DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Sober Thinking
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Sound Christian Doctrine
*****************************************************
#Post#: 372--------------------------------------------------
The Darwinist trope about Newton and the "God of the
🙄 gaps" is a LIE!
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 20, 2022, 6:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Apr 18, 2022
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-200622190204.png[/center]
[center]The Judeo-Christian Origins of Modern Science[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/ss-kzyXeqdQ[/center]
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-050422133440.gif[/center]
Discovery Science 166K subscribers
Bestselling author Stephen Meyer ✨ explores how three key
Judeo-Christian presuppositions encouraged the rise of modern
science, and he explores the influence of faith on the life and
work of Sir Isaac Newton. Meyer is Director of the Center for
Science and Culture at Discovery Institute and author of Return
of the God Hypothesis.
This talk was presented at the 2022 Dallas Conference on Science
and Faith in January 2022.
#Post#: 377--------------------------------------------------
Exposing the failed Darwinian Evolution Theory Predictions
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 22, 2022, 5:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: I did not write any of this well referenced
material. Rather than posting the entire list of responses
🔬 to the common objections of evolutionists to their
theory's false predictions, I will post them here gradually.
You can view previous objections and the responses to them by
scrolling this topic thread. 🧐
After this section is completed, we will move on to the
importance of exposing the failed Darwinian Evolution Theory
Predictions and a detailed discussion of said failed
predictions.
Since I took pre-med in college, late in life, I am well versed
in the language of molecular biology. When a term comes up that
the average reader might not be familiar with, I will define it
to save the reader some time.
Feel free to pass this on to friends and family, always
including the references. These scholarly references are
important to credibie debate. Please make sure you include them
and the .DarwinsPredicitionsweb site link .
[size=18pt].DarwinsPredictions[/size]
[center]This section examines various concerns evolutionists
often have regarding their theory’s false predictions.[/center]
[center]Responses to common objections[/center]
False predictions often have led to productive research
Productive research can come from a great variety of scientific
and nonscientific motivations, including false predictions. That
productive research may have arisen from some of these
predictions does not detract from the fact that they are false.
Evolutionists have fixed these false predictions
A proponent of a theory, given sufficient motivation, can
explain all kinds of contradictory findings. (Quine) Typically,
however, there is a price to be paid as the theory becomes more
complex and has less explanatory power.
Ad hominem and denial
Criticism of evolution draws heated responses, and personal
attacks are common. Such attacks, however, do not change the
fact that evolution has generated many false predictions. Also,
evolutionists sometimes ignore or deny the unexpected findings.
They attempt to discredit the facts, referring to them as “tired
old arguments,” or fallacies without following up such
criticisms with supporting details.
Falsificationism is flawed
It has been argued that in order to qualify as science, ideas
and theories need to be falsifiable. Also, falsified predictions
are sometimes used to argue a theory is false. Such naïve
falsificationism is flawed (Popper) and not used here.
Evolution’s many false predictions do not demonstrate that
evolution is not science or that evolution is false.
False predictions are valuable in judging the quality of a
theory, its explanatory power, and for improving our scientific
understanding in general. Nonetheless, evolutionists sometimes
reject any mention of their theory’s false predictions as mere
naïve falsificationism. The failures of naïve falsificationism
do not give evolutionists a license to ignore substantial and
fundamental failures of their theory.
If there are so many problems evolution would have been toppled
This objection falls under the category of naïve
falsificationism. Science is a reactive process. New evidence is
processed, and theories are adjusted accordingly. But science
can also be a conservative process, sustaining substantial
problems before reevaluating a theory. Therefore the
reevaluation of a theory takes time. The fact that there are
problems is no guarantee a theory will have been toppled.
(Lakatos; Chalmers)
Those quoted believe in evolution
Many scientists doubt evolution, but they are not cited or
quoted in this paper. Only material from evolutionists is used
to illustrate that even adherents to the theory agree that the
predictions are false.
These falsifications will be remedied in the future
As scientists, we need to evaluate scientific theories according
to the currently available data. No one knows what future data
may bring, and the claim that future data will rescue evolution
is ultimately circular.
There is no better alternative
One way to evaluate a theory is to compare it to alternative
explanations. This approach has the advantage of circumventing
the difficulties in evaluating scientific theories. But of
course any such comparison will crucially depend on what
alternative explanations are used in the comparison. If care is
not taken good alternatives can be misrepresented or even
omitted altogether. And of course there may be alternatives not
yet conceived. (van Fraassen; Stanford) In any case, the success
or failure of evolution’s predictions depends on the science,
not on any alternative explanations.
No one believes these predictions anymore
Yes, this is the point. It is true that evolutionists have, for
the most part, dropped many predictions that were once made by
evolutionists or entailed by the theory. We can learn from this
failed track record as it has implications for evolution’s
complexity and explanatory power.
What about all the successful predictions?
Evolutionists argue that evolution is a fact, and that we ought
to focus on evolution’s successful predictions rather than its
false predictions. The tendency to seek confirming evidence over
contrary evidence is known as confirmation bias. (Klayman, Ha)
One consequence of confirmation bias can be that confirming
evidence is viewed as correct and typical whereas disconfirming
evidence is viewed as anomalous and rare. Not surprisingly the
confirming evidence is more often retained and documented.
Rarely are the many false predictions found in evolution texts.
Confirmation bias can hinder scientific research as
evolutionists tend to view the predictions of evolution as
overwhelmingly true. False predictions, on the other hand, are
usually not viewed as legitimate falsifications but rather as
open research questions which are yet to be resolved. Indeed,
evolutionists often make the remarkable claim that there is no
evidence that is contrary to evolution.
These falsified predictions are not necessary predictions of
evolutionary theory. They merely reflect isolated instances of a
practitioner’s surprise over specific sets of data.
The predictions were considered to be necessary when they were
held. And they represented consensus evolutionary science at the
time they were held. They are well documented in both
peer-reviewed research papers, popular literature authored by
leading evolutionists and interviews of leading evolutionists.
They were not merely held by a few, individual evolutionists.
Nor were they one of several possible competing predictions.
That these predictions are not now considered to be necessary
predictions of evolution is a reflection of the malleability of
evolutionary theory and is a reminder of why a history of
evolution’s false predictions is important.
References
Chalmers, A. F. 1982. What is This Thing Called Science?. 2d ed.
Indianapolis: Hackett.
Klayman, Joshua, Young-Won Ha. 1997. “Confirmation,
disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing,” in W.
M. Goldstein, R. M. Hogarth, (eds.) Research on Judgment and
Decision Making: Currents, Connections, and Controversies.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “History of science and Its rational
reconstructions.” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the
Philosophy of Science Association 1970:91-136.
Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London:
Hutchinson.
Quine, W.V.O. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” The
Philosophical Review 60:40.
Stanford, P. Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History,
and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. New York: Oxford
University Press.
van Fraassen. Bas C. 1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
HTML https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/responses-to-common-objections
#Post#: 386--------------------------------------------------
Why investigate evolution’s false predictions?
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 24, 2022, 5:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
.DarwinsPredictions
[center]Why investigate evolution’s false predictions?[/center]
Charles Darwin presented his theory of evolution in 1859. In the
century and half since then our knowledge of the life sciences
has increased dramatically. We now know orders of magnitude more
than Darwin and his peers knew about biology. And we can compare
what science has discovered with what Darwin’s theory expects.
It is not controversial that a great many predictions made by
Darwin’s theory of evolution have been found to be false. There
is less consensus, however, on how to interpret these
falsifications. In logic, when a hypothesis predicts or entails
an observation that is discovered to be false, then the
hypothesis is concluded to be false. Not so in science.
When a scientific theory makes a prediction that is discovered
to be false, then sometimes the theory is simply modified to
accommodate the new finding. [b]Broad, umbrella theories, such
as evolution, are particularly amenable to adjustments. [/b]
Evolution states that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient to
explain the origin of species. This is a very broad statement
capable of generating a wide variety of specific explanations
about how evolution actually occurred. In fact evolutionists
often disagree about these details. So if one explanation,
dealing with a particular aspect of evolution, makes false
predictions, there often are alternative explanations available
to explain that particular aspect of evolution. Obviously the
theory of evolution itself is not harmed simply because one
particular sub-hypothesis is shown to be wrong.
Failed expectations are not necessarily a problem for a theory.
(Lakatos) In fact evolutionists argue that false predictions
made by the theory of evolution are not problems, but rather are
signs of scientific progress. With each new finding,
evolutionists say, we learn more about how evolution occurred.
Nonetheless, it is worthwhile to review a theory’s false
predictions. A theory’s track record can be highly informative.
The history of false predictions generated by a theory tells us
about its strengths and weaknesses, and how and why the theory
is believed to be true.
In the case of evolutionary theory, its many false predictions
reveal that the theory is not motivated by the science and that
the textbook claim that evolution is a fact does not come merely
from empirical evidence (see Conclusions). Therefore the
objective of this paper is to collect and record, in one place,
a sample of the false predictions generated by evolutionary
theory.
The predictions examined in this paper were selected according
to several criteria.
• They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are
fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of
evolutionary thought.
• They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting
one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints.
• Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of
the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary
science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but
rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated.
• They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not
controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have
implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena, as
discussed in the conclusions.
This paper does not maintain that the predictions presented are
the only fundamental predictions of evolution, or that evolution
does not have successful predictions. Those are well documented
in the literature.
Nor does this paper maintain that the predictions presented,
though false, have not served to produce productive research.
Also, this paper does not maintain that these false predictions
cannot be remedied or reversed by future scientific findings.
References
Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “History of science and Its rational
reconstructions.” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the
Philosophy of Science Association 1970:91-136.
HTML https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions
#Post#: 394--------------------------------------------------
Learn about the far-ranging consequences of Darwin's theory
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 29, 2022, 4:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/HzLkvoj5TTc[/center]
Discovery Science 167K subscribers
Darwin's theory of evolution didn't just affect science. It had
a dramatic impact on our global culture. Learn about the
far-ranging consequences of Darwin's theory for society in less
than 3 minutes in this provocative video.
Check out these other videos:
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-110422205204-6521450.gif
"Darwin's Corrosive Idea" John West at Dallas Science Faith
Conference 2020
HTML https://youtu.be/FWKKVL_Pkf8
Iconoclast: One Journalist's Odyssey through the Darwin Debates
HTML https://youtu.be/MLdZzf8HoUU
#Post#: 418--------------------------------------------------
Why positing one God is a better explanation than the multiverse
hypothesis for the fine-tuning of the Universe for LIFE
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: July 16, 2022, 10:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-160722115357.png[/center]
If you enjoyed the special mini-book Scientific Evidence for a
Creator, then you should check out bestselling philosopher of
science Stephen Meyer’s Return of the God Hypothesis. If you
haven’t done so already, get your copy now.
In Return of the God Hypothesis Meyer argues that theism — with
its affirmation of a transcendent, intelligent, and active
creator — best explains the evidence we have concerning
biological and cosmological origins.
Dive deeper into the issues and learn about:
INSPIRING HOPE The scientific rediscovery of God provides hope
of purpose and meaning to human existence, contrary to the
claims of atheists who assert that human life lacks any ultimate
significance.
THEISTIC IMPLICATIONS Recent discoveries in cosmology showing
the universe had a beginning have decidedly theistic
implications; namely, they point to a transcendent creator as
the cause of the origin of the universe.
A UNIVERSE FROM SOMETHING Physicists such as Stephen Hawking and
Lawrence Krauss, who claim to have explained the origin of the
universe from nothing but the laws of physics, inadvertently
advance ideas that actually support the God hypothesis.
UNDERSTANDING THE MULTIVERSE The book shows why positing one God
is a better explanation than the multiverse hypothesis for the
fine-tuning of the physical parameters that have made life
possible.
MASTER PROGRAMMER: The book shows that recent discoveries about
DNA point to a master programmer or designer for life.
JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TRADITION Judeo-Christian ideas provided the
inspiration for science during the period of the Scientific
Revolution. Devoutly religious scientists such as Johannes
Kepler, Robert Boyle, and Sir Isaac Newton show that science and
Christianity have not always been at war, contrary to the claims
of atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Neil
Tyson, Bill Nye, and others[b].
[b]Get Your Copy
HTML https://www.amazon.com/Return-God-Hypothesis-Compelling-Scientific/dp/0062071505
“Clear, compelling, and entertaining to read.” “Meyer skewers
materialism.” “A must-read and a convincing argument.” “A truly
superb analysis of the relevant evidence.”
These are just some of the comments from the more than 40
scientists who have endorsed the book, including an endorsement
from physicist and Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson at Cambridge
University, and a positive review from Booklist of the American
Library Association.
#Post#: 425--------------------------------------------------
This finding, supported by observational astronomy and
theoretical physics, contradicts scientific atheist expectations
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: July 19, 2022, 4:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
NEWSWEEK OPINION
7/14/22 By Stephen C. Meyer ✨
[center]How Science Stopped Backing Atheists and Started
Pointing Back to God[/center]
SNIPPET:
Second, discoveries from physics about the structure of the
universe reinforce this theistic conclusion. Since the 1960s,
physicists have determined that the fundamental physical laws
and parameters of our universe are finely tuned, against all
odds, to make our universe capable of hosting life. Even slight
alterations of many independent factors—such as the strength of
gravitational or electromagnetic attraction, or the initial
arrangement of matter and energy in the universe—would have
rendered life impossible. Scientists have discovered that we
live in a kind of "Goldilocks Universe," or what Australian
physicist Luke Barnes calls an extremely "Fortunate Universe."
Not surprisingly, many physicists have concluded that this
improbable fine-tuning points to a cosmic "fine-tuner." As
former Cambridge astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle argued, "A
common-sense interpretation of the data suggests that a
super-intellect has monkeyed with physics" to make life
possible.
Third, molecular biology has revealed the presence in living
cells of an exquisite world of informational nanotechnology.
These include digital code in DNA and RNA—tiny, intricately
constructed molecular machines which vastly exceed our own
digital high technology in their storage and transmission
capabilities. And even Richard Dawkins has acknowledged that
"the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like" —
implying, it would seem, the activity of a master programmer at
work the origin of life. At the very least, the discoveries of
modern biology are not what anyone would have expected from
blind materialistic processes.
All this underscores a growing disparity between public
perceptions of the message of science and what scientific
evidence actually shows. Far from pointing to "blind, pitiless
indifference," the great discoveries of the last century point
to the exquisite design of life and the universe and, arguably,
to an intelligent creator behind it all.
READ MORE
Read more:
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418200416.png<br
/>
HTML https://www.newsweek.com/how-science-stopped-backing-atheists-started-pointing-back-god-opinion-1724448
[center]
HTML http://youtu.be/1pVulmHTd74[/center]
#Post#: 428--------------------------------------------------
That the author of Why Evolution Is True would not like it is
predictable from the headline, “The Bizarre Bird That’s Br
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: July 21, 2022, 2:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]“Bizarre Bird” Highlights the Problem of
Biogeography[/center]
July 18, 2022, 2:37 PM By David Klinghoffer
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-110422180554-644315.gif
[center]
HTML https://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/KJlWmMIZlI81nA4imHC73v11ONw1_19SYHzdPubLPA59gPO75PqhcqNbnpB2wO1AhokvRgQCHlEq-C-05dUkJ_lfOhHsVVvWyAIwfYauW2roGl8pt-PTIUgbr0W75SimAdur4XZ6PYL0epp4wUER3C3lZZYdQiRScJ-3knr8eA=s0-d-e1-ft#https://dot.discovery.org/l/563722/2022-07-19/7l19vc/563722/1658266687z7cPfeZE/Hoatzin_in_Peru_wikimedia.jpg[/center]
Photo credit: Kate from UK, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia
Commons.
After complaining about a podcast by Michael Egnor and Casey
Luskin, and about Stephen Meyer’s recent Newsweek piece, atheist
biologist Jerry Coyne turns almost directly to complaining about
an article in The New Yorker. That the author of Why Evolution
Is True would not like it is predictable from the headline, “The
Bizarre Bird That’s Breaking the Tree of Life,” and the subhead,
“Darwin thought that family trees could explain evolution. The
hoatzin suggests otherwise.”
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-050422145533-5682069.png
Coyne dismisses the headline as
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-250718210509.gif<br
/>clickbait. Yet there’s a problem with the “bizarre bird” that
would have earned my click, had journalist Ben Crair paid it the
attention it deserves. Notes Crair, “Fossils that resemble
hoatzins have been found in Europe and Africa, but today the
birds can be found only in the river basins of the Amazon and
Orinoco of South America.”
A Delightful Evolutionary Conundrum
Europe, Africa, and South America? As you may be anticipating,
while the New Yorker article is not about this, the really
entertaining difficulty has to do with biogeography. While these
birds are bad at flying, evolutionists have been forced to
credit hoatzins (rhymes with “Watsons”) with some impressive
rafting — unbelievably impressive. Dr. Luskin has written here
about “The Case of the Mysterious Hoatzin: Biogeography Fails
Neo-Darwinism Again.” He explains:
In 2009, the National Center for Science Education’s Eugenie
Scott suggested that scientists should not admit when the
evidence contradicts some evolutionary hypothesis, but should
rather say that it
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/2/3-080419191019.png<br
/>“sheds new light on this part of evolution.” Since then, I’ve
kept an 🧐 eye out for that and similar
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/2/3-080419191019.png<br
/>language.
For example, a recent article on Science Daily was titled
“Across the Atlantic on Flotsam: New Fossil Findings Shed Light
on the Origins of the Mysterious Bird Hoatzin.” According to the
article, hoatzins lacked a known fossil record outside of South
America until recently, when “a team consisting of German,
Brazilian and French researchers … not only described the
earliest known fossil find of the mysterious bird group, but has
also produced the first proof outside of South America.”
Apparently, the fossil bones from Namibia, Africa are about 17
million years old and have the right characteristics to identify
them as belonging to hoatzins. However, finding extinct
hoatzin-like birds in Africa poses a problem for Darwinian
biogeography. I’ll let the article explain:
“When two related animal groups are discovered on different
continents, this can be explained in principle by two
mechanisms: either the continents were once connected by land,
or the distribution took place directly across the water.
“Africa and South America were once part of a supercontinent
called Gondwana, but this had already broken up much longer than
20 million years ago, the continents being separated by the
Atlantic. So Hoatzins must have crossed the ocean at some stage
in order to get from one continent to the other.
“But how does a bird, which is an especially poor long-distance
flyer, manage to cross a sea that is over 1,000 kilometres wide?
Even if the flying capabilities of the Hoatzin’s ancestors were
better, it is highly unlikely that they could have managed this
distance in the air.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817121649.png
“Gerald Mayr and his colleagues from Brazil and France have an
explanation that is somewhat unexpected for birds: ‘We assume
that the bird crossed the Atlantic upon drifting flotsam.’ This
means of travel using flotsam is already familiar with regard to
some primates, rodents and lizards, but it would be the first
proof of a similar journey by a bird.”
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-250718202127.gif
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/2/3-010519192158-2201430.jpeg<br
/>OK, I get it: when common descent cannot explain observed
biogeographical data, just assert that your organism rode on
rafts across vast of kilometers of ocean, and presto — your
problem is solved.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png<br
/>
And of course you can’t have just one rafting hoatzin — there
must be at least two (or perhaps one brought its clutch of eggs
along on the raft for the voyage?) — or your rafting hoatzin
will become an evolutionary dead end.
The authors don’t think the rafting hypothesis is a problem
since, supposedly, we’ve already seen that “primates, rodents,
and lizards” did the same thing. But what’s the evidence that
primates, rodents, and lizards crossed oceans on rafts? As I
explained here or Jonathan M. explains here, the evidence again
is biogeographical data that refutes common descent.
With primates, for example, new world monkeys are said to be
descended from African monkeys. But new world monkeys appear in
South America at a time when the continent was separated from
Africa by 1000+ kilometers of ocean. Proponents of common
descent aren’t worried: they can just create myths about
seafaring monkeys to solve the problem. Never mind that monkeys
have high metabolisms and it’s hard to imagine how they could
possibly survive such a trip.
Another recent article at BBC News notes that this same problem
besets evolutionary thinking about South American rodents:
“No-one really knows how they got there, but scientists have
speculated that some small animals could have made the journey
by sea.
“‘They could have got there on some raft of vegetation,’ said Dr
Croft.
“‘That maybe sounds like a fantastic tale, but in fact we do see
things like this happening today. You can get big logjams of
vegetation that get pushed out of rivers during storms, and
often you will see mammals on them.
“‘The odds of them making this crossing are obviously very low,
but after millions and millions of years the odds of some
animals making it go up considerably.”
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/2/3-010519192158-2201430.jpeg<br
/>Let me get this straight: Since we
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png<br
/>know that common descent is
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png<br
/>true, and since the rodents, monkeys, and hoatzins exist on
continents separated by vast spaces of ocean with no land-based
migrational pathway, the fantastic rafting tale must be true.
::)
Rats caught in shrubs for a couple days after a storm, perhaps.
But do we observe mammals or birds rafting across oceans?
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-111018132332-16812332.gif
If two similar species separated by thousands of kilometers
across oceans cannot challenge common descent, what
biogeographical data can? The way evolutionists treat it, there
is virtually no biogeographical data that can challenge common
descent even in principle. If that’s the case, then how can
biogeography be said to support common descent in the first
place? [Emphasis added.]
“Very Busy Ocean Travel”
Dr. Luskin concludes with an excellent question. Paleontologist
Günter Bechly comments similarly on the difficulty posed for
Darwinists, “Yes, even rodents and birds are believed to have
crossed the ocean on rafts (Poux et al. 2006, Naish 2011). It
looks like there was some very busy ocean travel
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png<br
/>going on in those times, which suddenly stopped as soon as
humans could have observed and recorded it.”
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-210818163126-16771578.gif<br
/>Rafting animals may be my all-time favorite evolutionary
conundrum
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-111018132401-16872027.gif,<br
/>and now you know why.
HTML https://evolutionnews.org/2022/07/bizarre-bird-highlights-the-problem-of-biogeography/
#Post#: 441--------------------------------------------------
Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the
Universe.
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: August 10, 2022, 7:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-160722115357.png[/center]
[center]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-060518153110.png[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/z_8PPO-cAlA[/center]
Hoover Institution 669K subscribers
Recorded on March 30, 2021
To comment please go to:
HTML https://www.hoover.org/research/stephen-meyer-intelligent-design-and-return-god-hypothesis
Dr. Stephen Meyer directs the Center for Science and Culture at
the Discovery Institute in Seattle. He returns to Uncommon
Knowledge with Peter Robinson to discuss his newest book,
Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That
Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe. In this wide-ranging and
often mind-bending interview, Dr. Meyer explains the God
Hypothesis; makes his continuing and evolving case for
intelligent design; describes how Judeo-Christian theology gave
rise to science; discusses why the discovery of DNA is actually
an enigma, as its existence cannot be explained by natural
selection; and more.
David Smith
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in
unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is
evident [m]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His
eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being
understood through what has been made, so that they are without
excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [n]honor
Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their
speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22
Professing to be wise, they became fools, Because we were made
in the image of God, He (God) gave us the intelligence to
understand the natural world, and the cosmos
AGelbert > David Smith
Well and truly said!
Proverbs 1:20-21 "The tongue of the just is as choice silver:
the heart of the wicked is little worth. The lips of the
righteous feed many: but fools die for want of wisdom."
Dr. Stephen Meyer is a righteous man.
The concept of the multiverse, like Darwin's claim that all life
is the "evolutionary" result of random undirected processes, is
an evident absurdity. The totally evidence lacking,
embarrasingly unscientific claim that we inhabit "one of many
universes in the multiverse", is just another pathetic straw the
Darwinain true believers are grasping at with all their atheism
loving, morally bankrupt (SEE: Social Darwinism and "Apex
Predators can do whatever they want") ideology.
[center]
HTML http://desertpeace.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/grasping-at-straws1.jpg[/center]
Social Darwinists believe that ethics based principles are
'limitations pretending to be virtues'. To them, ethics are
'feel good illusions' that humans invented to pretend our
species has empathy. To Social Darwinists, empathy is
irrefutable evidence of inexcusable weakness. To them, all who
are guided by ethics are deluded fools that should be eliminated
from the human 'apex predator' gene pool for the "good" of our
species.
Enthusiastic converts to Social Darwinism have, to this day,
used the language of evolution to frame an understanding of the
growing gulf between the rich and the poor, as well as the many
differences between cultures all over the world. The explanation
they arrived at, and continue to use to justify biosphere
trashing profit over people and planet, regardless of any
alligator tear filled mendacious claims to the contrary, is that
businessmen and others who are economically and socially
successful are so because they are biologically and socially
“naturally” the fittest.
Conversely, they reason that the poor are “naturally” weak and
unfit and it would be an error to allow the weak of the species
to continue to breed.
IOW, at the ROOT of these Darwinain (i.e. atheist) fantasies
like the "multiverse" is the ethics REJECTING "might equals
right" morally bankrupt ideology that enables scientists to
"justify" conducting experiments subjecting animals (and other
humans) to disease, pain and agonizing death for the "good" of
"science" and "mankind", along with rampant profit over people
and planet pollution.
Darwin's atheist converts CORRUPTED science by deliberately
divorcing it from ethical requirements that God fearing
scientists know are NOT optional. The educational institutions
then passed that unethical Darwinian cruel Ideology on to the
rest of the population. That is why our society is so physically
and spiritually unhealthy today.
#Post#: 442--------------------------------------------------
The factual evidence that supports all these sacred cows is thin
to zero, but that doesn't stop Institutions from pushin
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: August 12, 2022, 3:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
AGelbert NOTE: The question below by newestbeginning mod at
Class Struggle
HTML https://ongoingclassstruggle.blogspot.com/
was due to a comment
I had made about all the sacred cows in Academia.
SNIPPET from my comment
HTML https://ongoingclassstruggle.blogspot.com/2022/08/the-search-of-donald-trumps-florida.html#comment-5943705366:
So-called "sacred cows" are all over the place in Academia. The
factual evidence that supports all these sacred cows is thin to
zero, but that doesn't stop Institutions from pushing them HARD
and QUICKLY ostracizing anyone who disagrees with "going with
the flow" (of NON-factual ideology based sacred cows).
newestbeginning Mod > AGelbert • 2 days ago
Perhaps the making of another essay?
AGelbert > newestbeginning Mod
Well, the subject is so explosive among champions of education
that I hesitate simply because I do not relish the idea of being
the target of vigorous vitriol and vituperation.
One of those "modern education" sacred cows that I am absolutely
certain has caused the steady corruption of ethical standards in
the scientifc community and businesses and the home and
marriages (and so ad nauseam on 😞) is the ridiculously
unscientific, totally evidence free assumption that life in our
universe, the ONLY universe that any scientist who isn't a bold
faced liar can claim exists, is the product of "random
undirected processes". The hard, irrefutable (see: probability
and statistics factorial math for hundreds of fine tuning
physical constants there BEFORE the universe expanded beyond the
size of a hydrogen atom) scientific evidence is overwhelming
against Darwin's socially destructive idea, militantly pushed by
Darwinist true believers that we, and even the simplest virus,
and everything in between, are just one big evolutionary
accident.
The resistance to FACTS by evolutionists (i.e. atheists 'R' US)
is so jaw droppingly UNscientific that it is a fruitless gesture
to attempt fact based logic with the ideologically compromised
Darwinists. Dr. Stephen Meyer, in a recent interview, explained
how their "logic" operates with this analogy:
Picture a man in a NAZI concentration camp in Germany during the
time Hitler was in charge. He is put before a firing squad of a
hundred soldiers about 50 yards away. They, all at once, shoot
at him. They all miss, but every bullet comes very close (see:
distance of several thousand decimal places to the right of the
decimal point in a fraction of a centimeter), leaving a pattern
on the wall behind the man of his shape. The man is unscathed.
That "explanation" in the form of an analogy for how we
"evolved" is preferred to Intelligent Design by Darwinists. They
even try to mock that analogy as "unscientific", when, if
anything, it is (see: probabilty and statistics for random
events in a 14 billion year universe) charitable compared to the
gob smacking ignorance Darwinists exhibit in regard to the MATH
involving primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary protein
structure AFTER all those exquisitely fine tuned physical
constants in our Universe allow atoms to exist in the first
place.
Then there is that pesky MATH to get all those molecular
structures in the mythical "primordial soup RNA world" (before
there was any RNA!) to "self assemble" (randomly of course - see
MORE FACTORIAL MATH probability problems) to form that first
virus or that first cell that, in a simultaneous RANDOM EVENT,
ADDED to the "self-assembly" mind boggling large factorial math,
was able to "reproduce" (remember, all those protein structures
had to start to "self-assemble" at random square ONE if the cell
walls and all those molecular machines inside them were not able
to reproduce themselves from the moment the cell was created).
It is like talking to a wall. Logic, reason and scientific
evidence go OUT THE WINDOW when the Darwinian morally bankrupt,
socially destructive, UNSCIENTIFIC sacred cow is brought up.
🤦‍♂️
That fellow in the flying saucer below uses the exact same
"logic" that Darwinist true believers use...
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-260322171228.png[/center]
And as to all the icons of evolution that are alleged by
evolutionists to be "just innocent textbook errors", I have only
this to say: Never attribute to stupidity that which is
adequately explained by malice.
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-020622162256.png[/center]
I talk too much.
#Post#: 457--------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Support for Devolution
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: August 17, 2022, 2:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
August 15, 2022, 6:37 AM by Michael Behe
[center]
HTML https://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/9cBGZJ-e-5xyQM5Q6lI7-yhw8N1ni7vAVJX4jLVxupDB6NoWXyIfbdb7ot7dwDOpXCYh3Vz5DQOA5D4qN-C0MkeqjdJZ43ktsQUnp4M_TtnlryzSOB6gy4Jg1tdZ6qBoDS9jTK5CO6aaB6KqhnC1IT41n_vVFDdmzbYK0kAxE828-az_=s0-d-e1-ft#https://dot.discovery.org/l/563722/2022-08-17/7qdzr2/563722/1660752964fvKoOnyw/Woolly_mammoth_model_wikimedia.jpg[/center]
Image credit: Thomas Quine, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons.
[center]Mammoth Support for Devolution[/center]
The more science progresses, the more hapless Darwin seems.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-060518153110.png
In my 2019 book Darwin Devolves I showed that random mutation
and natural selection are powerful de-volutionary forces. That
is, they quickly lead to the loss of genetic information. The
reason is that, in many environmental circumstances, a species’s
lot can be improved most quickly by breaking or blunting
pre-existing genes. To get the point across, I used an analogy
to a quick way to improve a car’s gas mileage — remove the hood,
throw out the doors, get rid of any excess weight. That will
help the car go further, but it also reduces the number of
features of the car. And it sure doesn’t explain how any of
those now-jettisoned parts got there in the first place.
The Bottom Line
The same goes for biology. Helpful mutations that arrive most
quickly are very much more likely to degrade genetic features
than to construct new ones. The featured illustration in Darwin
Devolves was the polar bear, which has accumulated a number of
beneficial mutations since it branched off from the brown bear a
few hundred thousand years ago. Yet the large majority of those
beneficial mutations were degradative — they broke or damaged
pre-existing genes. For example, a gene involved in fur
pigmentation was damaged, rendering the beast white — that
helped; another gene involved in fat metabolism was degraded,
allowing the animal to consume lots of seal blubber, its main
food in the Arctic — that helped, too. Those mutations were good
for the species in the moment — they did improve its chances of
survival. But degradative mutations don’t explain how the
functioning genes got there in the first place. Even worse, the
relentless burning of genetic information to adapt to a changing
environment will make a species evolutionarily brittle and more
prone to extinction.
The bottom line: Although random mutation and natural selection
help a species adapt, Darwinian processes can’t account for the
origins of sophisticated biological systems.
In Darwin Devolves, I also mentioned work on DNA extracted from
frozen woolly mammoth carcasses that showcased devolution: “26
genes were shown to be seriously degraded, many of which (as
with polar bear) were involved in fat metabolism, critical in
the extremely cold environments that the mammoth roamed.” It
turns out that was an underestimate. A new paper 1 that has
sequenced DNA from several more woolly mammoth remains says the
true number is more than triple that — 87 genes broken compared
to their elephant relatives. The authors write of the advantages
provided by destroyed genes (references omitted for
readability):
--- Quote ---
> Gene losses as a consequence of indels and deletions can be
adaptive and multiple case studies investigating the fate of
such variants have uncovered associations between gene loss and
mammalian phenotypes under positive selection. In laboratory
selection experiments, gene loss is a frequent cause of
adaptations to various environmental conditions. Given that we
focused on those indels and large deletions that are fixed
among woolly mammoths, the majority of these protein-altering
variants likely conveyed adaptive effects and may have been
under positive selection at some point during mammoth evolution.
We did not find specific biological functions
overrepresented among these genes (see methods), but many of the
affected genes are related to known mammoth-specific
phenotypes, such as total body-fat and fat distribution (EPM2A,
RDH16, and SEC31B), fur growth and hair follicle shape and size
(CD34, DROSHA, and TP63), skeletal morphology (CD44, ANO5, and
HSPG2), ear morphology (ILDR1 and CHRD), and body temperature
(CES2). In addition, we find several genes associated with
body size (ZBTB20, CIZ1, and TTN), which might have been
involved in the decreasing size of woolly mammoths during the
late Pleistocene.
--- End Quote ---
There’s Lots More
--- Quote ---
> The point is that these gene losses aren’t side shows — they
are the events that transformed an elephant into a mammoth, that
adapted the animal to its changing environment. A job well done,
yes, but now those genes are gone forever, unavailable to help
with the next change of environment. Perhaps that contributed to
eventual mammoth extinction.
--- End Quote ---
As quoted above, the [color=navy]mammoth authors[/color] note
that gene losses can be adaptive, and they cited a paper that I
hadn’t seen before. I checked it out and it’s a wonderful
laboratory evolution study of yeast.2 Helsen et al. (2020) used
a collection of yeast strains in which one of each different
gene in the genome had been knocked out. They grew the knockout
yeast in a stressful environment and watched to see how the
microbes evolved to handle it. Many of the yeast strains, with
different genes initially knocked out, recovered, and some even
surpassed the fitness of wild-type yeast under the
circumstances. The authors emphasized the fact of the
evolutionary recovery. However, they also clearly stated (but
don’t seem to have noticed the importance of the fact) that all
of the strains rebounded by breaking other genes, ones that had
been intact at the beginning of the experiment. None built
anything new, all of them devolved.
Well, Duh
That’s hardly a surprise. At least in retrospect, it’s easy to
see that devolution must happen — for the simple reason that
helpful degradative mutations are more plentiful than helpful
constructive ones and thus arrive more quickly for natural
selection to multiply. The more recent results recounted here
just pile more evidence onto that gathered in Darwin Devolves
showing Darwin’s mechanism is powerfully devolutionary. That
simple realization neatly explains results ranging from the
evolutionary behavior of yeast in a comfy modern laboratory, to
the speciation of megafauna in raw nature millions of years ago,
and almost certainly to everything in between.
References
1. Van der Valk, Tom, et al. 2022. Evolutionary consequences of
genomic deletions and insertions in the woolly mammoth genome.
iScience 25, 104826.
2. Helsen, J. et al. 2020. Gene loss predictably drives
evolutionary adaptation. Molecular Biology and Evolution 37,
2989–3002.
HTML https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 11
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page