the scientific end of evolution theory

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
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),

---

Don't certain kinds of solar or cosmic radiation tend to change
a 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 protected
NOW 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:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:

2) irreducible complexity of biochemistry

---

Hmm ... not sure about this one, never have been. Is it sufficient
to 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 could
discount most IC arguments ... their a bit subjective aren't
they ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:

3) information theory

---

Tell me which definition of information, and why you believe
that there is any information in organisms and I'll respond.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:

4) genetic redundancies

---

I looked this up and found some url's that seem to suggest that
this is not only not a problem, but to be expected.How does having sections of the genome that appear to do
little 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 research
and should be cautious before stating that this or that is the
case.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:

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.

---

Was it supposed to ? Does it need to to be valid ?Falsifiably on ALL levels ? Then why has it persisted for
so long ?Could you provide specific falsifications ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
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?

---

Evolution is not aimed at describing organisms, it is aimed at
describing diversity of life, and is thus targetted at populations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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.

---

But if IC does exist in reality it puts a limit on evolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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.

---

You're entitled to your opinion.