Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design Media

Eh? Senior Canadian journalist knows Darwinism is bunk?

Spread the love

Readers, WHY are so many people suddenly waking up – seemingly all of a sudden – to what nonsense Darwinism is? We just want to know, that’s all.

Barbara Kay is a very intelligent senior journalist, a rarity in these times, and she understands this:

Darwinism’s puzzling Achilles’ heel is its utter failure to account for, alone amongst the species, humans’ large brains and capacity for both abstract thought and speech. Back when the world was young, I was taught that four visionaries’ theories shaped modernity: Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein. Of them, only Einstein’s could be subjected to scientific scrutiny. The rest remained hypotheses, resistant to such standard scientific tests as falsifiability, replicability and predictability, but so beautiful in their comprehensiveness that the intelligentsia accepted them for what they were not: settled science.

Time has proven unkind to Freud’s and Marx’s theories, but very kind to Darwinism. Why? Shhh. If you dare to ask, you invite ridicule. Because the minute one expresses doubt about Darwin’s basic premise that all life-forms, including humans, descend from a common ancestor through the simple processes of random, heritable variation and natural selection, one admits the possibility of a counter-theory — Intelligent Design — that is considered anathema to the intelligentsia, since it implies, you know, the G-word.

David Gelernter, a conservative Yale professor of computer science, is suffering extreme ridicule and worse from colleagues for having just published an article in the Claremont Review, “Giving up Darwin.” The title is misleading, because Gelernter does not reject Darwin completely. He says there is no doubt that Darwin “successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances” through fur density or beak shape or wing style changes. It’s the big thing Gelernter now believes Darwin got wrong: humans.

Barbara Kay, “Barbara Kay: 160 years into Darwinism, there’s one mystery we still can’t explain” at National Post

But the Darwinians never set their sights so low as beak shape for long. They sought to explain morality, religion, heroism, art, and literature, etc. by the behavior of ants, wolves, and horses. Darwin himself knew that, if he couldn’t do that, his work was trivial. Well, could he?

Kay goes on to talk about the Cambrian explosion, anomalocaris, and Thomas Wolf’s The Kingdom of Speech and its fallout – without the least tendency to reassure us that Darwin’s flacks are on their way with patches and paste.

Maybe they are. But so what?

It’s as if she thinks we can be free to think again, to examine the evidence.

We must hope the Darwin mob loses its way when setting out to attack her. Maybe help them to lose it?

O’Leary for News: She is a fellow Canadian but I don’t really know her personally. I hope she will consider reading some of Suzan Mazur’s books because they are a good place to begin, especially The Altenberg 16: An exposé of the evolution industry (2010) and Royal Society: Public Evolution Summit and, of course, Darwin Overthrown: Hello Mechanobiology — a completely non-religious approach to the problems is a good place to begin.

Meanwhile, other engaged brains have been getting restless too. Why all of a sudden?:

At First Things, They Are Also Getting Over Darwinism

Another Think Tank Now Openly Questions Darwinism So Power Line is interviewing J. Scott Turner, author of Purpose and Desire: What Makes Something “Alive” and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed to Explain It. He’s not an “ID guy” but that doesn’t matter. His book’s title tells you what you need to know. He understands that something is wrong. And his insights into insects’ hive mind are a piece in the puzzle.

Hoover Institution interview with David Berlinski

Mathematicians challenge Darwinian Evolution

The College Fix LISTENS TO David Gelernter on Darwin! It’s almost as though people are “getting it” that Darwinism now functions as an intolerant secular religion. Evolution rolls on oblivious but here and there heads are getting cracked, so to speak, over the differences between what really happens and what Darwinians insist must happen.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

11 Replies to “Eh? Senior Canadian journalist knows Darwinism is bunk?

  1. 1
    Brother Brian says:

    If by “senior” you mean “old”, I would agree. She also has a long history of being intolerant and wrong.

  2. 2
    ET says:

    Many years of experience definitely count as far as seniority goes. She definitely fits the definition of a senior journalist. And having brother Brian, with a history of being wrong and insulting, try to disparage this journalist, is beyond the pale

  3. 3
    News says:

    Brother Brian at 1, watch it. Barbara Kay is senior in her profession, by anyone’s standards, and a credit to the National Post. You are free to choose your own reading material, of course.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    The title is misleading, because Gelernter does not reject Darwin completely. He says there is no doubt that Darwin “successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances” ” through fur density or beak shape or wing style changes.

    Well actually, Darwinism does not even explain the small scale changes of “fur density or beak shape or wing style changes.”

    As to ‘beak shape or wing style changes” in particular, those changes are now found to be rapid programmed ‘epigenetic’ changes which directly contradicts the Darwinian presupposition of random variations to DNA being the source of variations in species.

    Epigenetics and the Evolution of Darwin’s Finches – 2014
    Excerpt: The prevailing theory for the molecular basis of evolution (Neo-Darwinism) involves genetic mutations that ultimately generate the heritable phenotypic variation on which natural selection acts. However, epigenetic (Non-Darwinian) transgenerational inheritance of phenotypic variation may also play an important role in evolutionary change.,,,
    Genome-wide alterations in genetic mutations using copy number variation (CNV) were compared with epigenetic alterations associated with differential DNA methylation regions (epimutations). Epimutations were more common than genetic CNV mutations among the five species; furthermore, the number of epimutations increased monotonically with phylogenetic distance. Interestingly, the number of genetic CNV mutations did not consistently increase with phylogenetic distance.,,,
    http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/...../1972.full

    Epigenetics may explain how Darwin’s finches respond to rapid environmental change – August 24, 2017
    Excerpt: By studying rural and urban populations of two species of Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos Islands, researchers were able to show that while there was very little genetic variation, there were substantial epigenetic differences that could be related to environmental differences resulting from urbanization.
    – per science daily

    “… in a controlled study, finches were introduced to an island that previously had no finches (Conant 1988, Pimm 1988). In 1967, about 100 identical finches were removed from a U.S. Government Bird Reservation in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and were taken about 300 miles away to a group of four small atolls lying within less than ten miles of each other, which had no native finches. The birds were released onto one of these islands, and they soon spread to all of them. Seventeen years later, when the birds were first checked, they were found to have a variety of bill shapes and to be adapted — both by their behavior and by their bill shapes and associated muscles — to various niches. This was a speeded- up form of the conventional scenario of Galapagos finch evolution. In seventeen years, and possibly less, the finches had diversified into various niches.”
    For the effect of Bmp4 on other birds see
    Wu, P., T.-X. Jiang, S. Suksaweang, R. B. Widelitz and C.-M. Chuong (2004) Molecular Shaping of the Beak. Science 305(5689): 1465–1466.
    Lee Spetner – The Evolution Revolution

    Darwin’s Finches Show Rule-Constrained Variation in Beak Shape – June 10, 2014
    Excerpt: A simple yet powerful mathematical rule controls beak development, Harvard scientists find, while simultaneously preventing beaks from evolving into something else.,,,
    We find in Darwin’s finches (and all songbirds) an internal system, controlled by a non-random developmental process. It is flexible enough to allow for variation, but powerful enough to constrain the beak to its basic form (a conical shape modulated by scaling and shear) so that the rest of the bird’s structures are not negatively affected. Beak development is controlled by a decay process that must operate at a particular rate. It’s all very precise, so much so that it could be modeled mathematically.,,,
    The very birds that have long been used as iconic examples of natural selection become, on closer examination, paragons of intelligent design.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....86581.html

    As to the limited variability of birds in general, the following quotes are interesting:

    Darwin ‘Wrong’: Species Living Together Does Not Encourage Evolution – December 20, 2013
    Excerpt: Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution set out in the Origin of Species has been proven wrong by scientists studying ovenbirds.
    Researchers at Oxford University found that species living together do not evolve differently to avoid competing with one another for food and habitats – a theory put forward by Darwin 150 years ago.
    The ovenbird is one of the most diverse bird families in the world and researchers were looking to establish the processes causing them to evolve.
    Published in Nature, the research compared the beaks, legs and songs of 90% of ovenbird species.
    Findings showed that while the birds living together were consistently more different than those living apart, this was the result of age differences. Once the variation of age was accounted for, birds that live together were more similar than those living separately – directly contradicting Darwin’s view.
    The species that lived together had beaks and legs no more different than those living apart,,,
    ,,,there is no shortage of evidence for competition driving divergent evolution in some very young lineages. But we found no evidence that this process explains differences across a much larger sample of species.,,,
    He said that the reasons why birds living together appear to evolve less are “difficult to explain”,,,
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/darwi.....on-1429927

    “In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate. Rather than answers, we have more questions— ”
    Donald Prothero – American paleontologist, geologist, and author who specializes in mammalian paleontology.

    Likewise, the wing shape of fruit flies is also an epigenetic effect that contradicts Darwinian presuppositions:

    Talking epigenetics with Rob Martienssen – December 22, 2017
    Excerpt: (Conrad Waddington) is often regarded as the father of epigenetics – he really did have a good idea of what was going on. He had done experiments in Drosophila where he’d selected different wing shapes over multiple generations and was able to select new forms without making mutations – or without making mutations that he could readily identify as a geneticist.,,,
    At the same time, Barbara McClintock and Alexander Brink were maize geneticists working in the 1940s and 50s, and they actually came up with real examples of traits controlled by genes affecting plant color – like the color of kernels on a corn cob – that were under epigenetic control. They could go in one direction or another from one generation to the next, and Barbara was convinced that all of this was controlled by her “controlling elements” – transposable elements. So those were really the first definitive examples of “transgenerational” epigenetics.
    OAD: So, epigenetics led to changes in these traits – wing shape and corn kernel color – without any mutations in the genes that encode them.,,,
    https://oadblog.nsfbio.com/2017/12/22/qa-talking-epigenetics-with-rob-martienssen/

    There are many more examples of rapid programmed ‘epigenetic’ changes that directly contradicts the Darwinian presupposition that random variations to DNA are the source of variations in species.

    For example, cecal valves in lizards, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, and even Lenski’s infamous citrate adaptation in his Long Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE), are all found to be rapid programmed ‘epigenetic’ changes that directly contradicts the Darwinian presupposition that random variations to DNA are the source of variations.

    Lizard Plasticity – March 2013
    Excerpt: So in this study, plasticity experiments were conducted. When the lizards were taken off a plant diet and returned to their native insect diet, the cecal valves in their stomachs began to revert within weeks. As the authors conclude, this pointed heavily to plasticity as a cause. We can infer that the this gut morphology likewise arose in similar fashion when coming into contact with the plant diet.
    http://biota-curve.blogspot.co.....icity.html

    Phenotypic Plasticity – Lizard cecal valve (cyclical variation)- video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEtgOApmnTA

    A Tale of Two Falsifications of Evolution – September 2011
    Excerpt: “Scientists were surprised at how fast bacteria developed resistance to the miracle antibiotic drugs when they were developed less than a century ago. Now scientists at McMaster University have found that resistance has been around for at least 30,000 years.”
    per crev.info

    (Ancient) Cave bacteria resistant to antibiotics – April 2012
    Excerpt: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cut off from the outside world for more than four million years have been found in a deep cave. The discovery is surprising because drug resistance is widely believed to be the result of too much treatment.,,, “Our study shows that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria. It could be billions of years old, but we have only been trying to understand it for the last 70 years,” said Dr Gerry Wright, from McMaster University in Canada, who has analysed the microbes.
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/h.....1-2229183#

    Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA. – Minnich – Feb. 2016
    The isolation of aerobic citrate-utilizing Escherichia coli (Cit(+)) in long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) has been termed a rare, innovative, presumptive speciation event. We hypothesized that direct selection would rapidly yield the same class of E. coli Cit(+) mutants and follow the same genetic trajectory: potentiation, actualization, and refinement. This hypothesis was tested,,,
    Potentiation/actualization mutations occurred within as few as 12 generations, and refinement mutations occurred within 100 generations.,,,
    E. coli cannot use citrate aerobically. Long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) performed by Blount et al. (Z. D. Blount, J. E. Barrick, C. J. Davidson, and R. E. Lenski, Nature 489:513-518, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11514 ) found a single aerobic, citrate-utilizing E. coli strain after 33,000 generations (15 years). This was interpreted as a speciation event. Here we show why it probably was not a speciation event. Using similar media, 46 independent citrate-utilizing mutants were isolated in as few as 12 to 100 generations. Genomic DNA sequencing revealed an amplification of the citT and dctA loci and DNA rearrangements to capture a promoter to express CitT, aerobically. These are members of the same class of mutations identified by the LTEE. We conclude that the rarity of the LTEE mutant was an artifact of the experimental conditions and not a unique evolutionary event. No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26833416

    Richard Lenski and Citrate Hype — Now Deflated – Michael Behe – May 12, 2016
    Excerpt: ,,, for more than 25 years Lenski’s lab has continuously grown a dozen lines of the bacterium E. coli in small culture flasks, letting them replicate for six or seven generations per day and then transferring a portion to fresh flasks for another round of growth. The carefully monitored cells have now gone through more than 60,000 generations, which is equivalent to over a million years for a large animal such as humans.,,,
    In 2008 Lenski’s group reported that after more than 15 years and 30,000 generations of growth one of the E. coli cell lines suddenly developed the ability to consume citrate,,,
    the authors argued it might be pretty important.,,,
    They also remarked that,,, perhaps the mutation marked the beginning of the evolution of a brand new species.,,
    One scientist who thought the results were seriously overblown was Scott Minnich, professor of microbiology at the University of Idaho ,,,
    So Minnich’s lab re-did the work under conditions he thought would be more effective. The bottom line is that they were able to repeatedly isolate the same mutants Lenski’s lab did as easily as falling off a log — within weeks, not decades.,,,
    Richard Lenski was not pleased.,,,
    In a disgraceful move, Lenski impugned Scott Minnich’s character. Since he’s a “fellow of the Discovery Institute” sympathetic with intelligent design,,,
    (Regardless of the ad hominem) With regard to citrate evolution, the Minnich lab’s results have revealed E. coli to be a one-trick pony.,,,
    The take-home lesson is that,,, (Lenski’s overinflated) hype surrounding the (implications of the citrate adaptation) has seriously misled the public and the scientific community. It’s far past time that a pin was stuck in its (Lenski’s citrate) balloon.
    – per evolution news

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    In fact, the entire notion that mutations to DNA are random, (the very foundational cornerstone presupposition that undergirds the entire Darwinian framework), is now found to be wrong.

    “It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action within the DNA of the cell where it works. All careful studies of mutagenesis find statistically significant non-random patterns”
    James Shapiro – Evolution: A View From The 21st Century – (Page 82)

    How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. – 2013
    Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Fully Random Mutations – Kevin Kelly – 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.
    On the contrary, there’s much evidence that genetic mutation vary in patterns. For instance it is pretty much accepted that mutation rates increase or decrease as stress on the cells increases or decreases. These variable rates of mutation include mutations induced by stress from an organism’s predators and competition, and as well as increased mutations brought on by environmental and epigenetic factors. 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.
    http://edge.org/response-detail/25264

    New Research Elucidates Directed Mutation Mechanisms – Cornelius Hunter – January 7, 2013
    Excerpt: mutations don’t occur randomly in the genome, but rather in the genes where they can help to address the challenge. But there is more. The gene’s single stranded DNA has certain coils and loops which expose only some of the gene’s nucleotides to mutation. So not only are certain genes targeted for mutation, but certain nucleotides within those genes are targeted in what is referred to as directed mutations.,,,
    These findings contradict evolution’s prediction that mutations are random with respect to need and sometimes just happen to occur in the right place at the right time.,,,
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....ected.html

    PLOS Paper Admits To Nonrandom Mutation In Evolution – May 31, 2019
    Abstract: “Mutations drive evolution and were assumed to occur by chance: constantly, gradually, roughly uniformly in genomes, and without regard to environmental inputs, but this view is being revised by discoveries of molecular mechanisms of mutation in bacteria, now translated across the tree of life. These mechanisms reveal a picture of highly regulated mutagenesis, up-regulated temporally by stress responses and activated when cells/organisms are maladapted to their environments—when stressed—potentially accelerating adaptation. Mutation is also nonrandom in genomic space, with multiple simultaneous mutations falling in local clusters, which may allow concerted evolution—the multiple changes needed to adapt protein functions and protein machines encoded by linked genes. Molecular mechanisms of stress-inducible mutation change ideas about evolution and suggest different ways to model and address cancer development, infectious disease, and evolution generally.” (open access) – Fitzgerald DM, Rosenberg SM (2019) What is mutation? A chapter in the series: How microbes “jeopardize”the modern synthesis. PloS Genet 15(4): e1007995.
    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/plos-paper-admits-to-nonrandom-mutation-in-evolution/

    Neurons constantly rewrite their DNA – Apr. 27, 2015
    Excerpt: They (neurons) use minor “DNA surgeries” to toggle their activity levels all day, every day.,,,
    “We used to think that once a cell reaches full maturation, its DNA is totally stable, including the molecular tags attached to it to control its genes and maintain the cell’s identity,” says Hongjun Song, Ph.D.,, “This research shows that some cells actually alter their DNA all the time, just to perform everyday functions.”,,,
    ,,, recent studies had turned up evidence that mammals’ brains exhibit highly dynamic DNA modification activity—more than in any other area of the body,,,
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/.....e-dna.html

    Duality in the human genome – November 28, 2014
    Excerpt: The results show that most genes can occur in many different forms within a population: On average, about 250 different forms of each gene exist. The researchers found around four million different gene forms just in the 400 or so genomes they analysed. This figure is certain to increase as more human genomes are examined. More than 85 percent of all genes have no predominant form which occurs in more than half of all individuals. This enormous diversity means that over half of all genes in an individual, around 9,000 of 17,500, occur uniquely in that one person – and are therefore individual in the truest sense of the word.
    The gene, as we imagined it, exists only in exceptional cases. “We need to fundamentally rethink the view of genes that every schoolchild has learned since Gregor Mendel’s time.,,,
    According to the researchers, mutations of genes are not randomly distributed between the parental chromosomes. They found that 60 percent of mutations affect the same chromosome set and 40 percent both sets. Scientists refer to these as cis and trans mutations, respectively. Evidently, an organism must have more cis mutations, where the second gene form remains intact. “It’s amazing how precisely the 60:40 ratio is maintained. It occurs in the genome of every individual – almost like a magic formula,” says Hoehe.
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/.....enome.html

    And as Jonathan Wells states, “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.”

    Ask an Embryologist: Genomic Mosaicism – Jonathan Wells – February 23, 2015
    Excerpt: humans have a “few thousand” different cell types. Here is my simple question: Does the DNA sequence in one cell type differ from the sequence in another cell type in the same person?,,,
    The simple answer is: We now know that there is considerable variation in DNA sequences among tissues, and even among cells in the same tissue. It’s called genomic mosaicism.
    In the early days of developmental genetics, some people thought that parts of the embryo became different from each other because they acquired different pieces of the DNA from the fertilized egg. That theory was abandoned,,,
    ,,,(then) “genomic equivalence” — the idea that all the cells of an organism (with a few exceptions, such as cells of the immune system) contain the same DNA — became the accepted view.
    I taught genomic equivalence for many years. A few years ago, however, everything changed. With the development of more sophisticated techniques and the sampling of more tissues and cells, it became clear that genetic mosaicism is common.
    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.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....93851.html

    Thus even the small scale changes, (finch beaks, wing styles, etc.) that Gelernter claimed Darwin “successfully explained” are nothing of the sort. Darwinian mechanisms, particularly ‘random mutations’ to DNA do not even explain small scale variations within species as was/is presupposed within Darwinian theory.

    And again, if Darwinian evolution were a normal science, instead of basically being a pseudo-scientific religion for atheists, these findings, findings that undermine the entire notion of randomness in the genome, should count as a definitive and fatal falsification of Darwinian theory.

    Verse:

    Psalm 146:6
    He is the Maker of heaven and earth, the sea, and everything in them– he remains faithful forever.

  6. 6
    Axel says:

    This should lend/give any amount of weight to creationism and ID. But, then, the Shroud of Turin is an ‘open and shut’ case, too, simply on the basis of the photographic negative from long before the invention of photography:
    https://www.spiritdaily.com/

    What would ignorant, pre-scientific Christian ‘fundies’ know about anything, eh, Brother Brian ?
    What do you think of it, Brian ? Barbara Kay should pose the question to her Darwinist critics, shouldn’t she ?

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    So biology is “bunk” because it hasn’t yet been able to provide a materialist account of how our brain and its associated conscious intelligence? I say “yet” because the implication is that since science has been unable to fully explain life, the nearly 14bn year-old Universe and everything in a couple of centuries, the whole enterprise has been a dismal flop. What she ignores is the obvious problem of ID being no better. The argument is that life on Earth is far too complex to have emerged through natural processes so the only viable alternative is Intelligent Design. But if improbable complexity can only be explained by Intelligent Design then then the origin of the Designer can only be explained by another, even more complex, Designer. In other words, ID is not an explanation of origins, it simply pushes it back one stage. Who designs the Designer?

  8. 8
    Pater Kimbridge says:

    Well, it’s a good thing that, when we want to know something about biology, we don’t depend upon journalists, computer scientists, or billionaire pedophiles.

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    PK states,

    Well, it’s a good thing that, when we want to know something about biology, we don’t depend upon journalists, computer scientists, or billionaire pedophiles.

    As well it is also a good thing that, when we want to know something about biology, we don’t depend upon Darwinian evolution either!

    As Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, stated, “Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”

    “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
    Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005

    And as A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, stated, “the great majority of biologists,,, can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas.”

    “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
    A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).

    And as the late Philip Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, stated, “Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”

    “Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
    I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
    In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,,
    Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”
    Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005
    http://www.discovery.org/a/2816

    In fact, not only does Darwinian evolution not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology, in so far as Darwinian predictions have guided biological research, those predictions have greatly misled researchers,,

    Darwin’s (False) Predictions
    Introduction
    Why investigate evolution’s false predictions?
    Responses to common objections
    Early evolution predictions
    The DNA code is not unique
    The cell’s fundamental molecules are universal
    Evolutionary causes predictions
    Mutations are not adaptive
    Competition is greatest between neighbors
    Molecular evolution predictions
    Protein evolution
    Histone proteins cannot tolerate much change
    The molecular clock keeps evolutionary time
    Common descent predictions
    The pentadactyl pattern and common descent
    Serological tests reveal evolutionary relationships
    Biology is not lineage specific
    Similar species share similar genes
    MicroRNA
    Evolutionary phylogenies predictions
    Genomic features are not sporadically distributed
    Gene and host phylogenies are congruent
    Gene phylogenies are congruent
    The species should form an evolutionary tree
    Evolutionary pathways predictions
    Complex structures evolved from simpler structures
    Structures do not evolve before there is a need for them
    Functionally unconstrained DNA is not conserved
    Nature does not make leaps
    Biological architecture predictions
    Behavior
    Altruism
    Cell death
    Conclusions
    What false predictions tell us about evolution
    https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/

    And let’s not forget the granddaddy of all false predictions from Darwin’s theory, i.e. Junk DNA:

    Why Are Biologists Lashing Out Against Empirically Verified Research Results? – Casey Luskin July 13, 2015
    Excerpt: no publication shook this (ID vs Darwin) debate so much as a 2012 Nature paper that finally put junk DNA to rest–or so it seemed. This bombshell paper presented the results of the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) Project, a years-long research consortium involving over 400 international scientists studying noncoding DNA in the human genome. Along with 30 other groundbreaking papers, the lead ENCODE article found that the “vast majority” of the human genome shows biochemical function: “These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80 percent of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions.”3
    Ewan Birney, ENCODE’s lead analyst, explained in Discover Magazine that since ENCODE studied 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand cell types, “it’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent.”4 Another senior ENCODE researcher noted that “almost every nucleotide is associated with a function.”5 A headline in Science declared, “ENCODE project writes eulogy for junk DNA.”6,,,
    Evolutionists Strike Back
    Darwin defenders weren’t going to take ENCODE’s data sitting down.,,,
    How could they possibly oppose such empirically based conclusions? The same way they always defend their theory: by assuming an evolutionary viewpoint is correct and reinterpreting the data in light of their paradigm–and by personally attacking, (i.e. ad hominem), those who challenge their position.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....97561.html

    So, to repeat, it is a VERY good thing that when we want to know something about biology, we don’t depend upon Darwinian evolution.

  10. 10
    PaV says:

    Seversky:

    The argument is that life on Earth is far too complex to have emerged through natural processes so the only viable alternative is Intelligent Design. But if improbable complexity can only be explained by Intelligent Design then then the origin of the Designer can only be explained by another, even more complex, Designer.

    And, of course, the origin of the “even more complex Designer” is a Designer that is even really more a complex Designer, ad infinitum.

    Now, let’s see what we find in the area of physics. When it comes to gravity and electromagnetism, the associated force laws are inversely proportional to the radial distance. This is true of the electrons and protons in atoms. Well, if protons are composite bodies, should we assume that within them this same type of inverse law applies? And then further composite bodies with the same inverse law, all the way down to infinitely small distances?

    Well, this is no more than an infinite regress, which gets us nowhere. That is, “It’s turtles all the way down.” Now, I found myself asking this question of whether or not it was “turtles all the way down.” This made no sense at all. I therefore conjectured that there must be, likely at the level of the nucleus, forces that are “directly” proportional to radial distance. Indeed, that is what nature reveals: it’s called ‘quark confinement.’

    So, physical nature reveals (you know, the “material world”) that it is NOT “turtles all the way down.”

    Translation: When you posit a Designer, there is no need to posit a further Designer. Your argument is flawed. And nature tells us so.

  11. 11
    doubter says:

    Seversky@7

    The argument is that life on Earth is far too complex to have emerged through natural processes so the only viable alternative is Intelligent Design. But if improbable complexity can only be explained by Intelligent Design then then the origin of the Designer can only be explained by another, even more complex, Designer. In other words, ID is not an explanation of origins, it simply pushes it back one stage. Who designs the Designer?

    The question of what created the creative intelligence posited by ID theory is another issue entirely. To bring it up is a deliberate obfuscation to take the eyes off the ball. The primary issue is what actually created biological form in all its intricate organized complexity, at the times and places indicated by the fossil record. The purposeless blind wanderings of the Darwinistic process have been ruled out even by their leading theorists. So what is left? Intelligence of some sort. Intelligence in some imaginable or unimaginable form, Divine or not. Spiritual beings? Aliens from another dimension? Any other suggestions? The point is that it takes intelligence in some form.

Leave a Reply