Why “theistic evolution” should properly be called Christian Darwinism

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 2, 2013

Christian Darwinism, theistic evolution}

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

Science historian Michael Flannery kindly responded to something I (O’Leary for UD News) had written to a group of friends about theistic evolution (TE): “I prefer to call it ‘Christian Darwinism’ because the element that is not compatible with design (or Christianity) is the Darwinism.” His view:

Absolutely correct! The problem isn’t necessarily with common descent or evolution per se but with wholly random and chance mechanisms behind them. Darwinists (from Richard Dawkins on one end to Ken Miller on the other) constantly conflate this issue. So TE is really something of a misnomer that winds up working to their benefit.

Yes, the term “theistic evolution” does indeed work to TE’s benefit by blurring out all the meaning from the term “evolution.” God had a hand in it somehow, but what he did is unclear.

Ask and you’d be surprised what you’ll hear: For example, process theologian Karl Giberson helped found BioLogos, along with Francis Collins. Giberson and Collins offer in The Language of Science and Faith, (IVP Books, 2011):

… we hope readers will agree with us that the relevant part of our origins is not the story of how we acquired the specific details of our body plan—ten fingers, two ears, one nose—or how we lack a marsupial pouch to carry our newborns, or why potty-training takes so long. Nothing about these details is critical to what makes us human. Our humanness is embedded more holistically in our less tangible aspects and could certainly be embodied in creatures that looked nothing like us … (Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins, The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions (InterVarsity Press, 2011), p. 201, p. 204–5.)

Why should they hope that readers will agree with them? Unless we believe in space alien fiction, there is zero current evidence for a proposition that that the details of the human form are not “the relevant part of our origins.” Maybe they are relevant. And it should hardly be necessary to point out that we are told by a more authoritative source that even the hairs of our heads are numbered.

Then Giberson and Collins resort to an airy ad hominem dismissal of those who prefer the more authoritative source:

Many may find this thought unsettling and strangely at odds with their understanding of creation, which celebrates that God created us “in his image.” We suggest that this is due to the influence that actual artistic images have had on our view of God and ourselves Because God became incarnate in Jesus, who looks like us, we all too quickly slip into the assumption that God also looks like us. (Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins, The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions (InterVarsity Press, 2011), p. 201, p. 204–5.)

This is disingenuous. The question isn’t whether God looks like us—or for that matter, whether man can even look on God and live*— but whether God intends us to look the way we do, for good reasons.

On a Darwinist reckoning, no. On a Christian reckoning, yes.

Theistic evolution consists first and foremost in evading such direct choices, in order to accommodate Christianity to the fads and fashions of Darwin’s followers. And that is why I call it Christian Darwinism.

* On that subject, from another authoritative source: “But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

Comments

Joealtle:
Good thing membrane formation actually doesnt require a “protein synthetic apparatus” and in fact amphipathic molecules can form membranes on their own then huh barb?
I quoted from a scientist who stated that membrane formation required this apparatus. But you obviously know more than he does. Right?
So were amino acids generated from inorganic matter in a possible early earth environment on the first try or were they not? They were? Ok thanks, got it.
2 out of 20. No new life was formed, a fact that you completely ignore. Even Miller himself admitted that his experiment didn't create life. Why do you believe that it does? I also pointed out that Miller rigged his experiment to get the desired results. Can we say his experiment was intelligently designed? And you still haven't shown how amino acids form a single protein using evolution.Barb_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

Oh I think it does actually. When youre on this small of a scale, diffusion is relied on in huge part by the cell.Joealtle_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

Good thing membrane formation actually doesnt require a "protein synthetic apparatus" and in fact amphipathic molecules can form membranes on their own then huh barb? So were amino acids generated from inorganic matter in a possible early earth environment on the first try or were they not? They were? Ok thanks, got it. And BA, again you bring up something that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. We are talking about the evolution of a single protein, and you are quoting a study that is trying to model an entire living organism's collection of molecular interactions.Joealtle_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

as to:
how do you think the “pirouetting ribosomal proteins and subunits and other biomolecules” get to where they need to go? Random collisions..
I really don't think the term 'random collisions' does what is actually happening in the cell any justice! The Inner Life of the Cell - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJyUtbn0O5Y DNA - Replication, Wrapping & Mitosis - video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/33882804 Molecular Biology Animations – Demo Reel http://www.metacafe.com/w/5915291/bornagain77_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

The evolution of a protein from an ancestral protein: sounds interesting. Let's see what science has to say about proteins. Miller's experiment produced only 2 of the 20 amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) required for life. It is noteworthy that Miller selected a hydrogen-rich atmosphere for his experiment. When questioned about this, Miller admitted prejudice in favor of it because it was the only one wherein “the synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place.” (The Origins of Life on the Earth, by Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, 1974, p. 33.) In other words, the experiment was rigged to give the desired results. Why? Many scientists acknowledge that the experimenter can ‘manipulate the outcome profoundly,’ and ‘his intelligence can be involved so as to prejudice the experiment.’ (Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, by Robert Shapiro, 1986, p. 103). Miller’s atmosphere was used in most of the experiments that followed his, not because it was logical or even probable, but because “it was conducive to evolutionary experiments,” and “the success of the laboratory experiments recommends it.” (Technology Review, April 1981, R. C. Cowen, p. 8; Science 210, R. A. Kerr, 1980, p. 42. (Both quotes taken from The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, 1984, p. 76.) Amino acids are not stable in water and in the ancient ocean would exist in only negligible quantities. If the organic soup had ever existed, some of its compounds would have been trapped in sedimentary rocks, but in spite of 20 years of searching, “the earliest rocks have failed to yield any evidence of a prebiotic soup.” Yet “the existence of a prebiotic soup is crucial.” So “it comes as . . . a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.” (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton, 1985, pp. 260-1, 263; Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 112-13.) But let's press on, ignoring the evidence to the contrary. Allow the soup that nature disallows. Millions of amino acids in the soup, hundreds of different kinds, roughly half of them in a left-handed form and half right-handed. Would the amino acids now connect up in long chains to make proteins? Would only the 20 kinds needed be selected by chance out of the hundreds of kinds in the soup? And from these 20 kinds, would chance select only the left-handed forms found in living organisms? And then line them up in the right order for each distinctive protein and in the exact shape required for each one?7 Only by a miracle. A typical protein has about one hundred amino acids and contains many thousands of atoms. In its life processes a living cell uses some 200,000 proteins. Two thousand of them are enzymes, special proteins without which the cell cannot survive. What are the chances of these enzymes forming at random in the soup—if you had the soup? One chance in 1040,000. This is 1 followed by 40,000 zeros. Or, stated differently, the chance is the same as rolling dice and getting 50,000 sixes in a row. And that is for only 2,000 of the 200,000 needed for a living cell. So to get them all, roll 5,000,000 more sixes in a row! Assuming that the soup did give us proteins, what about nucleotides? Leslie Orgel of Salk Institute in California has indicated nucleotides to be “one of the major problems in prebiotic synthesis.”9 They are needed to make the nucleic acids (DNA, RNA), also called an overwhelming difficulty. Incidentally, proteins cannot be assembled without the nucleic acids, nor can nucleic acids form without proteins. (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 238; Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 134, 138.) But let’s set that mountain aside and have evolutionist Robert Shapiro, professor of chemistry at New York University and a specialist in DNA research, dispose of the chance formation of nucleotides and nucleic acids in early earth’s environment: “Whenever two amino acids unite, a water molecule is released. Two molecules of water must be set free in assembling a nucleotide from its components, and additional water is released in combining nucleotides to form nucleic acids. Unfortunately, the formation of water in an environment that is full of it is the chemical equivalent of bringing sand to the Sahara. It is unfavorable, and requires the expenditure of energy. Such processes do not readily take place on their own. In fact, the reverse reactions are the ones that occur spontaneously. Water happily attacks large biological molecules. It pries nucleotides apart from each other, breaks sugar-to-phosphate bonds, and severs bases from sugars.” (Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 173-4.) The final step of the six listed at the outset: a membrane. Without it the cell could not exist. It must be protected from water, and it is the water-repellent fats of the membrane that do this. But to form the membrane a “protein synthetic apparatus” is needed, and this “protein synthetic apparatus” can function only if it is held together by a membrane. (Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, p. 65) Given all this, show me from an evolutionary standpoint how all these obstacles are overcome so that amino acids line up perfectly as needed to form a protein.Barb_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

Joealtle you state:
The task I was referring to was designing a study that recreated all of the factors in nature that take part in evolution.
Well let's first see if we can get a handle on what's happening in life so that we know what we need evolution to explain in the first place shall we?
To Model the Simplest Microbe in the World, You Need 128 Computers - July 2012 Excerpt: Mycoplasma genitalium has one of the smallest genomes of any free-living organism in the world, clocking in at a mere 525 genes. That's a fraction of the size of even another bacterium like E. coli, which has 4,288 genes.,,, The bioengineers, led by Stanford's Markus Covert, succeeded in modeling the bacterium, and published their work last week in the journal Cell. What's fascinating is how much horsepower they needed to partially simulate this simple organism. It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell's lifecycle processes.,,, ,,the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable, and difficult to manage, even given Moore's Law. The M. genitalium model required 28 subsystems to be individually modeled and integrated, and many critics of the work have been complaining on Twitter that's only a fraction of what will eventually be required to consider the simulation realistic.,,, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/to-model-the-simplest-microbe-in-the-world-you-need-128-computers/260198/ "Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - August 2012 Excerpt: "This is bad news. Consider a neuronal synapse -- the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse -- about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years..., even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.",,, Even with shortcuts like averaging, "any possible technological advance is overwhelmed by the relentless growth of interactions among all components of the system," Koch said. "It is not feasible to understand evolved organisms by exhaustively cataloging all interactions in a comprehensive, bottom-up manner." He described the concept of the Complexity Brake:,,, "Allen and Greaves recently introduced the metaphor of a "complexity brake" for the observation that fields as diverse as neuroscience and cancer biology have proven resistant to facile predictions about imminent practical applications. Improved technologies for observing and probing biological systems has only led to discoveries of further levels of complexity that need to be dealt with. This process has not yet run its course. We are far away from understanding cell biology, genomes, or brains, and turning this understanding into practical knowledge.",,, Why can't we use the same principles that describe technological systems? Koch explained that in an airplane or computer, the parts are "purposefully built in such a manner to limit the interactions among the parts to a small number." The limited interactome of human-designed systems avoids the complexity brake. "None of this is true for nervous systems.",,, to read more go here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/complexity_brak062961.html
Dang Joealtle, and all I wanted to see is a molecular machine arrived at by neo-Darwinian processes, but if you want to explain that go for it! :)bornagain77_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

Numerous other experiments have also been done, Barb, they have produced similar results with different environment models. Did they create the right ones? Yes they did. Did it produce some of the fundamental building blocks of matter? Last I checked, amino acids were fundamental building blocks of matter, so yes it did.Joealtle_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT}

The task I was referring to was designing a study that recreated all of the factors in nature that take part in evolution. And a bunch of quotes that refer to the generation of a protein as complex as those we see today from scratch. I am talking about the evolution of a protein from an ancestral protein. As for your other quote, how do you think the "pirouetting ribosomal proteins and subunits and other biomolecules" get to where they need to go? Random collisions, the duration of which are governed by binding affinity.Joealtle_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

Nothing in your post falsifies Miller-Urey, it only points out variables that could have been different.
Which would have changed the entire outcome of the experiment, a fact that you seem to conveniently gloss over. Nobody knows what the early earth environment was really like.
The scientist’s job is to recreate the earl earth environment as best they can and let nature do the rest of the work. Did Miller-Urey produce amino acids from inorganic matter? Yes it did. End of story.
Not so fast. Did they create amino acids? Yes. The right ones? See my post above. Miller himself admitted that he didn't know if the early atmosphere was reducing or not, a fact which would have changed the experiment's outcome. The highly praised Miller-Urey experiment did not produce any of the fundamental building blocks of life itself. Rather, it produced 85% tar, 13% carbolic acid, 1.05% glycine, 0.85% alanine, and trace amounts of other chemicals. For example, NASA has reported that a “reducing atmosphere” never has existed, although the experiment assumed one (Levine, 1983). Scientists also now realize that the ultraviolet radiation from sunlight is destructive to any developing life. Evolutionist Robert Shapiro stated regarding the products of the Miller-Urey experiment: “Let us sum up. The experiment performed by Miller yielded tar as its most abundant product. There are about fifty small organic compounds that are called ‘building blocks.’ Only two of these fifty occurred among the preferential Miller-Urey products” (1986, p. 105). Did the Miller-Urey experiment create life? Far from it.
JoealtleJune 3, 2013 at 5:11 pm Theres a whole lot of other information in that book that you conveniently skipped. The theory of evolution is extremely complex, we are still working out much of the details; however what the current theory states is well backed by observation, experimentation, and models from every field of biology.
Spoken like a true Darwinbot. *Levine, J. (1983), “New Ideas About the Early Atmosphere,” NASA Special Report, No. 225, Langley Research Center, August 11. *Shapiro, Robert (1986), Origins—A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth (New York: Summit).Barb_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

JGuy, I don't know about anyone else but I agreed with those core principles. I would have let you know otherwise if not.bornagain77_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

Joealtle you ask,
"Do you not realize how impossible of a task this is?"
I have a ballpark notion:
"a very rough but conservative result is that if all the sequences that define a particular (protein) structure or fold-set where gathered into an area 1 square meter in area, the next island would be tens of millions of light years away." Kirk Durston When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied. http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/18022460402/when-theory-and-experiment-collide "Biologist Douglas Axe on Evolution's (non) Ability to Produce New (Protein) Functions " - video Quote: It turns out once you get above the number six [changes in amino acids] -- and even at lower numbers actually -- but once you get above the number six you can pretty decisively rule out an evolutionary transition because it would take far more time than there is on planet Earth and larger populations than there are on planet Earth. http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-10-15T16_05_14-07_00 Doug Axe PhD. on the Rarity and 'non-Evolvability' of Functional Proteins - video (notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/9243592/ "The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book "Edge of Evolution")
as to your previous flippant comment here:
You do realize that youre body works entirely on molecules randomly colliding into each other right?
Perhaps you should inform the ribosome of your finding?
Honors to Researchers Who Probed Atomic Structure of Ribosomes - Robert F. Service Excerpt: "The ribosome’s dance, however, is more like a grand ballet, with dozens of ribosomal proteins and subunits pirouetting with every step while other key biomolecules leap in, carrying other dancers needed to complete the act.” http://creationsafaris.com/crev200910.htm#20091010a
bornagain77_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

BA77 & Lamont Near the end of my comment - at #54 - Please read & consider to comment on whether all the examples in the parenthetical characterize a core subset of your views or not. I didn't want to speak for you guys, but was betting that they would be accurate. Clarify if incorrect.JGuy_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

No. For YOU to accept the fact that evolution can produce molecular machinery, YOU require the entire process to be recreated. Do you not realize how impossible of a task this is? This would be a study of monumental proportions, all so you can just say, "oh well you guys designed the experiment to generate the evolution of this protein, therefore it was intelligently designed" or some shit. That is ridiculous. For people who can step back and see the big picture, it is understood that the evidence behind the theory of evolution is overwhelming. We dont have the luxury of direct experimentation a lot of the time when it comes to evolution, but there is still a huge amount of information that backs it.Joealtle_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

Joealtle, to actually demonstrate that a molecular machine can arise by neo-Darwinian processes you would have to actually demonstrate a molecular machine arising by neo-Darwinian processes. Why are you not concerned that you can't produce even a single example?,,, You seem to be think that tangible evidence in science consists of simply claiming something can happen. Whereas, in reality, only an actual demonstration of your claim, by the mechanism you posit, is considered tangible evidence in science. Go figure!bornagain77_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

The structures and functions of lysozyme and alpha-lactalbumin demonstrate an example of the evolution of proteins. If you care to refute that scientific fact with scientific evidence, then please do so. If not, please piss off.Joealtle_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

Joealtle- There isn't any experiment nor evidence that demonstrates unguided evolution can produce multi-protein configurations. And your equivocation is duly noted.Joe_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

You do realize that youre body works entirely on molecules randomly colliding into each other right? A molecular machine evolving? How about the evolution of lysozyme in alpha-lactalbumin. There is no single experiment that proves evolution, the proof is in the overwhelming amount of evidence that has been compiled by scientists in every field of biology.Joealtle_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

Joealtle you claim:
but the rest of the theory is extremely well-proven.
Now Joealtle, to be proven in science means that we have an actual observable demonstration for the claims of any particular theory. Whereas I can list many experiments that have confirmed General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to stunning levels of accuracy, I have yet to see one experiment confirm the central claim of neo-Darwinism, Namely,,,
"Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way. - Doug Axe PhD. Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual - Doug Axe PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/
further notes:
Now Evolution Must Have Evolved Different Functions Simultaneously in the Same Protein - Cornelius Hunter - Dec. 1, 2012 Excerpt: In one study evolutionists estimated the number of attempts that evolution could possibly have to construct a new protein. Their upper limit was 10^43. The lower limit was 10^21. These estimates are optimistic for several reasons, but in any case they fall short of the various estimates of how many attempts would be required to find a small protein. One study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein. And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences. Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required. And another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. In that case the protein was only a part of a larger protein which otherwise was intact, thus making the search easier. These estimates are roughly in the same ballpark, and compared to the first study giving the number of attempts possible, you have a deficit ranging from 20 to 56 orders of magnitude. Of course it gets much worse for longer proteins. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/12/now-evolution-must-have-evolved.html?showComment=1354423575480#c6691708341503051454
It is simply laughable to try to envision what biology would look like if Darwinism were even remotely feasible:
How Proteins Evolved - Cornelius Hunter - December 2010 Excerpt: Comparing ATP binding with the incredible feats of hemoglobin, for example, is like comparing a tricycle with a jet airplane. And even the one in 10^12 shot, though it pales in comparison to the odds of constructing a more useful protein machine, is no small barrier. If that is what is required to even achieve simple ATP binding, then evolution would need to be incessantly running unsuccessful trials. The machinery to construct, use and benefit from a potential protein product would have to be in place, while failure after failure results. Evolution would make Thomas Edison appear lazy, running millions of trials after millions of trials before finding even the tiniest of function. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-proteins-evolved.html
To get back to your main claim, Joeatle, that 'the theory is extremely well-proven', I would accept your basic claim right here and now, that gradual processes can build unfathomed levels of functional complexity, if you can show me, right here and now, that just one molecular machine can arise by undirected neo-Darwinian processes.
,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’ Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA Michael Behe - No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/
Supplemental note:
"No human contrivance operates with either the degree of complexity, the precision, or the efficiency of living cells." James A. Shapiro, "21st century view of evolution: genome system architecture, repetitive DNA, and natural genetic engineering," Gene, Vol. 345: 91-100 (2005) Venter: Life Is Robotic Software - July 15, 2012 Excerpt: “All living cells that we know of on this planet are ‘DNA software’-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions,” said (Craig) Venter. http://crev.info/2012/07/life-is-robotic-software/ Problems with the Metaphor of a Cell as "Machine" - July 2012 Excerpt: Too often, we envision the cell as a "factory" containing a fixed complement of "machinery" operating according to "instructions" (or "software" or "blueprints") contained in the genome and spitting out the "gene products" (proteins) that sustain life. Many things are wrong with this picture, but one of the problems that needs to be discussed more openly is the fact that in this "factory," many if not most of the "machines" are themselves constantly turning over -- being assembled when and where they are needed, and disassembled afterwards. The mitotic spindle...is one of the best-known examples, but there are many others. Funny sort of "factory" that, with the "machinery" itself popping in and out of existence as needed!,,, - James Barham http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/problems_with_t062691.html Systems biology: Untangling the protein web - July 2009 Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. "Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured," he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. "The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent," he says. "The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/460415a.html Cells Are Like Robust Computational Systems, - June 2009 Excerpt: Gene regulatory networks in cell nuclei are similar to cloud computing networks, such as Google or Yahoo!, researchers report today in the online journal Molecular Systems Biology. The similarity is that each system keeps working despite the failure of individual components, whether they are master genes or computer processors. ,,,,"We now have reason to think of cells as robust computational devices, employing redundancy in the same way that enables large computing systems, such as Amazon, to keep operating despite the fact that servers routinely fail." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616103205.htm
Look Joealtle you can believe all that came about by molecules randomly colliding into each other, but I just can't muster that much blind faith in something that has no empirical support whatsoever that it can build even trivial level of functional complexity. Verse and Music:
Psalm 92:5 How great are your works, LORD, how profound your thoughts! Kutless - Shut Me Out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6flXRCLPS0
bornagain77_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

JLAfan2001 @ 32
Jguy My brain can’t help it because the current wiring in it is causing me to rant against Genesis.
Do you recall in the movie The Wizard of Oz, when we finally got the clue that there was something wrong about the wizard? Finding that he was all show, and just running a big ruse. Don't you get the same feeling when you consider your statement here? ... I mean, the fact that you can as a distant freely 'objective' position, consciously critique your 'hard wired' thoughts. It seems we do this often when we consider what we know we should (or probably should) do, but instead decide to do the opposite. Curious - isn't it?
The current evolutionary way the brain is formed must show the truth of Nihilism which is the only truth. If it gets rewired to adapt to the environment then it will praise theism. The brain in your head is currently wired for theism.
From a recent famous quote: No objective, absolute, inherent truth in life or the universe - JLAfan2001
I can see three people who responded with three different views. BA77 is an IDist, Lamont is presumably a theistic evolutionist and Jguy is a young earth creationist. Gentleman, if Christianity is the truth, why do you hold three different views of creation? They can’t all be right. Either one is right or all are wrong. Which is the right one? Duke it out amongst yourselves and my brain will adapt to whoever the winner is.
These aspects are side theological details that can be debated - sure. Loosely akin to you believing in evolution, but arguing whether it's Lamarkian or Darwinian or other ideas. But the methods are not the big picture, are they? Not to speak for all three, but I'd be willing to bet we three share at least similar core 'big picture' view (e.g. there exists a creator God that is perfectly good, there were two original people - Adam & Eve, all have sinned, there will be judgement, Jesus is/was God manifest in the flesh, Jesus paid the price of sin on the cross, by repenting of sin and trusting in Christ alone you will be saved). There are probably details that re differences, but again, that isn't the big picture/view. So, there's no need for a duke out session if we already agree on the big points, and your brain is invited to 're-wire' to join these core beliefs. I hope that happens. :)JGuy_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

Theres a whole lot of other information in that book that you conveniently skipped. The theory of evolution is extremely complex, we are still working out much of the details; however what the current theory states is well backed by observation, experimentation, and models from every field of biology. You can pick apart the disagreement between a handful of scientists on a specific topic, but the rest of the theory is extremely well-proven.Joealtle_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Nothing in your post falsifies Miller-Urey, it only points out variables that could have been different. The scientist's job is to recreate the earl earth environment as best they can and let nature do the rest of the work. Did Miller-Urey produce amino acids from inorganic matter? Yes it did. End of story.Joealtle_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

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/abstractbornagain77_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

Joealtle, regardless of what you believe, you cited Futuyma who coined the term 'Modern Synthesis'. The video, while not saying evolution is false generally, does specifically attack the Modern synthesis, as does the paper I cited. Do you want to jump on Shapiro's hypothetical natural Genetic Engineering bandwagon now that the modern synthesis is shown to be false, or do you want to hang with the 'self-organization' theory of evolution as the other paper I cited wanted to do? Either way it doesn't matter to me for, #1 they are both false as well, and #2 the modern synthesis, as defined by Futuyma, whom you cited, is shown to be false by both papers!bornagain77_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

Energy doesnt need to be creatively directed, it only needs to be kept within a range that sustains life.Joealtle_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

How exactly has Miller-Urey been falsified? Comparing evolution to crystallization is quite a stretch by the way. Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life we see today.
You complain about IDists getting their information from creationist websites; have you ever visited any? Have you ever looked at both sides of the issue, or do you simply give all your attention to one side only? That is simple bias, and can be easily dismissed. A little on the background of the famous Miller-Urey experiment: In the early 1950’s, scientists set out to test Alexander Oparin’s theory. It was an established fact that life comes only from life, yet scientists theorized that if conditions differed in the past, life might have come slowly from nonlife. Could that be demonstrated? Scientist Stanley L. Miller, working in the laboratory of Harold Urey, took hydrogen, ammonia, methane, and water vapor (assuming that this had been the primitive atmosphere), sealed these in a flask with boiling water at the bottom (to represent an ocean), and zapped electric sparks (like lightning) through the vapors. Within a week, there were traces of reddish goo, which Miller analyzed and found to be rich in amino acids—the essence of proteins. You may well have heard of this experiment because for years it has been cited in science textbooks and school courses as if it explains how life on earth began. Actually, the value of Miller’s experiment is seriously questioned today. (see reasons listed below) Nevertheless, its apparent success led to other tests that even produced components found in nucleic acids (DNA or RNA). Specialists in the field (sometimes called origin-of-life scientists) felt optimistic, for they had seemingly replicated the first act of the molecular drama. And it seemed as though laboratory versions of the remaining two acts would follow. One chemistry professor claimed: “The explanation of the origin of a primitive living system by evolutionary mechanisms is well within sight.” And a science writer observed: “Pundits speculated that scientists, like Mary Shelley’s Dr. Frankenstein, would shortly conjure up living organisms in their laboratories and thereby demonstrate in detail how genesis unfolded.” The mystery of the spontaneous origin of life, many thought, was solved. We know that there are right-handed and left-handed gloves. This is also true of amino acid molecules. Of some 100 known amino acids, only 20 are used in proteins, and all are left-handed ones. When scientists make amino acids in laboratories, in imitation of what they feel possibly occurred in a prebiotic soup, they find an equal number of right-handed and left-handed molecules. “This kind of 50-50 distribution,” reports The New York Times, is “not characteristic of life, which depends on left-handed amino acids alone.” Why living organisms are made up of only left-handed amino acids is “a great mystery.” Even amino acids found in meteorites “showed excesses of left-handed forms.” Dr. Jeffrey L. Bada, who studies problems involving the origin of life, said that “some influence outside the earth might have played some role in determining the handedness of biological amino acids.” 1. Stanley Miller's experiment in 1953 is often cited as evidence that spontaneous generation could have happened in the past. The validity of his explanation, however, rests on the presumption that the earth’s primordial atmosphere was “reducing.” That means it contained only the smallest amount of free (chemically uncombined) oxygen. Why? The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories points out that if much free oxygen was present, ‘none of the amino acids could even be formed, and if by some chance they were, they would decompose quickly.’ How solid was Miller’s presumption about the so-called primitive atmosphere? In a classic paper published two years after his experiment, Miller wrote: “These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed. . . . No direct evidence has yet been found.”—Journal of the American Chemical Society, May 12, 1955. 2.Was evidence ever found? Some 25 years later, science writer Robert C. Cowen reported: “Scientists are having to rethink some of their assumptions. . . . Little evidence has emerged to support the notion of a hydrogen-rich, highly reducing atmosphere, but some evidence speaks against it.”—Technology Review, April 1981. 3. And since then? In 1991, John Horgan wrote in Scientific American: “Over the past decade or so, doubts have grown about Urey and Miller’s assumptions regarding the atmosphere. Laboratory experiments and computerized reconstructions of the atmosphere . . . suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere. . . . Such an atmosphere [carbon dioxide and nitrogen] would not have been conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other precursors of life.” 4. It should be asked why, then, do many still hold that earth’s early atmosphere was reducing, containing little oxygen? In Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, Sidney W. Fox and Klaus Dose answer: The atmosphere must have lacked oxygen because, for one thing, “laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution . . . would be largely inhibited by oxygen” and because compounds such as amino acids “are not stable over geological times in the presence of oxygen.” Oxygen is highly reactive. For example, it combines with iron and forms rust or with hydrogen and forms water. If there was much free oxygen in an atmosphere when amino acids were assembling, it would quickly combine with and dismantle the organic molecules as they formed. Is this not circular reasoning? The early atmosphere was a reducing one, it is said, because spontaneous generation of life could otherwise not have taken place. But there actually is no assurance that it was reducing. 5. There is another telling detail: If the gas mixture represents the atmosphere, the electric spark mimics lightning, and boiling water stands in for the sea, what or who does the scientist arranging and carrying out of the experiment represent?Barb_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

JLAfan2001 writes,
Sorry to say but Genesis has been shown to be wrong and I’ll explain why. 1) First the earth wasn’t created in six literal days. No one believes this anymore except the fundies. Let’s say that YOM does mean an unspecified amount of time. Is this what the author actually meant or are you reading modern science into the text? In Exodus, Moses states that God created the earth in six days so this shows he meant days not ages.
I don’t believe the Earth was created in 6 literal days. I do not believe I am reading modern science into the text, because the Hebrew word used can refer to a long period of time and not simply a 24-hour period. That’s not reading anything into the text, that’s good translation. And if the same Hebrew word was used in Exodus, then Moses could very well be speaking of ages (or eons) of time and not literal days. You have provided absolutely no data for this claim. Concerning these days of creation A Religious Encyclopædia by Schaff says: “The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours.” Similarly Delitzsch says in his New Commentary on Genesis: “Days of God are intended, with Him a thousand years are but as a day when that is past, Ps. 90:4 . . . The days of creation are, according to the meaning of Holy Scripture itself, not days of four and twenty hours, but aeons . . . For this earthly and human measurement of time cannot apply to the first three days.” Thus we find that the Hebrew word for “day,” yohm, is used in a variety of ways in the Bible. In the very account of creation we have “day” used to refer to three different periods of time. “Day” is used to refer to the daylight hours, as when we read: “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” It is used to refer to both day and night, as when we read: “There came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.” And “day” is also used to refer to the entire time period involved in creation of the heavens and the earth: “This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.”—Gen. 1:5; 2:4. Then again, on more than one occasion God used a day to represent a year. This he did in connection with the Israelites in the wilderness and with his prophet Ezekiel. His Word says: “A day for a year, a day for a year, you will answer for your errors.” “A day for a year, a day for a year, is what I have given you.” (Num. 14:34; Ezek. 4:6) It seems to me that you are the one trying to explain away Genesis because you don’t want it to be true. Are you sure you’re not reading your own biases into the text? Geologists estimate that the earth is 4 billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15 billion years old. Do these findings—or their potential future refinements—contradict Genesis 1:1? No. The Bible does not specify the actual age of “the heavens and the earth.” Science is not at odds with the Biblical text.
2) Science has shown that simple marine life came before plant life according to the fossil record. Genesis has plant life coming before marine life.
Moses wrote his account in Hebrew, and he wrote it from the perspective of a person standing on the surface of the earth. These two facts combined with the knowledge that the universe existed before the beginning of the creative periods, or days, help to defuse much of the controversy surrounding the creation account. How so? A careful consideration of the Genesis account reveals that events starting during one “day” continued into one or more of the following “days.”
3) Genesis states that God created a firmament or expanse and in some translations refers to as dome. We now know that the earth is not surrounded by a dome.
For example, before the first creative “day” started, light from the already existing sun was somehow prevented from reaching the earth’s surface, possibly by thick clouds. (Job 38:9) During the first “day,” this barrier began to clear, allowing diffused light to penetrate the atmosphere. On the second “day,” the atmosphere evidently continued to clear, creating a space between the thick clouds above and the ocean below. On the fourth “day,” the atmosphere gradually cleared to such an extent that the sun and the moon were made to appear “in the expanse of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:14-16) In other words, from the perspective of a person on earth, the sun and moon began to be discernible. These events happened gradually. The Genesis account also relates that as the atmosphere continued to clear, flying creatures—including insects and membrane-winged creatures—started to appear on the fifth “day.” Genesis is certainly not proven wrong simply because some translations use the term “dome”. That is a translation error, not an error in the original text.
4) The sun was created on the fourth day and science has shown that the earth was formed after the sun.
Genesis 1:14-19 describes the forming of the sun, moon, and stars in a fourth creative period. At first glance, this might seem to contradict the foregoing Scriptural explanation. Bear in mind, however, that Moses, the writer of Genesis, penned the creation account from the viewpoint of an earthly observer, had one been present. Apparently, the sun, moon, and stars became visible through earth’s atmosphere at that time. Again, Genesis is not proved wrong; the problem lies in not examining the context of Genesis.
5) Whales were created at the same time as other marine life but the fossil record shows that whales evolved from land animals.
And the fossil record may be wrong; why are you automatically assuming that Genesis is wrong without doing any research into what it actually says? You appear to again be reading your own biases into the text. You aren’t giving Genesis a chance, are you? You’ve simply decided that it’s wrong and that no amount of evidence will change your mind.
6) Birds were also created on the same day as marine life but the fossil record shows that birds evolved from small dinosaurs.
*sigh* See above. Your claims that Genesis has been proven wrong are not backed up by any data that I can see. Care to cite any relevant articles? The fossil record may be wrong about birds evolving from dinosaurs (see Archaeoraptor, for example), yet you refuse to examine any evidence that shows Genesis in a favorable light. Are you really that close-minded?
7) Man was not created form the dust of the ground but evolved from a common ancestor wit h the apes.
Well, the apostle Paul told the Athenians: “He made out of one man every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth.” (Ac 17:26) Hence, all nations and races have a common origin. Adam and Eve were created toward the end of the sixth creative “day.” (Ge 1:24-31) There are no actual records of ancient man, his writing, agriculture, and other pursuits, extending into the past before 4026 B.C.E., the date of Adam’s creation. Since the Scriptures outline man’s history from the very creation of the first human pair, there can be no such thing as “prehistoric man.” Fossil records in the earth provide no link between man and the animals. Then, too, there is a total absence of reference to any subhumans in man’s earliest records, whether these be written documents, cave drawings, sculptures, or the like. The Scriptures make clear the opposite, that man was originally a son of God and that he has degenerated. (1Ki 8:46; Ec 7:20; 1Jo 1:8-10) In recent years, scientists have been able to compare the genetic codes of dozens of different single-celled organisms as well as those of plants and animals. They assumed that such comparisons would confirm the branching “tree of life” proposed by Darwin. However, this has not been the case. What has the research uncovered? In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.” Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”
8) As I mentioned before, the fossils and DNA show that there was never a first couple. Mankind did not have language, morality and intelligence right off the bat. It evolved over time. These points falsify Genesis.
These points do nothing of the kind. Many scientists theorize that life arose on its own, starting with very simple forms that gradually, over millions of years, became more and more complex. However, the term “simple” can be misleading, for all living things—even microscopic single-celled organisms—are incredibly complex. There is no proof that any kind of life has ever arisen by chance or ever could. Rather, all living things bear unmistakable evidence of design by an intelligence far greater than our own. You claim that mankind did not have morality or language, yet you offer no proof of this. You might try opening your mind a little.
Since Jesus and Paul mentioned a couple that didn’t exist, he couldn’t be the Son of God and the Bible can’t be inerrant.
Again, you are completely and utterly wrong. You make me doubt that you have ever picked up a Bible, much less read it.
They also mentioned that they were formed at the beginning of creation which is not right since man came billions of years later.The guys at Biologos recognize this so it’s not an issue of materialist atheists trying to disprove the Bible. Genesis ends up being metaphor or analogy now.
No, actually, it doesn’t. But, then again, you’re getting your information one-sided and refusing to examine any evidence that contradicts your preconceived notions.
It seems to me that is a last ditch cop out to hold on to one’s faith rather than facing the ugly truth. Some people can do that, I can’t.
Try reading my post and decide if I’ve made a good defense of my faith. You call it a cop out. Please. The “ugly truth” might be that you are the one who is utterly wrong. Can you handle that? Or are you simply going to refuse to examine any evidence that might question your agnosticism?
Genesis has ended up being the Jewish creation myth alongside the Egyptians, Romans, Greeks and Norse. Again, if Jesus was wrong, the gospels have been shown false by quoting an incorrect doctrine.
Not really. Gerald Schroeder writes about Genesis in “Genesis and the Big Bang”, which I recommend reading. Robert Jastrow also commented on Genesis in his book “God and the Astronomers” in which he indicates that the creation record in Genesis falls closest to what the facts actually show.
I know a lot of people will tell me that the fossil record is incomplete, lacks transitions etc as Optimus tried to do but it clearly shows simple to complex over time. Evolution explains that, creation states that they just appeared. Change in life forms happened over time whether we have every single fossil or not. Once again, what explains all the evidence if not Darwinian evolution. Nothing else come close.
No human witnessed the beginning of life on earth. Nor has anyone seen one kind of life evolve into another kind—a reptile into a mammal, for example. Therefore, we must rely on the available evidence to draw conclusions about the origin of life. And we need to let the evidence speak for itself rather than force it to say what we want it to say. With regard to the origin of the complex molecules that make up living organisms, some evolutionists believe the following: 1. Key elements somehow combined to form basic molecules. 2. Those molecules then linked together in the exact sequences required to form DNA, RNA, or protein with the capacity to store the information needed to carry out tasks essential to life. 3. The molecules somehow formed the specific sequences required to replicate themselves. Without replication, there can be neither evolutionary development nor, indeed, life itself. How did the molecules of life form and acquire their amazing abilities without an intelligent designer? Evolutionary research fails to provide adequate explanations or satisfying answers to questions about the origin of life. In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces. What, though, do the facts indicate? The available evidence shows that instead of molecules developing into complex life-forms, the opposite is true: Physical laws dictate that complex things—machines, houses, and even living cells—in time break down. Yet, evolutionists say the opposite can happen. For example, the book Evolution for Dummies says that evolution occurred because the earth “gets loads of energy from the sun, and that energy is what powers the increase in complexity.” To be sure, energy is needed to turn disorder into order—for example, to assemble bricks, wood, and nails into a house. That energy, however, has to be carefully controlled and precisely directed because uncontrolled energy is more likely to speed up decay, just as the energy from the sun and the weather can hasten the deterioration of a building. Those who believe in evolution cannot satisfactorily explain how energy is creatively directed.Barb_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

That video doesnt argue against evolution in the slightest. Also the quotes beneath the video are obvious misinterpretations and quote-mining jobs. Nice try. Evolution is well proven. You should try learning about it from places other than biased quote-mining creationist sources, but that just wouldn't be you, would it now?Joealtle_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

"An even newer term that supercedes Neo-Darwinism has been coined by D. J. Futuyma to cover the current ideas on evolution -- Modern Synthesis. According to Futuyma, evolution takes place through several processes: random mutation and recombination, random genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection. These changes will, over time, lead to higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, etc.)" (Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12 .) http://library.thinkquest.org/29178/n-Darwin.htm Yet: Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False - Denis Nobel - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10395212/ The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - January 2012 Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/bornagain77_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

A few notes on the science of evolution: Evolution. By, FutuymaJoealtle_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

A few notes on the pseudo-science of evolution: “We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence ‘is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;’ but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists.” Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) - "In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts" - Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/about/lakatos/scienceandpseudosciencetranscript.aspx Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause! - Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 168-69) The next evolutionary synthesis: Jonathan BL Bard (2011) Excerpt: We now know that there are at least 50 possible functions that DNA sequences can fulfill [8], that the networks for traits require many proteins and that they allow for considerable redundancy [9]. The reality is that the evolutionary synthesis says nothing about any of this; for all its claim of being grounded in DNA and mutation, it is actually a theory based on phenotypic traits. This is not to say that the evolutionary synthesis is wrong, but that it is inadequate – it is really only half a theory! http://www.biosignaling.com/content/pdf/1478-811X-9-30.pdf 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 The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber - 2011 Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.,,, http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/ 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 Revisiting the Central Dogma - David Tyler - Nov. 9, 2012 Excerpt: "The past decade, however, has witnessed a rapid accumulation of evidence that challenges the linear logic of the central dogma (DNA makes RNA makes Protein). Four previously unassailable beliefs about the genome - that it is static throughout the life of the organism; that it is invariant between cell type and individual; that changes occurring in somatic cells cannot be inherited (also known as Lamarckian evolution); and that necessary and sufficient information for cellular function is contained in the gene sequence - have all been called into question in the last few years.",, Undoubtedly, the trigger for change has been the discovery of extraordinary complexity in cellular processes as revealed by systems biology research. It is now necessary to refer to networks of interactions when explaining any aspect of cellular function. And the very existence of these networks defies the central dogma: http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2012/11/09/revisiting_the_central_dogma Of humorous note to a 'flexible' theory that has no foundation in science: Who would have thought that it would be biologists that came up with the first Theory of Everything? Biological divergence? Evolution. Biological convergence? Evolution. Gradual variation? Evolution. Sudden variation? Evolution. Stasis? Evolution. Junk DNA? Evolution. No Junk DNA? Evolution. Tree of life? Evolution. No tree of life? Evolution. Common genes? Evolution. Orfan genes? evolution. Cell with little more than a jelly-like protoplasm? Evolution. Cell filled with countless, highly-specified nano-machines directed by a software code? Evolution. More hardy, more procreative organisms? Evolution. Less hardy, less procreative organisms? Evolution. Evolution explains everything. - William J Murraybornagain77_{June 3, 2013
June
06
Jun
3
03
2013
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply