Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Two new works from the Darwin worship industry



Pablo Lorenzano: Abstract The question posed by the title is usually answered by saying that the “synthesis” between the theory of evolution by natural selection and classical genetics, which took place in 1930s-40s, would have taken place much earlier if Darwin had been aware of Mendel and his work. What is more, it nearly happened: it would have been enough if Darwin had cut the pages of the offprint of Mendel’s work that was in his library and read them! Or, if Mendel had come across Darwin in London or paid him a visit at his house in the outskirts! (on occasion of Mendel’s trip in 1862 to that city). The aim of the present paper is to provide elements for quite a different answer, based on further historical evidence, especially on Mendel’s works, some of which mention Darwins’s studies. – What Would Have Happened if Darwin Had Known Mendel (or Mendel’s Work)?


Costas Mannouris: Abstract In 1846, burdened by insecurity and self-doubt, and having been convinced that he needed to study some group of organisms closely, Darwin embarked on an eight-year odyssey in the protean and perplexing world of barnacles. At the time, he was searching for evidence in support of his theory of evolution by natural selection. In the course of his long study of barnacles, however, he was not just validating his preexisting theoretical system, but was also modifying his views on such fundamental aspects as the universality of individual variation, which is the focus of this paper. According to this notion, the members of any population of living things are expected to exhibit sufficient differences from one another for natural selection to operate. By emphasizing the theoretical value of the barnacle project, my analysis contributes to the historiographic tradition which highlights the significance of the period between the first comprehensive formulation of the theory of evolution by natural selection in 1844 and its urgent publication in the late 1850s. In the course of these years, Darwin’s theory was not just accumulating empirical laurels, but was also expected to adapt to a changing conceptual landscape. – Beloved Barnacles

What makes this stuff worship is that the authors would be unlikely to get away with a true critique in the light of evidence; the most they can get away with is endless fussing around the hems of the curtains in Darwin’s temple, and daily adoration in the adjoining lecture room.

Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista

Follow UD News at Twitter!

"evolution' ( common descent) and (uncommon descent) are really both part of creation. and is explained in the: Patterns of Creation This is an idea that one life was created,.. from that the DNA was slightly modified, then another animal was created from that. After all if your going to make millions of animals why would start from scratch every time. Computer programmer's do that today. Since most of the DNA is building the same parts, like muscle tissue, bones, teeth, and other organs, why redo all of that. Also could a creator actually breed animals to bring out certain traits. Humans do that today, and have for years? But is this just an idea? It does explain why there is a pattern of decent in life. Is this just speculation on my part? Well in the creation accounts, the creator actually said he did this. This is the account of Adam and Eve. Eve was created from the rib of Adam, not just DNA was taken but bone tissue and muscle tissue and flesh. Using this statement by the creator, is he telling us that animals could also have been created by this method. That also means that vestiges of history in generations past would be included in that process. The evidence of line of descent that scientists find in biological and fossil evidence. So do 'evolutionary' theories, really come from Creative Patterns. The idea that as one life was created then other was created from that DNA with vestiges, of history of the preceding animal. This shows the efficiency of creation. This example is from the account of Eve being created, from Adam, by removing DNA, bone, blood and muscle tissue. This same technique if used on populations of animals, would retain history, of that animal, as populations over time. The evidence we have say that adaptations , breeding , natural selection and mutations do not make new kinds of life, but just allow for a variety of dogs , for example. We see in fossil records, and in biology, a similar line of descent. But 'evolution' is impossible from the evidence we have. 'Evolutionary ' scientists assumed that one came from another naturally. But from the example of the Creator, with Adam and Eve, we have the president of building new life from existing life. Think of the consequences of that. This also means that neither common descent nor uncommon descent are totally accurate, but it really is a combination of both,through creation. MrDunsapy
Evolution is just a theory. A line of reasoning based upon minor details. They have never proved their case. Its held by faith in the opinions of those who study origin issues. Something that is not true can not have evidence of note to back it up. If there is a higher standard of evidence investigation called science then its all the more impossible for evolution to have evidence. In these days either we are on the begining of the end for evolutionism or the end of opposition to evolution. Something and somebody has got to give! Robert Byers
as to this comment:
'the “synthesis” between the theory of evolution by natural selection and classical genetics, which took place in 1930s-40s, would have taken place much earlier if Darwin had been aware of Mendel and his work.'
Seems that they have missed the memo; The Modern Synthesis, neo-Darwinism has been falsified, i.e. it is 'dead'!!!;
Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century - James A. Shapiro - 2009 Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112). http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.AnnNYAcadSciMS.RevisitingCentral%20Dogma.pdf
Also of interest from the preceding paper, on page 22, is a simplified list of the ‘epigentic’ information flow in the cell that directly contradicts what was expected from the central dogma (Genetic Reductionism/modern synthesis) model of neo-Darwinism. Further notes:
Modern Synthesis of Neo-Darwinism (Genetic Reductionism) Is Dead - Paul Nelson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5548184/ With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory - November 2011 Excerpt: As of now, we have no good theory of how to read [genetic] networks, how to model them mathematically or how one network meshes with another; worse, we have no obvious experimental lines of investigation for studying these areas. There is a great deal for systems biology to do in order to produce a full explanation of how genotypes generate phenotypes,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/with_a_startling_candor_oxford052821.html
even Eugene Koonin agrees that the modern evolutionary synthesis (Genetic Reductionism) is devastated.
The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? - Koonin - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2009/11/18/not_to_mince_words_the_modern_synthesis
And though epigentics falsifies the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinism (Genetic Reductionism), epigentics also provides no 'escape hatch' for a 'extended' materialistic theory of evolution which may have been postulated to explain body plan morphogenesis, which, of course, the modern synthesis had completely failed to explain in the first place:
Epigenetic changes don't last - September 2011 Excerpt: They found that epigenetic changes are many orders of magnitude more frequent than conventional DNA mutations, but also often short lived. They are therefore probably much less important for long-term evolution than previously thought. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-epigenetic-dont.html
etc.. etc.. etc.. bornagain77

Leave a Reply