“Neo-Darwinism is alive and well” according to article? On what planet?

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 21, 2021

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Racism}

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

This abstract proclaims the good news (for Darwinists):

The Modern Synthesis (or “Neo-Darwinism”), which arose out of the reconciliation of Darwin’s theory of natural selection and Mendel’s research on genetics, remains the foundation of evolutionary theory. However, since its inception, it has been a lightning rod for criticism, which has ranged from minor quibbles to complete dismissal. Among the most famous of the critics was Stephen Jay Gould, who, in 1980, proclaimed that the Modern Synthesis was “effectively dead.” Gould and others claimed that the action of natural selection on random mutations was insufficient on its own to explain patterns of macroevolutionary diversity and divergence, and that new processes were required to explain findings from the fossil record. In 1982, Charlesworth, Lande, and Slatkin published a response to this critique in Evolution, in which they argued that Neo-Darwinism was indeed sufficient to explain macroevolutionary patterns. In this Perspective for the 75th Anniversary of the Society for the Study of Evolution, we review Charlesworth et al. (1982) in its historical context and provide modern support for their arguments. We emphasize the importance of microevolutionary processes in the study of macroevolutionary patterns. Ultimately, we conclude that punctuated equilibrium did not represent a major revolution in evolutionary biology – although debate on this point stimulated significant research and furthered the field – and that Neo-Darwinism is alive and well.
Zachary B. Hancock, Emma S. Lehmberg, Gideon S. Bradburd, “Neo-darwinism still haunts evolutionary theory: A modern perspective on Charlesworth, Lande, and Slatkin (1982)” at Evolution (May 17, 2021)

But this story just rolled through the mill an hour ago: Attack on Darwinism at AAAS’s flagship mag “Science” re racism and sexism. Let’s pass over the question of why Cool People never noticed that stuff about Charles Darwin for nearly a century and a half. Noticing now? Good. Then what does Agustín Fuentes suppose should replace Darwinism? A war on science? A war on math? A war on people who think getting right answers is a good thing? What’s supposed to be the next step?

Something isn’t right with this instrument panel.

Comments

AaronS1978: Well that was a very good question yes a lot of it can be theological I honestly don’t have an exact answer at all I think it is a very complicated issue. But I am genuinely interested in the answer from an ID perspective. Honestly I feel it’s kind of a preload but that’s more of my personal opinion. All life (single cell and up) was given everything they needed to do what they needed to do. As time went on things changed as each organism continue to use the tools that were best for them. And you can see all the deviations in each branch of life. But that’s just kind of my opinion I don’t have an exact answer I think it's very good if you realise and admit that you haven't got all the answers. After all, seeking knowledge and enlightenment is a very good thing!! I'm not an intelligent designer proponent but if I were I would definitely stump for a kind of preloaded scenario.JVL_{May 23, 2021
May
05
May
23
23
2021
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

Buffalo: They were created by God, with the preternatural gifts of bodily immortality, freedom from sickness and infused knowledge. Pristine genetics. I don't think that actually answers my question. But if you don't want to answer my question then I can't do much about that. Just like with Bornagain77 who also didn't answer my question. Oh well.JVL_{May 23, 2021
May
05
May
23
23
2021
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

At JVL Well that was a very good question yes a lot of it can be theological I honestly don’t have an exact answer at all Honestly I feel it’s kind of a preload but that’s more of my personal opinion All life (single cell and up) was given everything they needed to do what they needed to do As time went on things changed as each organism continue to use the tools that were best for them And you can see all the deviations in each branch of life But that’s just kind of my opinion I don’t have an exact answerAaronS1978_{May 23, 2021
May
05
May
23
23
2021
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

JVL@3 They were created by God, with the preternatural gifts of bodily immortality, freedom from sickness and infused knowledge. Pristine genetics.buffalo_{May 23, 2021
May
05
May
23
23
2021
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

'Fun fact': the modern synthesis, i.e. 'Neo-Darwinism', (directly contrary to the claim made in the OP), is certainly NOT alive and well:
,, In the following video, Dr Denis Noble states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976. It’s main assumptions are, first of all, is that it is a gene centered view of natural selection. The process of evolution can therefore be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome. It would be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations, followed by selection. (Now an important point to make here is that if that process is genuinely random, then there is nothing that physiology, or physiologists, can say about that process. That is a very important point.) The second aspect of neo-Darwinism was the impossibility of acquired characteristics (mis-called “Larmarckism”). And there is a very important distinction in Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ between the replicator, that is the genes, and the vehicle that carries the replicator, that is the organism or phenotype. And of course that idea was not only buttressed and supported by the Weissman barrier idea, but later on by the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. Then Dr. Nobel pauses to emphasize his point and states “All these rules have been broken!”. Denis Noble - Rocking the foundations of biology - lecture video http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/physiology-and-the-revolution-in-evolutionary-biology/ Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Denis Noble - 17 MAY 2013 Excerpt: The ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-20th century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection.,,, We now know that genetic change is far from random and often not gradual.,,, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134/abstract "Physiology Is Rocking the Foundations of Evolutionary Biology": Another Peer-Reviewed Paper Takes Aim at Neo-Darwinism - Casey Luskin March 31, 2015 Excerpt: Noble doesn't mince words: "It is not only the standard 20th century views of molecular genetics that are in question. Evolutionary theory itself is already in a state of flux (Jablonka & Lamb, 2005; Noble, 2006, 2011; Beurton et al. 2008; Pigliucci & Muller, 2010; Gissis & Jablonka, 2011; Shapiro, 2011). In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved." Noble then recounts those assumptions: (1) that "genetic change is random," (2) that "genetic change is gradual," (3) that "following genetic change, natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population," and (4) that "inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible." He then cites examples that refute each of those assumptions,,, He then proposes a new and radical model of biology called the "Integrative Synthesis," where genes don't run the show and all parts of an organism -- the genome, the cell, the body plan, everything -- is integrated. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/physiology_is_r094821.html Where Do Complex Organisms Come From? - 12/04/2012 - Stuart A. Newman - Professor of cell biology and anatomy, New York Medical College Excerpt: In fact, adaptationist gradualism, though still popular in some scientific circles, is increasingly questioned and found wanting by evolutionary biologists working in an expanded set of disciplines.,,, First, let's look at some of the expectations of the natural selection-based modern synthesis (of Darwinism): (i) the largest differences within given categories of multicellular organisms, the animals or plants, for example, should have appeared gradually, only after exceptionally long periods of evolution; (ii) the extensive genetic changes required to generate such large differences over such vast times would have virtually erased any similarity between the sets of genes coordinating development in the different types of organism; and (iii) evolution of body types and organs should continue indefinitely. Since genetic mutation never ceases, novel organismal forms should constantly be appearing. All these predictions of the standard model have proved to be incorrect.,,, With a 19th century notion of incremental material transformations no longer relevant to comprehending the range of organismal variation that has appeared throughout the history of life on Earth, the other pillar of the standard model can be discarded along with it. Specifically,,, there is no need for cycles of selection for marginal adaptive advantage to be the default explanation for macroevolutionary change. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-a-newman/complex-organisms_b_2240232.html Die, selfish gene, die - The selfish gene is one of the most successful science metaphors ever invented. Unfortunately, it’s wrong - Dec. 2013 Excerpt: But 15 years after Hamilton and Williams kited [introduced] this idea, it was embraced and polished into gleaming form by one of the best communicators science has ever produced: the biologist Richard Dawkins. In his magnificent book The Selfish Gene (1976), Dawkins gathered all the threads of the modern synthesis — Mendel, Fisher, Haldane, Wright, Watson, Crick, Hamilton, and Williams — into a single shimmering magic carpet (called the selfish gene). Unfortunately, say Wray, West-Eberhard and others, it’s wrong. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/epigenetics-dawkins-selfish-gene-discredited-by-still-more-scientists-you-should-have-heard-of/ Defending the validity and significance of the new theorem “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection With Mutations, Part I: Fisher’s Impact – Bill Basener and John Sanford - February 15, 2018 Excerpt: While Fisher’s Theorem is mathematically correct, his Corollary is false. The simple logical fallacy is that Fisher stated that mutations could effectively be treated as not impacting fitness, while it is now known that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious, providing a downward pressure on fitness. Our model and our correction of Fisher’s theorem (The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations), take into account the tension between the upward force of selection with the downward force of mutations.,,, Our paper shows that Fisher’s corollary is clearly false, and that he misunderstood the implications of his own theorem. He incorrectly believed that his theorem was a mathematical proof that showed that natural selection plus mutation will necessarily and always increase fitness. He also believed his theorem was on a par with a natural law (such as entropic dissipation and the second law of thermodynamics). Because Fisher did not understand the actual fitness distribution of new mutations, his belief in the application of his “fundamental theorem of natural selection” was fundamentally and profoundly wrong – having little correspondence to biological reality. Therefore, we have reformulated Fisher’s model and have corrected his errors, thereby have established a new theorem that better describes biological reality, and allows for the specification of those key variables that will determine whether fitness will increase or decrease. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/defending-the-validity-and-significance-of-the-new-theorem-fundamental-theorem-of-natural-selection-with-mutations-part-i-fishers-impact/ Geneticist Corrects Fisher’s Theorem, but the Correction Turns Natural Selection Upside Down - December 22, 2017 | David F. Coppedge A new paper corrects errors in Fisher’s Theorem, a mathematical “proof” of Darwinism. Rather than supporting evolution, the corrected theorem inverts it. Excerpt: The authors of the new paper describe the fundamental problems with Fisher’s theorem. They then use Fisher’s first principles, and reformulate and correct the theorem. They have named the corrected theorem The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations. The correction of the theorem is not a trivial change – it literally flips the theorem on its head. The resulting conclusions are clearly in direct opposition to what Fisher had originally intended to prove.,,, The authors of the new paper realized that one of Fisher’s pivotal assumptions was clearly false, and in fact was falsified many decades ago. In his informal corollary, Fisher essentially assumed that new mutations arose with a nearly normal distribution – with an equal proportion of good and bad mutations (so mutations would have a net fitness effect of zero). We now know that the vast majority of mutations in the functional genome are harmful, and that beneficial mutations are vanishingly rare. The simple fact that Fisher’s premise was wrong, falsifies Fisher’s corollary. Without Fisher’s corollary – Fisher’s Theorem proves only that selection improves a population’s fitness until selection exhausts the initial genetic variation, at which point selective progress ceases. Apart from his corollary, Fisher’s Theorem only shows that within an initial population with variant genetic alleles, there is limited selective progress followed by terminal stasis.,,, The authors observe that the more realistic the parameters, the more likely fitness decline becomes. https://crev.info/2017/12/geneticist-corrects-fishers-theorem/ Neutral Model, genetic drift and the Third Way—a synopsis of the self-inflicted demise of the evolutionary paradigm by Jeffrey P. Tomkins and Jerry Bergman - 2017 Abstract "Because of grievous deficiencies in the standard neo-Darwinian Model of evolution, which is largely selection driven, scientists proposed an alternative postulate called the ‘Neutral Model’ in the late 1960s. The Neutral Model is also mutation driven, but selection is deemed to be an insignificant force of change. Instead, random genetic drift is alleged to be the main driver. Since its inception, the Neutral Model has come to be incorporated in many theoretical evolutionary scenarios at some level. However, due to numerous discoveries in genomics and genome function, the Neutral Model has also become deficient, prompting a new move in science called the ‘Extended Evolutionary Synthesis’ or ‘The Third Way’, which takes a position of blissful ignorance and offers nothing tangible to extend or support evolutionary theory. While Third Way proponents recognize the deficiency of all popular evolutionary models, they maintain that more research is needed to elucidate unknown evolutionary mechanisms and processes despite the fact that the progress of scientific discovery is revealing nothing but unimaginable complexity." https://creation.com/evolutionary-mechanisms
bornagain77_{May 23, 2021
May
05
May
23
23
2021
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

Which is to say, if the reductive materialism upon which Neo-Darwinian evolution is based is actually true
Fun fact: at least two of the architects of the modern synthesis weren't materialists.Bob O'H_{May 23, 2021
May
05
May
23
23
2021
12:34 AM
12
12
34
AM
PDT}

Ralph Dave Westfall/15
In relation to the title of this article, there’s a website called Internet Sacred Text Archive. I found it interesting that it has an online copy of Darwin’s Descent of Man.
I thought they had the sacred text of Pastafarianism when I saw The Book of Noodles listed but it's actually something different.Seversky_{May 22, 2021
May
05
May
22
22
2021
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT}

In relation to the title of this article, there's a website called Internet Sacred Text Archive. I found it interesting that it has an online copy of Darwin's Descent of Man. If Darwin's book is considered to be a "sacred text," that may explain some of the rhetoric we see. See https://sacred-texts.com/aor/darwin/descent/index.htmRalph Dave Westfall_{May 22, 2021
May
05
May
22
22
2021
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT}

AaronS1978: I’m just going to say maybe the hypothesized designer didn’t allow all of those creatures to die out we just changed were the same species as we were millions of years ago with different traits I mean that’s evolution in a nutshell isn’t it I know what evolutionary theory says. I'm trying to figure out what particular ID proponents think happened. Do you think the designer preloaded the whole thing or are they tweaking things as it all plays out? Are such questions theological?JVL_{May 22, 2021
May
05
May
22
22
2021
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

I’m just going to say maybe the hypothesized designer didn’t allow all of those creatures to die out we just changed were the same species as we were millions of years ago with different traits I mean that’s evolution in a nutshell isn’t itAaronS1978_{May 22, 2021
May
05
May
22
22
2021
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: JVL, you want to talk Theology I suggest you go talk to a theologian, you want to talk scientific evidence, I’ll be more than happy to point out how badly Darwin’s theory fails as a scientific theory. So, you can't answer the question. Fair enough. I was just wondering. But . . . if you think asking a 'why' question is theological then is your stance scientific?JVL_{May 22, 2021
May
05
May
22
22
2021
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

JVL, you want to talk Theology I suggest you go talk to a theologian, you want to talk scientific evidence, I'll be more than happy to point out how badly Darwin's theory fails as a scientific theory. Darwin's theory, contrary to the claim made in the OP, and as far as scientific evidence itself is concerned, is deader than a bucket of doornails!bornagain77_{May 22, 2021
May
05
May
22
22
2021
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Sorry JVL. I thought you were making a scientific argument instead of a Theological argument. You still didn't answer the question.JVL_{May 22, 2021
May
05
May
22
22
2021
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

Buffalo: Front loaded design and lineage splitting that results in some loss of function at each step leads to ultimate extinction once the limits of built in adaptation are reached. Okay . . . so humans came about how exactly?JVL_{May 22, 2021
May
05
May
22
22
2021
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

Sorry JVL. I thought you were making a scientific argument instead of a Theological argument. Sorry, my bad. I should have known better, Darwinian ideology has always been, at root, a theological argument, not a scientific argument.
Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html
bornagain77_{May 22, 2021
May
05
May
22
22
2021
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: JVL, the fossil record for supposed human evolution is not nearly as compelling as you seem to believe. That's wasn't the point of my question though was it? If the ultimate goal was human beings then why all the precursors? It's a simple question.JVL_{May 22, 2021
May
05
May
22
22
2021
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

JVL@3 Front loaded design and lineage splitting that results in some loss of function at each step leads to ultimate extinction once the limits of built in adaptation are reached.buffalo_{May 22, 2021
May
05
May
22
22
2021
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

As to the claim that "Neo-Darwinism is alive and well". If, as they claim, "Neo-Darwinism is alive and well" then that renders all the rest of us dead and gone. Which is to say, if the reductive materialism upon which Neo-Darwinian evolution is based is actually true then we are not actually conscious beings with free will control over whatever actions we may choose to take. But we are merely neuronal illusions that are generated by our brain.
The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness - STEVEN PINKER - Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there's an executive "I" that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion. http://www.academia.edu/2794859/The_Brain_The_Mystery_of_Consciousness "There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.,,, - A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10 The Consciousness Deniers – Galen Strawson – March 13, 2018 Excerpt: What is the silliest claim ever made? The competition is fierce, but I think the answer is easy. Some people have denied the existence of consciousness: conscious experience, the subjective character of experience, the “what-it-is-like” of experience.,,, Who are the Deniers?,,, Few have been fully explicit in their denial, but among those who have been, we find Brian Farrell, Paul Feyerabend, Richard Rorty, and the generally admirable Daniel Dennett.,,, http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/13/the-consciousness-deniers/
Moreover, Darwinists hold that we are merely neuronal illusions generated by our brain who are merely having the illusion that we have free will control over whatever actions that we, as neuronal illusions, may choose to take. In other words, and according to Darwinian materialists, we are merely Neuronal illusions having illusions of free will.
THE ILLUSION OF FREE WILL - Sam Harris - 2012 Excerpt: "Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it." - Jerry Coyne https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/
In effect, if Neo-Darwinism were actually true then we are ultimately forced to believe that we are, in essence, mindless zombies who are not really conscious and who do not really have any free will control over our bodies. Hey, don't take my word for it. Daniel Dennett himself admits that, if his Darwinian worldview were actually true then, ‘nobody is conscious … we are all zombies’.
“(Daniel) Dennett concludes, ‘nobody is conscious … we are all zombies’.” J.W. SCHOOLER & C.A. SCHREIBER – Experience, Meta-consciousness, and the Paradox of Introspection – 2004
As should be needless to say, the claim by Darwinian materialists, that his conscious experience of the world is not real, and that he is merely a neuronal illusion, is a blatantly self refuting claim for him, as a mindless zombie, to make. As David Bentley Hart states in the following article, “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.”
The Illusionist – Daniel Dennett’s latest book marks five decades of majestic failure to explain consciousness. – 2017 Excerpt: “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.” – David Bentley Hart https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-illusionist
So again, if, as they claim, "Neo-Darwinism is alive and well" then that renders all the rest of us dead and gone. Fortunately for the rest of us who prefer to think of ourselves as being very much alive and well, and as far as the scientific evidence itself is concerned, "Neo-Darwinism is NOT alive and well" but Neo-Darwinism itself is instead deader than a bucket full of doornails. Which is to say, as far as the scientific evidence is concerned, Neo-Darwinian evolution has been empirically, (and logically), falsified many times over. Here are a few evidences that falsify Darwinian evolution. Falsifications that Darwinists themselves simply refuse, for whatever severely misguided reason, to ever accept as falsifications of their (supposedly scientific) theory:
Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are found to be ‘directed’. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.” Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.”. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! Darwinist’s, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
So thus in conclusion, we can rest assured that we are 'alive and well' since Darwinian evolution itself is, as far as the science itself is concerned, deader than a bucket full of doornails. As a sidenote, after years of debating Darwinists, it recently occurred to me that the number one reason for Darwinists believing in Darwinian evolution is not because of the scientific evidence, (there is none), but is because of their own personal animosity towards God. Don't believe me? Well, just debate Seversky for any length of time and you will soon start to see, instead of any scientific evidence, his irrational hostility towards God start to bleed out. Verse:
Proverbs 8:36 But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
Of supplemental note:
Dead as a doornail Dead as a doornail is a phrase which means not alive, unequivocally deceased. The term goes back to the 1300s, the phrase dead as a doornail is found in poems of the time. The term dead as a doornail was used in the 1500s by William Shakespeare, and in Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol in 1843. It is thought that the phrase dead as a doornail comes from the manner of securing doornails that were hammered into a door by clenching them. Clenching is the practice of bending over the protruding end of the nail and hammering it into the wood. When a nail has been clenched, it has been dead nailed, and is not easily resurrected to use again. An alternative wording of the phrase dead as a doornail is deader than a doornail.
bornagain77_{May 22, 2021
May
05
May
22
22
2021
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

JVL, the fossil record for supposed human evolution is not nearly as compelling as you seem to believe. Just recently, the AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY "found that most stories of human origins are not compatible with the fossils that we have today."
Review: Most human origins stories are not compatible with known fossils - May, 6 2021 AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY Excerpt: "When you look at the narrative for hominin origins, it's just a big mess--there's no consensus whatsoever," said Sergio Almécija, a senior research scientist in the American Museum of Natural History's Division of Anthropology and the lead author of the review. "People are working under completely different paradigms, and that's something that I don't see happening in other fields of science.”,,,, "In The Descent of Man in 1871, Darwin speculated that humans originated in Africa from an ancestor different from any living species. However, he remained cautious given the scarcity of fossils at the time," Almécija said. "One hundred fifty years later, possible hominins--approaching the time of the human-chimpanzee divergence--have been found in eastern and central Africa, and some claim even in Europe. In addition, more than 50 fossil ape genera are now documented across Africa and Eurasia. However, many of these fossils show mosaic combinations of features that do not match expectations for ancient representatives of the modern ape and human lineages. As a consequence, there is no scientific consensus on the evolutionary role played by these fossil apes." Overall, the researchers found that most stories of human origins are not compatible with the fossils that we have today. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-05/amon-rmh050521.php
A few related notes:
Contested Bones: Is There Any Solid Fossil Evidence for Ape-to-Man Evolution? – Dr. John Sanford and Chris Rupe Excerpt: We have spent four years carefully examining the scientific literature on this subject. We have discovered that within this field (paleoanthropology), virtually all the famous hominin types have either been discredited or are still being hotly contested. Within this field, not one of the hominin types have been definitively established as being in the lineage from ape to man. This includes the famous fossils that have been nicknamed Lucy, Ardi, Sediba, Habilis, Naledi, Hobbit, Erectus, and Neaderthal. Well-respected people in the field openly admit that their field is in a state of disarray. It is very clear that the general public has been deceived regarding the credibility and significance of the reputed hominin fossils. We will show that the actual fossil evidence is actually most consistent with the following three points. 1) The hominin bones reveal only two basic types; ape bones (Ardi and Lucy), and human bones (Naledi, Hobbit, Erectus, and Neaderthal). 2) The ape bones and the human bones have been repeatedly found together in the same strata – therefore both lived at the same basic timeframe (the humans were apparently hunting and eating the apes). 3) Because the hominin bones were often found in mixed bone beds (with bones of many animal species in the same site), numerous hominin types represent chimeras (mixtures) of ape and human bones (i.e., Sediba, Habilis). We will also present evidence that the anomalous hominin bones that are of the human (Homo) type most likely represent isolated human populations that experienced severe inbreeding and subsequent genetic degeneration. This best explains why these Homo bones display aberrant morphologies, reduced body size, and reduced brain volume. We conclude that the hominin bones do not reveal a continuous upward progression from ape to man, but rather reveal a clear separation between the human type and the ape type. The best evidence for any type of intermediate “ape-men” derived from bones collected from mixed bone beds (containing bones of both apes and men), which led to the assembly of chimeric skeletons. Therefore, the hominin fossils do not prove human evolution at all.,,, We suggest that the field of paleoanthropology has been seriously distorted by a very strong ideological agenda and by very ambitious personalities. https://ses.edu/contested-bones-is-there-any-solid-fossil-evidence-for-ape-to-man-evolution/ No Known Hominin Is Common Ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans, Study Suggests - Oct. 21, 2013? Excerpt: The article, "No known hominin species matches the expected dental morphology of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans," relies on fossils of approximately 1,200 molars and premolars from 13 species or types of hominins -- humans and human relatives and ancestors. Fossils from the well-known Atapuerca sites have a crucial role in this research, accounting for more than 15 percent of the complete studied fossil collection.,,, They conclude with high statistical confidence that none of the hominins usually proposed as a common ancestor, such as Homo heidelbergensis, H. erectus and H. antecessor, is a satisfactory match. "None of the species that have been previously suggested as the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans has a dental morphology that is fully compatible with the expected morphology of this ancestor," Gómez-Robles said. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131021153202.htm?
bornagain77_{May 22, 2021
May
05
May
22
22
2021
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

BobRyan: When you look at the fossil record why do you think the hypothesised designer created all those hominids and then let them die out?JVL_{May 22, 2021
May
05
May
22
22
2021
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

Evolution has never been witnessed by anyone. Every test that has ever been done, no matter how rigged, has never shown one species becoming something else genetically different. Adaptation does occur, but adaptation does not bring about genetic changes to any species in question. Darwin, no matter how it is spun, was wrong.BobRyan_{May 21, 2021
May
05
May
21
21
2021
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT}

It would appear that, in biology, evolution is still the best game in town, although natural selection is now regarded as just one of the processes that contribute to it.Seversky_{May 21, 2021
May
05
May
21
21
2021
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply