Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why does Darwinism remind one of the propaganda of unfree countries?


For one thing, the Darwinian has nothing to learn from nature. Take the case of de novo genes (genes that appear with no apparent ancestors):

Once they show some function, natural selection is fully capable of amplifying them into genes from scratch. Assistant professor of computational systems biology Anne-Ruxanda Carvunis has no problem with declaring the problem solved. Evolution is a fact, remember? It’s the Darwin skeptics’ fault if they can’t see the logic.

“Order seems like something that’s hard to achieve, but our results go completely opposite to that. We found that simple order is rampant everywhere in the genome. The propensity to make simple shapes that are stable is already there, waiting to be exposed. De novo gene birth is thus becoming less and less mysterious as we better understand molecular innovation.”

Perhaps a refresher on the difference between order and complexity would help.

Researchers: It Exists; Therefore, It Evolved” at Evolution News and Science Today

No, sadly. A primer on order vs. complexity (a computer vs. a pile of leaves) wouldn’t help.

In the system Carvunis inhabits, the only important purpose is the protection of the ideology. If something happened, Darwinism did it, period.

Never mind that the genes have no apparent ancestors. Universal common ancestry, the supposed bedrock of the system, is not as important as simple, unquestioning obedience to the current pronouncements of the ideologues.

Glad we cleared that up.

See also: Yes, Genes From Nowhere ARE An “Evolutionary Problem.”

EricMH @ 14
@Seversky You are saying Jews think the problem with the world is people believe in God? I am highly doubtful of that claim.
That wasn't what I wrote. Solzhenitsyn was quoted as arguing that the excesses of the Russian revolution could be blamed on men having forgotten God. That may have seemed true to someone who lived under the oppression of the Soviet regime. I was pointing out that, had he lived under the oppression of some Christian regime, he might have felt the opposite. Seversky
@Seversky You are saying Jews think the problem with the world is people believe in God? I am highly doubtful of that claim. Here's a good example of the genocidal nature of evolutionary psychology: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/kevin-macdonald EricMH
It takes human beings to do the kind of evil the Nazis (for instance) did. The Soviets treated their own people worse than we treat livestock. EDTA
If Solzhenitsyn had been on the receiving end of religious oppression like the Jews or the Albigensians/Cathars instead of political oppression under the Soviets, he might have thought differently about God. Seversky
"Studying de novo genes turns out to be part genetics, part thought experiment. “Why is our field so difficult?” asks Anne-Ruxandra Carvunis at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania. “It is because of philosophical issues.”At its heart is a question that Carvunis has been asking for a decade: what is a gene?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03061-x Oh, was not philosophy useless? -'Experts' in genetics do not know what a gene is. - No wonder, most *On the Origin of Species* readers do not have a clue about what a 'species' is. 'Speciation' my a**. https://www.intechopen.com/books/the-species-problem-ongoing-issues/the-species-problem-why-again- Truthfreedom
"Scientists also wonder why evolution would bother making genes from scratch when so much gene-ready material already exists".
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03061-x Attention: evolution has agency! It *makes* genes. Maybe it wears a labcoat? Truthfreedom
More on the de novo genes :
De novo genes are even prompting a rethink of some portions of evolutionary theory. Conventional wisdom was that new genes tended to arise when existing ones are accidentally duplicated, blended with others or broken up, but some researchers now think that de novo genes could be quite common: some studies suggest at least one-tenth of genes could be made in this way; others estimate that more genes could emerge de novo than from gene duplication.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03061-x Accidents usually frustrate goals. But nothing is an accident in 'nature', because there is simply no goal to achieve. Truthfreedom
As to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, I haven't read any of his large volume of work, but someone on UD pointed this quote out to me a few years ago,
‘Men Have Forgotten God’: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s 1983 Templeton Address By ALEKSANDR SOLZHENITSYN - December 11, 2018 Excerpt: More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” What is more, the events of the Russian Revolution can only be understood now, at the end of the century, against the background of what has since occurred in the rest of the world. What emerges here is a process of universal significance. And if I were called upon to identify briefly the principal trait of the entire 20th century, here too, I would be unable to find anything more precise and pithy than to repeat once again: “Men have forgotten God.” The failings of human consciousness, deprived of its divine dimension, have been a determining factor in all the major crimes of this century. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/aleksandr-solzhenitsyn-men-have-forgotten-god-speech/
Achieving 'nothing' is beneficial. Darwin was a strange dude. Truthfreedom
Apparently Eugene Koonin says almost all genes sprang into existence at the very beginning of evolutionary history, and since then all organisms share from the same dictionary of genes with minor variations. EricMH
These emerging proto-genes, rather than being stumbling beginners, must be even more likely to race to the fitness goal.
Well, according to the darwinian religion: "there is no goal, no directive, no purpose, nothing". What a weird religion darwinism is. - Goal but no-goal. - 'Beneficial' mutations that help organisms to achieve... nothing. - 'Harmful' mutations are 'harmful' because the organism can not achieve its purpose, purpose that never existed to begin with. Darwinism, always contradicting it-self. Truthfreedom
EricMH has made a good reading choice in Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago - a careful dissection of how, exactly, an untenable orthodoxy is enforced. Consider: The most blatant, obvious confutation of claims about universal common ancestry would be the appearance of de novo genes. So the counterblather begins and continues. Wear earplugs. News
I'm also reading through the Gulag Archipelago, and the style of 'dialectic' reasoning Solzhenitsyn mocks in his book, e.g. the big section on article 58, I see often employed by evolution proponents. EricMH
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_50 Seems propagandaish. "All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors. Biologists are not arguing about these conclusions." Neither of the conclusions are very conclusive. E.g. I'm reading through a book on bioinformatics, https://www.amazon.com/Bioinformatics-Functional-Genomics-Jonathan-Pevsner/dp/1118581784 and there are many pieces of evidence that cast doubt. Additionally, I've found the conclusions are circular. They are concluded from bioinformatics algorithms because the algorithms are based on these premises. So yes, much propaganda at your linked site. EricMH
I used to go to one of the main evolution education websites on the Internet, https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php all the time when I taught AP Bio. There is nothing there that looks anything like any sort of any propaganda. just basic science. Jim Thibodeau

Leave a Reply