it." Not another one (Philip Ball) who doesn't understand evolution at the molecular level! Nick Matzke is going to be a busy man jetting off all over the world trying to enlighten these poor misguided souls. And before any one suggests it, and as much as I might like to, I can't afford to pay his fare ;)PeterJ_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

The reason why neo-Darwinism can have no rigid mathematical basis is best illustrated by Godel's incompleteness theorem,,,
Kurt Gödel - Incompleteness Theorem - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8462821
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, is shown to apply not only to mathematics but also to material objects in this following video:
Alan Turing & Kurt Godel - Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8516356
Godel's theorem has been stated this way
Gödel’s Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century Excerpt: Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume to be true but cannot prove "mathematically" to be true.” http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/ Godel and Physics - John D. Barrow Excerpt (page 5-6): "Clearly then no scientific cosmology, which of necessity must be highly mathematical, can have its proof of consistency within itself as far as mathematics go. In absence of such consistency, all mathematical models, all theories of elementary particles, including the theory of quarks and gluons...fall inherently short of being that theory which shows in virtue of its a priori truth that the world can only be what it is and nothing else. This is true even if the theory happened to account for perfect accuracy for all phenomena of the physical world known at a particular time." Stanley Jaki - Cosmos and Creator - 1980, pg. 49
As to the comment 'anything you can craw a circle around cannot explain itself', it is interesting to note something that was discovered after Godel passed on. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) of the universe is found to actually be a circular sphere
Planck satellite unveils the Universe -- now and then (w/ Video showing the mapping of the 'sphere' of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation with the satellite) - 2010 http://phys.org/news197534140.html#nRlv Proverbs 8:26-27 While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep,
Also of interest is two other places in the universe where 'unexpected roundness' is found:
Sun's Almost Perfectly Round Shape Baffles Scientists - (Aug. 16, 2012) — Excerpt: The sun is nearly the roundest object ever measured. If scaled to the size of a beach ball, it would be so round that the difference between the widest and narrow diameters would be much less than the width of a human hair.,,, They also found that the solar flattening is remarkably constant over time and too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation. via- Science Daily Bucky Balls - Andy Gion Excerpt: Buckyballs (C60; Carbon 60) are the roundest and most symmetrical large molecule known to man. Buckministerfullerine continues to astonish with one amazing property after another. C60 is the third major form of pure carbon; graphite and diamond are the other two. Buckyballs were discovered in 1985,,, http://www.3rd1000.com/bucky/bucky.htm
Yet if one assumes randomness to be 'outside the circle', instead of God, to explain something, then epistemological failure results. This failure is born out by Boltzmann's Brain,,,
The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory and The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video http://vimeo.com/34468027 Here is the last power-point slide of the preceding video: The End Of Materialism? * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all. * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle. * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible. God Is the Best Explanation of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMBcc2aTqcE
And this epistemological failure that randomness forces upon science is also clearly illustrated by Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)
Alvin Plantinga - Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r34AIo-xBh8 Philosopher Sticks Up for God Excerpt: Theism, with its vision of an orderly universe superintended by a God who created rational-minded creatures in his own image, “is vastly more hospitable to science than naturalism,” with its random process of natural selection, he (Plantinga) writes. “Indeed, it is theism, not naturalism, that deserves to be called ‘the scientific worldview.’” via- NY Times
Even the, ahem, 'world's greatest thinker', Richard Dawkins, agrees with the overall principle that our cognitive faculties are undermined by randomness:
Why No One (Can) Believe Atheism/Naturalism to be True - video Excerpt: "Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life." Richard Dawkins - quoted from "The God Delusion" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4QFsKevTXs
Thus in conclusion, one must either choose God to be 'outside the circle' or randomness to be 'outside the circle, but if you choose randomness to be 'outside the circle' then kiss goodbye to science and your sanity!bornagain77_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

The reason why neo-Darwinism can have no rigid mathematical basis is best illustrated by Godel's incompleteness theorem,,,
Kurt Gödel - Incompleteness Theorem - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8462821
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, is shown to apply not only to mathematics but also to material objects in this following video:
Alan Turing & Kurt Godel - Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8516356
Godel's theorem has been stated this way
Gödel’s Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century Excerpt: Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume to be true but cannot prove "mathematically" to be true.” http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/ Godel and Physics - John D. Barrow Excerpt (page 5-6): "Clearly then no scientific cosmology, which of necessity must be highly mathematical, can have its proof of consistency within itself as far as mathematics go. In absence of such consistency, all mathematical models, all theories of elementary particles, including the theory of quarks and gluons...fall inherently short of being that theory which shows in virtue of its a priori truth that the world can only be what it is and nothing else. This is true even if the theory happened to account for perfect accuracy for all phenomena of the physical world known at a particular time." Stanley Jaki - Cosmos and Creator - 1980, pg. 49
As to the comment 'anything you can craw a circle around cannot explain itself', it is interesting to note something that was discovered after Godel passed on. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) of the universe is found to actually be a circular sphere Planck satellite unveils the Universe -- now and then (w/ Video showing the mapping of the 'sphere' of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation with the satellite) - 2010 http://phys.org/news197534140.html#nRlv Proverbs 8:26-27 While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep, Here are a couple of other places where a 'circle' is found: Also of interest is two other places in the universe where 'unexpected roundness' is found: Sun's Almost Perfectly Round Shape Baffles Scientists - (Aug. 16, 2012) — Excerpt: The sun is nearly the roundest object ever measured. If scaled to the size of a beach ball, it would be so round that the difference between the widest and narrow diameters would be much less than the width of a human hair.,,, They also found that the solar flattening is remarkably constant over time and too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120816150801.htm and this 'unexpected roundness': Bucky Balls - Andy Gion Excerpt: Buckyballs (C60; Carbon 60) are the roundest and most symmetrical large molecule known to man. Buckministerfullerine continues to astonish with one amazing property after another. C60 is the third major form of pure carbon; graphite and diamond are the other two. Buckyballs were discovered in 1985,,, http://www.3rd1000.com/bucky/bucky.htm Yet if one assumes randomness to be 'outside the circle', instead of God, to explain something, then epistemological failure results. This is born out by Boltzmann's Brain,,,
The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory and The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video http://vimeo.com/34468027 Here is the last power-point slide of the preceding video: The End Of Materialism? * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all. * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle. * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible. God Is the Best Explanation of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMBcc2aTqcE
And this epistemological failure that randomness forces upon science is also clearly illustrated by Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)
Alvin Plantinga - Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r34AIo-xBh8 Philosopher Sticks Up for God Excerpt: Theism, with its vision of an orderly universe superintended by a God who created rational-minded creatures in his own image, “is vastly more hospitable to science than naturalism,” with its random process of natural selection, he (Plantinga) writes. “Indeed, it is theism, not naturalism, that deserves to be called ‘the scientific worldview.’” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/books/alvin-plantingas-new-book-on-god-and-science.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Even the, ahem, 'world's greatest thinker', Richard Dawkins, agrees with the overall principle that our cognitive faculties are undermined by randomness:
Why No One (Can) Believe Atheism/Naturalism to be True - video Excerpt: "Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life." Richard Dawkins - quoted from "The God Delusion" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4QFsKevTXs
Thus one must either choose God to be 'outside the circle' or randomness, but if you choose randomness to be 'outside the circle' then kiss goodbye to your sanity!bornagain77_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT}

Neo-Darwinism is not 'science' because it has no rigid mathematical basis in which to make solid predictions so as to verify it as a accurate description of reality,
“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) “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
Furthermore neo-Darwinism can have no rigid mathematical basis within science to make accurate predictions with because of the random variable postulate at the base of its formulation:
“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. Dr. David Berlinski: Head Scratching Mathematicians – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDYr_fgcP8
quote from preceding video:
“John Von Neumann, one of the great mathematicians of the twentieth century, just laughed at Darwinian theory, he hooted at it!” Dr. David Berlinski “No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests.” Leonardo Da Vinci Accounting for Variations – Dr. David Berlinski: – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2GkDkimkE
Despite its failure at establishing a rigid mathematical basis in which to make accurate predictions with, there are a few ‘mathematical’ relationships for Darwinists that do seem to hold up quite well:
,,,Subsequently the tactic was to attack individuals who doubted Darwin by calling them “creationists” — meaning “crackpots.” As one historian writes, the Darwinists’ attacks “have been in almost direct proportion to the shortcomings of the theory.” Terry Scambray “The perception of evolution’s explanatory power is inversely proportional to the specificity of the discussion.” – Eric
bornagain77_{April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply