Here Are the Three Important Take-Aways From That New Spider Study

OT: "Conversations with Stephen Meyer," short videos in which Dr. Meyer reflects on the past year's controversy over his book, what the criticisms of Darwin's Doubt reveal about the weakness of his critics and what that suggests about the future of the discussion as a whole. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7Wwl5TzliiESzJlMgqCo6ogMIZWL7gmj bornagain77

As to falsifying a theory of science, empirical evidence is SUPPOSE to have the ability to falsify a theory. Richard Feynman put it like this:

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

David Belinski puts the awkward situation with Darwinism in respect to falsification like this:

“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)

The reason why Darwinism is impervious to falsification by empirical evidence is because, despite the shell games played by some Darwinists with population genetics, it has no rigid mathematical basis to be falsified in the first place:

Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: “Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859.”… http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/05/oxford-university-seeks-mathemagician/ Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013 Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4

But even if one relaxes one's constraint on requiring a scientific theory to have a rigid mathematical basis so as provide a falsification criteria to the empirical evidence, and use Lakato's much more broad definition of falsification for a scientific theory, one still finds that Darwinism is a 'degenerating program'

“In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture

And as Dr. Humter has recently pointed, Darwinism fails on even this broad definition of falsification:

Here’s That Algae Study That Decouples Phylogeny and Competition - June 17, 2014 Excerpt: "With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony." - Cornelius Hunter - per 'Darwin's god'

And these contradictions to Darwin's theory are not just found on the periphery of the evidence being found, but these contradictions penetrate to the very core of Neo-Darwinian theory. Just yesterday, Dr. Behe pointed out that both random mutation and natural selection, instead of being the 'engines of evolution' that Evolutionists envision them to be, are both instead found to be 'grave obstacles' that provide 'overpowering restraints' to Darwinian evolution ever happening:

The Edge of Evolution: Why Darwin's Mechanism Is Self-Limiting - Michael Behe - July 18, 2014 (Part 3 of 3) Excerpt: As science probes ever deeper into the molecular details of life,, grave obstacles to undirected evolution have become manifest. Relatively recent, terrific research using the powerful techniques available to modern biology shows three general, separate barriers to a Darwinian (or, for that matter, to any undirected) evolutionary mechanism. (1. random mutation, 2. natural selection, 3. irreducible complexity),,, It's important to notice that these three roadblocks are substantially independent of each other. Sequestration of a system to its current function by natural selection is a different problem from the damage done by adaptive-yet-degradative random mutations, both of which are conceptually distinct from the need for multiple, unselected steps to reach some adaptive states. A result of their independence is that they will work synergistically. Undirected evolutionary change faces multiple overpowering restraints.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/the_edge_of_evo087971.html

As if that was not bad enough for Darwinist, even deeper falsification to Darwin's theoretical core is found from quantum mechanics. Darwinian (materialistic) presuppositions hold that all the information, (and even consciousness), in life is merely an ‘emergent’ property of a material basis, but it is now found that beyond space and time, non-local, ‘quantum information’, which is not reducible to a material basis, is found in molecular biology on a massive scale (in every DNA and Protein molecule).

Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA - short video https://vimeo.com/92405752 etc.. etc..

Finding quantum entanglement in molecular biology on such a massive scale is a direct empirical falsification of Darwinism's materialistic claims, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place? Appealing to the probability of various 'random' configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply!

Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php Closing the last Bell-test loophole for photons - Jun 11, 2013 Excerpt:– requiring no assumptions or correction of count rates – that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-06-bell-test-loophole-photons.html etc.. etc..

In other words, to give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! Besides providing direct empirical falsification of core theoretical claims of neo-Darwinism, the implication of finding 'non-local', beyond space and time, (and ‘conserved’) quantum information in molecular biology on a massive scale is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious to the Theist:

Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068

Verse and Music:

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. Evanescence - My Heart Is Broken http://www.vevo.com/watch/evanescence/my-heart-is-broken/USWV41100052

bornagain77

When evolutionary explanations begin to resemble football plays, you know something is off! ;-) -Q Querius

Phoodoo: war is peace, freedom is slavery, skepticism is surety. fryether

Oh what a tangled web we weave When first we practice to deceive. Deceiving ever since Nature as "tangled brush" sigh. ppolish

I just have one small quibble with this article. "Skeptics say the theory is failing..." Nowadays, the word skeptics, has a new meaning. It means people who have decided not to be skeptical at all about anything science tells them. If science says there is life on other planets, skeptics will believe it. GMO food is healthy, as long as Monsanto says so. Global warming is a fact, don't question it. Vaccines always safe, please stop doubting. Evolution is true, don't be skeptical, instead just be a skeptic and believe it. Skeptics all share exactly the same beliefs. If you want to be a maverick who questions the scientific establishment, just become a skeptic and you will be cured of ever questioning anything again. phoodoo

Magical convergent evolution strikes again. It is ironic how those who reject religion are even more superstitious than the religionists. Mapou