Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design

Historian Michael Flannery: There is much more Darwin doubt now than fifty years ago

Spread the love

In 1959, he says, Darwinian evolution was alive and well, but it’s looking kind of doubtful now:

Ann Reid, executive director of the nation’s leading Darwin lobby, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), has insisted in an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, “Goodness knows the science is settled, too. No credible scientist doubts that evolution is the theoretical and practical core of biology, with more evidence emerging from a rich array of research fields with every passing year…

But amidst all this chest thumping over neo-Darwinian certainties, doubts are unmistakably on the rise. Most interestingly they seem to be expressed in ways that were unthinkable among Darwin’s previous generation of followers. One thinks of the unbridled celebrations at Darwin’s centennial publication of his Origin of Species. The largest was hosted by the University of Chicago, November 24-28, 1959, and it drew 2,500 participants with almost 250 delegates from 189 colleges. Many of the “synthesizers” of modern genetics with Darwinian evolution were there: George Gaylord Simpson, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr, and the grandson of Darwin’s Bulldog, Julian Huxley. Betty Smocovitis could say in 1999, “that it outshone — and arguably may still outshine — all other scientific celebrations in the recent history of science.” When Dobzhansky declared in 1973 that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,” he was saying what virtually everyone was thinking — and saying in different ways — during those momentous fall days 14 years before. The future was bright and hardly in doubt.

In that context a recent collection of essays, compiled in an anthology titled Darwin in the Twenty-First Century: Nature, Humanity, and God, caught my attention. They demonstrate that Smocovitis’s claim remains true; the centennial celebration would know no equal. Here’s why. These 16 chapters were the products of conferences held at the Gregorian University in Rome and at the University of Notre Dame to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. Most interesting of all is the last essay by a noted historian and philosopher of biology, the late Jean Gayon, “What Future for Darwinism?” Against the centennial celebration, the question itself stands out as one that certainly wasn’t to be seriously asked in Chicago. :

Michael Flannery, “Darwinism, past, present, and future” at Evolution News and Science Today

As he goes on to illustrate, the future doesn’t sound very bright.

Speaking of the Darwin lobby (NCSE above): The Darwinians have essentially written and spoken as if evolution is Darwinism. It sounds like a clever strategy for selling their idea but there is a huge underlying weakness.

Suppose you ask me (O’Leary for News), “Do you believe in evolution?” well, I’m not sure what to say.*

I believe in evolution in general for the same reasons as I believe in weather in general. After all, things change. The world is not as it was a hundred or a thousand or a million years ago. And some changes are permanent.

But usually, the questioner wants to work it around such that I am supposed to believe in the world-shaping power of Dawkins’s selfish gene or some such thing. And of course I do not. From what I can tell, fewer scientists believe it than used to, which means that my skepticism is not particularly “unscientific” either. It’s just not of any use to the Darwin lobby. But that’s their problem. They’d better get used to it. They will be hearing plenty more.

*In the same way, a person might ask, “Do you believe in weather?” and lo! and behold!, that individual wants me to espouse a crackpot the-planet-is-doomed-in-a-decade thesis. No thanks.

See also: PragerU’s new vid explains science-based doubts about evolution.“In November 2016, I attended a conference in London attended by some of the world’s leading evolutionary biologists. The purpose? To address growing doubts about the modern version of Darwin’s theory.”

16 Replies to “Historian Michael Flannery: There is much more Darwin doubt now than fifty years ago

  1. 1
    Axel says:

    The miracle seems to be that the courtiers have so doggedly continued to laud the artorial elegance of the emperor, naked as the day he was born. More naked – if that’s possible. After all, Darwin trashed his theory, himself, didn’t he, on at least one occasion, if such and such did not occur. It didn’t. (Can’t remember the details).

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    Op-Ed: It’s still hard to teach evolution in too many public school classrooms – 2018
    Excerpt: Goodness knows the science is settled, too. No credible scientist doubts that evolution is the theoretical and practical core of biology, with more evidence emerging from a rich array of research fields with every passing year. Claiming that evolution remains an open question is as scientifically preposterous as suggesting that the jury is still out on whether matter is made of atoms.
    https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-reid-teaching-evolution-20181118-story.html

    It is funny that Darwinists will often appeal to other theories in science, (instead of empirical evidence), to try to establish legitimacy for their own theory. You never hear of scientists in other fields, say quantum mechanics, saying that “Quantum Mechanics is as well established as Darwinian evolution.”

    In this case Ann Reid compared her certainty in Darwinian evolution to her certainty that matter is made of atoms.

    Dennis Venema recently compared his certainty in Darwinian evolution to his certainty the sun is the center of the solar system:

    “Some ideas in science are so well supported that it is highly unlikely new evidence will substantially modify them, and these are among them. The sun is at the center of our solar system, humans evolved, and we evolved as a population.”
    – Venema
    – per Ann Gauger evolution news

    This is all old hat for Darwinists. In the 1880s, in a book Joseph Le Conte wrote, even after conceding that the fossil record did not fit Darwinian predictions, none-the-less he claimed that “The law of evolution is as certain as the law of gravitation. Nay, it is far more certain.”

    “The law of evolution is as certain as the law of gravitation. Nay, it is far more certain.”
    Joseph Le Conte, University of California professor of geology – 1888
    per Granville Sewell evolution news

    Again, you never hear of scientists in other fields returning the favor to Darwinists.

    Which is just as well, the other sciences, especially biological sciences themselves, certainly don’t need Darwinian presuppositions. As Marc Kirschner 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

    An as A.S. Wilkins 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 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

    By any reasonable measure one may wish to invoke to determine whether a theory is even scientific of not, Darwinian evolution fails to qualify as a science,,

    “There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.”
    – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17
    Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw

    Simply put, Darwinian evolution simply fails to qualify as a rigorous and testable science by any reasonable measure one may wish to invoke and is therefore more properly classified as a pseudoscience, even as a religion for atheists, rather than being classified as a real and testable science.

    In fact, although the Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory.
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM

    Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic and/or naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinian materialists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    Again, It would be hard to fathom a worldview that turns out to be more antagonistic towards modern science, indeed more antagonistic towards reality itself, than the presumption of methodological naturalism has turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    As to Ann Reid’s claim that Darwinian evolution is just as ‘settled science’ as the fact that “matter is made of atoms”, it is interesting to note that it is now found that atoms themselves are not the solid indivisible concrete particles, as they were originally envisioned to be by materialists,

    “The conception of objective reality of the elementary particles has thus evaporated not into the cloud of some obscure new reality concept but into the transparent clarity of a mathematics that represents no longer the behavior of particles but rather our knowledge of this behavior”
    – Werner Heinsenberg – The Representation of Nature in Contemporary Physics – pg. 100

    ,,,but it turns out that the descriptions we now use to describe atoms themselves, the further down we go, dissolve, as the following article states, into “abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,,”

    Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
    So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications
    By Bernardo Kastrup – March 25, 2019
    Excerpt: according to the Greek atomists, if we kept on dividing things into ever-smaller bits, at the end there would remain solid, indivisible particles called atoms, imagined to be so concrete as to have even particular shapes. Yet, as our understanding of physics progressed, we’ve realized that atoms themselves can be further divided into smaller bits, and those into yet smaller ones, and so on, until what is left lacks shape and solidity altogether. At the bottom of the chain of physical reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”—abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,,
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

    In fact, according to quantum theory, the most fundamental ‘stuff’ of the world is not even the stuff of matter or energy at all, (as materialists had originally presupposed), but it turns out the fundamental stuff of the universe is ‘abstract’ immaterial information itself. As Professor Vedral of Oxford stated, “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information”,,,

    “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”
    Vlatko Vedral – Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College .

    And as leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information”,,, And Dr. Zeilinger even goes on to note the Theological significance of finding information to be the most fundamental definition of reality. Specifically, he cites John 1:1 which states “In the beginning was the Word”

    “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information”
    (48:35 minute mark)
    “In the beginning was the Word”
    John 1:1 (49:54 minute mark)
    Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT
    https://youtu.be/s3ZPWW5NOrw?t=2984

    Thus, in an irony of ironies, not even the material particles themselves turn out to be solid, and concrete, and therefore real on the materialistic definition of what is supposed to be ‘real’, but the supposedly solid and concrete material particles themselves turn out instead to be made of “abstract” immaterial information.

    “The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct ‘actuality’ of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible…Atoms are not things.”
    – Werner Heisenberg (1962). “Physics and philosophy: the revolution in modern science”, Harpercollins College Div.)

    This puts the die-hard Darwinian materialist in quite the conundrum because, as Bernardo Kastrup further explained in his article, to make sense of this dilemma of a non-material world of pure abstractions we must ultimately appeal to an immaterial mind. In other words, we must ultimately appeal to the Mind of God!

    Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
    So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications
    By Bernardo Kastrup – March 25, 2019
    Excerpt: “To make sense of this conundrum,,, we must stick to what is most immediately present to us: solidity and concreteness are qualities of our experience. The world measured, modeled and ultimately predicted by physics is the world of perceptions, a category of mentation. The phantasms and abstractions reside merely in our descriptions of the behavior of that world, not in the world itself.,,,
    Where we get lost and confused is in imagining that what we are describing is a non-mental reality underlying our perceptions, as opposed to the perceptions themselves. We then try to find the solidity and concreteness of the perceived world in that postulated underlying reality. However, a non-mental world is inevitably abstract. And since solidity and concreteness are felt qualities of experience—what else?—we cannot find them there. The problem we face is thus merely an artifact of thought, something we conjure up out of thin air because of our theoretical habits and prejudices.,,,
    As I elaborate extensively in my new book, The Idea of the World, none of this implies solipsism. The mental universe exists in mind but not in your personal mind alone. Instead, it is a transpersonal field of mentation that presents itself to us as physicality—with its concreteness, solidity and definiteness—once our personal mental processes interact with it through observation. This mental universe is what physics is leading us to, not the hand-waving word games of information realism.
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

    Or to put the implications from these recent advances in quantum mechanics much more simply, as Physics professor Richard Conn Henry put it at the end of the following article, “The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.”

    The mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry
    The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.
    Excerpt: “The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.”
    – Richard Conn Henry is a Professor in the Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

    Thus far from consciousness and our sense of self being illusory, as Darwinian materialists are forced to believe because of their unwarranted presupposition of reductive materialism and/or methodological naturalism, it turns out that material reality itself is what is in fact found to be illusory.
    As Physics professor Richard Conn Henry further stated in response to the experimental falsification of realism by Leggett’s inequality, “if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism”,,,

    Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett’s Inequality: Violated, as of 2011, to 120 standard deviations)
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html

    Verse:

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

  3. 3
    PavelU says:

    Bad news for the ID folks:

    This very recent interesting paper in a prestigious journal clearly shows how the eukaryotic cells arose:

    https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsob.190126

  4. 4
    asauber says:

    PavelU,

    “Bad news for the ID folks:”

    Could you quote the Bad News, so we don’t have to guess at what the h*ll you are talking about?

    Andrew

  5. 5
    PavelU says:

    Asauber,

    No problem, my pleasure:

    All modern-day eukaryotes are believed to have arisen from a primordial ancestor that engulfed an ?-protobacterium with the capacity for respiration [1]. This event gave rise to modern-day mitochondria, an event that is now deeply integrated in eukaryotic cell homeostasis and survival.

    It’s right at the beginning of the introduction.

    Sorry if this information punched a hole through your ID beliefs.

  6. 6
    asauber says:

    PavelIU

    “All modern-day eukaryotes are believed to have arisen from a primordial ancestor”

    This is just someone’s belief, for starters. Those are a dime a dozen and dont demonstrate anything. Got anything else that will waste more of my time?

    Andrew

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    PavelU

    Endosymbiosis: A Theory in Crisis by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. * – Oct. 30, 2015
    Excerpt: However, now that genome sequencing is inexpensive and widespread, the evolutionary story of endosymbiosis has become increasingly clouded and controversial. As new bacterial and eukaryotic genomes are sequenced and the proteins they encode are deduced, the whole evolutionary idea of endosymbiosis has been thrown into utter confusion.
    One of the most unexpected discoveries has been the utter lack of identified genes that would support the evolutionary tale. As stated in a recent paper,
    “What was not anticipated was how relatively few mitochondrial proteins with bacterial homologs [sequence similarity] would group specifically with ?-Proteobacteria in phylogenetic [evolutionary tree] reconstructions: At most, only 10–20% of any of the mitochondrial proteomes examined so far display a robust ?-proteobacterial signal.4”
    This lack of evidence for mitochondrial genes derived from bacterial origin in both the mitochondrial DNA and the genome contained in the cell’s nucleus, where most mitochondrial genes are located, is a serious problem for the evolutionary story.,,,
    http://www.icr.org/article/end.....ory-crisis

    Information Processing Differences Between Archaea and Eukarya—Implications for Homologs and the Myth of Eukaryogenesis. – Tan, C. and J. Tomkins. 2015.
    https://answersingenesis.org/biology/microbiology/information-processing-differences-between-archaea-and-eukarya/

    Information Processing Differences Between Bacteria and Eukarya—Implications for the Myth of Eukaryogenesis. – Tan, C. and J. Tomkins. 2015.
    https://answersingenesis.org/biology/microbiology/information-processing-differences-between-bacteria-and-eukarya

    Well PavelU, sorry if that information punched a hole through your evolutionary beliefs.

    As to mitochondria, I really don’t think you want to go down the path of claiming those molecular machines are the product of mindless Darwinian processes:

    Powering the Cell: Mitochondria
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrS2uROUjK4

  8. 8
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77@ 2

    It is funny that Darwinists will often appeal to other theories in science, (instead of empirical evidence), to try to establish legitimacy for their own theory. You never hear of scientists in other fields, say quantum mechanics, saying that “Quantum Mechanics is as well established as Darwinian evolution.”

    That’s probably because physicists are not being bombarded with accusations from religious fundamentalists that Schrodingerism or Heisenbergism or Bohrism are totally unsubstantiated nonsense, that the idea that quantum phenomena can exist in a superposition of states until observed or measured is just ridiculous metaphysical speculation.

    Thus far from consciousness and our sense of self being illusory, as Darwinian materialists are forced to believe because of their unwarranted presupposition of reductive materialism and/or methodological naturalism, it turns out that material reality itself is what is in fact found to be illusory.

    Really? So you could jump off a tall building or walk in front of a speeding vehicle without ill-effects? As an atheist/materialist I really wouldn’t recommend it because I’m pretty sure you would find that physical reality is painfully real.

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky, funny you did not present any empirical evidence to show just how strong your theory is compared to other theories: (oh yeah that’s right, you don’t have any evidence)

    “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

    As to your second part, you forgot that “solidity and concreteness are qualities of our experience.” i.e. you just can’t get away from the necessary perquisite of conscious experience in order for you to even be able to describe reality in the first place:
    .

    Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
    So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications
    By Bernardo Kastrup – March 25, 2019
    Excerpt: “To make sense of this conundrum,,, we must stick to what is most immediately present to us: solidity and concreteness are qualities of our experience. The world measured, modeled and ultimately predicted by physics is the world of perceptions, a category of mentation. The phantasms and abstractions reside merely in our descriptions of the behavior of that world, not in the world itself.,,,
    Where we get lost and confused is in imagining that what we are describing is a non-mental reality underlying our perceptions, as opposed to the perceptions themselves. We then try to find the solidity and concreteness of the perceived world in that postulated underlying reality. However, a non-mental world is inevitably abstract. And since solidity and concreteness are felt qualities of experience—what else?—we cannot find them there. The problem we face is thus merely an artifact of thought, something we conjure up out of thin air because of our theoretical habits and prejudices.,,,
    As I elaborate extensively in my new book, The Idea of the World, none of this implies solipsism. The mental universe exists in mind but not in your personal mind alone. Instead, it is a transpersonal field of mentation that presents itself to us as physicality—with its concreteness, solidity and definiteness—once our personal mental processes interact with it through observation. This mental universe is what physics is leading us to, not the hand-waving word games of information realism.
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

  10. 10
    ET says:

    LoL! @ seversky- As an atheist/ materialist you cannot account for pain. You cannot account for our existence nor the existence of any buildings.

    And if Kitzmiller vs Dover SB is any indication all you and your ilk can do is lie and bluff your way through life.

  11. 11
    asauber says:

    Where’s Drive-By PavelIU this morning?

    I’m bored.

    Andrew

  12. 12
    ET says:

    PavelU:

    This very recent interesting paper in a prestigious journal clearly shows how the eukaryotic cells arose:

    Except there isn’t anything in the article that pertains to blind and mindless processes. And eukaryotes are much more than proks with mitochondria.

  13. 13
    asauber says:

    “interesting paper in a prestigious journal”

    Flag! Appeal to flowery language. PavelIU is penalized for writing poetry on a science blog.

    Andrew

  14. 14
    OLV says:

    To all:

    Regarding the paper PavelU has cited, it points to ID all the way.
    PavelU seems to have some reading comprehension issues that should try to correct before he cites another paper here.
    The poor guy seems so confused.

    From the very abstract one can read the evidences for ID clearly:

    Mitochondria are iconic structures in biochemistry and cell biology, traditionally referred to as the powerhouse of the cell due to a central role in energy production. However, modern-day mitochondria are recognized as key players in eukaryotic cell biology and are known to regulate crucial cellular processes, including calcium signalling, cell metabolism and cell death, to name a few.

    However, many authors sprinkle a few “evolutionary” nonsense statements here and there in order to keep the academic establishment unprovoked.

    Here are the concluding remarks:

    This review illustrates the importance of mitochondria to eukaryotic cellular functions. As mitochondrial biologists we are frequently surprised by novel pathways or protein networks that involve mitochondria and/or mitochondrial proteins. Mitochondrial protein import and structural dynamics provide the means for rapid alterations in activity to facilitate biological responses to signalling molecules, nutrient availability and pathogenic insult. The temporal coordination of mitochondrial energetics and their biosynthetic capacity drives cell proliferation and differentiation. However, the highly reactive biochemistry compartmentalized in the organelle makes it capable of inducing cell death and necessitates quality control mechanisms. An understanding of this interplay between mitochondrial functions and their diverse cellular implications is therefore critical to a comprehensive holistic model of cellular homeostasis and biochemistry. The importance of this is evident in the escalating occurrence of mitochondria in post-genomic medical research [202]. Although mitochondria are undeniably hubs of cellular biochemistry, further fundamental research is required. In particular, elucidating how the mitochondrion regulates and integrates the various pathways it is associated with, in specialized cells/tissue types and in the context of health and in disease, will help uncover the true depth of influence this amazing organelle has on eukaryotic cells.

  15. 15
    Axel says:

    Seversky’s gone quiet. Shrodinger’s cat got your tongue and disappeared with it, Sev ?

    Incidentally, Pav sounds a character, doesn’t he ? Wonderfully truculent, come hell or high water. Game to the last! What am I saying !?! I’ve just read Anne Reid’s ‘bon mot’ right at the top. Or could it be Sean Carrol, under a ‘nom de plume’ ?

    Somehow, you don’t feel so guilty at mocking the afflicted, when they get stroppy.

  16. 16
    john_a_designer says:

    The only reason the Darwinian/ neo-Darwinian theory of evolution continues to persist is not because of the science and empirical evidence. The only reason it persists is because of its metaphysical assumptions. No theory provides a better hand-in-glove fit with atheistic materialism than Darwin’s theory of natural selection acting on random variation. In other words, since atheists believe that naturalism/ materialism must be true the only mechanism they have to explain “evolution” is the Darwinian mechanism. So rather than follow the evidence wherever it leads they begin with their philosophical beliefs and assumptions and then try to force fit the evidence into their pre-conceived paradigm. Design is not an option because it has been excluded by them a priori.

Leave a Reply