|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: the scientific end of evolution theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7665 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear All,
Thesis: 20th and 21st century scientific discoveries shattered the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, due to: 1) chirality of proteins and information carriers (RNA, DNA),2) irreducible complexity of biochemistry 3) information theory 4) genetic redundancies I challenge every evolutionist to seriously rebut this thesis. To trigger some response: Evolution theory is a 19th century -- on all levels falsifiable -- hypothesis. It did not at all contribute to our understanding of biology. Best wishes, Peter ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
In my opinion you can largely do away with describing populations in terms of differential reproductive success, but you can't do away with the simpler form of Natural Selection, which is for an individual to reproduce or not to reproduce, and therefore the individual is the unit of selection. How are you going to describe organisms if not in terms of their reproduction?
If there is an irreducably complex mechanism somewhere that was created by a miracle, it would still after it's creation either contribute to it's reproduction, or go extinct in the near future. All organisms die. So irreducble complexity does not absolutely counter simple Natural Selection. There can be loads of irreducably complex mechanisms, many miracles, but not all of them will contribute towards their own reproduction. So Natural Selection can describe irreducably complex mechanisms as well. Darwinism was never very precise in it's formulation of theory, or uniform in the application of it. Using such convoluted terms as "struggle for existence", "innate aggression", "selfish genes", and even the central term Natural Selection is open for diverse interpretation. I think Darwinists influence is more notable for it's offspin social darwinism, then in creating actual formal and systemized knowledge. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[QUOTE][b]I challenge every evolutionist to seriously rebut this thesis.[/QUOTE]
[/b] Why don't you explain your position more in depth first?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Don't certain kinds of solar or cosmic radiation tend to changea racimic (sp?) mix of left and right handed amino acids into predominantly one or the other (not thought about this one for a couple of years now, bit rusty). That being the case, and considering the earth is largely protectedNOW by it's atmosphere, I don't see that as a huge problem, even discounting the possibilities of the first organic matter orginating off-earth (which we can't really dismiss entirely since there are findings which suggest that such material could survive on meteors ... there was a news article about it a while ago so ...) quote: Hmm ... not sure about this one, never have been. Is it sufficientto undermine IC by being able to imagine a way that a supposed IC could have come about ? If it is, and its feasible, I'm reasonably sure that you coulddiscount most IC arguments ... their a bit subjective aren't they ? quote: Tell me which definition of information, and why you believethat there is any information in organisms and I'll respond. quote: I looked this up and found some url's that seem to suggest thatthis is not only not a problem, but to be expected. How does having sections of the genome that appear to dolittle impact evolutionary theory ? Remove one and there is little effect ... how about removing three,or four ? Surely we are taking only the first steps into genetic researchand should be cautious before stating that this or that is the case. quote: Was it supposed to ? Does it need to to be valid ? Falsifiably on ALL levels ? Then why has it persisted forso long ? Could you provide specific falsifications ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Evolution is not aimed at describing organisms, it is aimed atdescribing diversity of life, and is thus targetted at populations. quote: But if IC does exist in reality it puts a limit on evolution.
quote: You're entitled to your opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Please expand on your four devastations of evolutionary theory.
Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
Gene90 & mark24's questions are, I think, both necessary before we can really attempt to refute or argue for any of the 1-4 you have listed.
------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7665 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Mark,
The first thing we have to do is to set the rules and make a couple of definitions. a) What keeps NDT going?1) randomness and mutation 2) natural selection 3) belief in 1 and 2 b) When does the NDT fall?1) randomness cannot hold 2) natural selection cannot hold 3) predictions done by NDT are wrong/falsified Agree? Furthermore, I expect you to read all articles I refer to, otherwise it does not make sense to continue this discussion. Peter "obliterating NDT" Borger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7665 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Peter
The first thing we have to do is to set the rules and make a couple of definitions. a) What keeps NDT going?1) randomness and mutation 2) natural selection 3) belief in 1 and 2 b) When does the NDT fall?1) randomness cannot hold 2) natural selection cannot hold 3) predictions done by NDT are wrong/falsified Agree? Furthermore, I expect you to read all articles I refer to, otherwise it does not make sense to continue this discussion. Peter "obliterating NDT" Borger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
Peter B.
You should contact these guys and explain to them why evolution is useless and explain to the journals that evolution is falsified: Scientists at The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) have completed the genomic sequence of a green-sulfur bacterium, Chlorobium tepidum, which provides important insights into the evolution and the mechanism of photosynthesis. and: Researchers at MIT and Rice University have discovered that microRNAs, an emerging class of non-protein gene regulators thus far only identified in animals, also exist in plants. By extending the known phylogenetic range of miRNAs to plants, this work points to an ancient evolutionary origin for microRNAs. The report is published in the July 1 issue of the scientific journal Genes & Development. and: A Saint Louis University geologist has unearthed further evidence in his mounting case that shifting of the continents -- and perhaps life on Earth -- began much earlier than many scientists believe. Tim Kusky has discovered the first large intact pieces of oceanic mantle from the planet's earliest period. The nearly mile-long section of rock, which is billions of years old, may hold clues as to when life developed. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7665 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Professor,
Apparently you did not read these papers, but only skimmed the summary. If you had even started reading the paper by Eisen et al (about Chlorobium) you would have noted immediately in the introduction the sentence: "The Chlorobia have unique mechanisms of photosynthesis relative to other phototrophs". What do you think the word unique stands for in evolution theory? Please do not copy the opinion of others but be objective and read the articles you refer to". I invite you to be specific in your references and keep it scientifically (i.e. referencees included). Best wishes, Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Okay, you've devastated evolution. Now tell us what you've got. Surely you have something better, or is this just a sophomoric exercise? Come on, show us your academic integrity and tell us what you think really happened. Remember that you have to explain a lot of other data, such as the fossil record.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: Well, I went and read two of the three articles and did not see anything remotely supporting your 'deadly' analysis of evolution. Have you anything substantive to support your assertion? Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7665 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
I've challenged Peter and Mark that I will overthrow NDT and now we are setting up the rules and definitions.
By the way, your remaining statements have nothing to do with NDT, so I am not going to respond to that. Peter [This message has been edited by peter borger, 07-10-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7665 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Be patient
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024