Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8987 total)
46 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, PaulK, xongsmith (4 members, 42 visitors)
Newest Member: Robert Smith
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 878,011 Year: 9,759/23,288 Month: 774/1,544 Week: 166/322 Day: 20/66 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the scientific end of evolution theory
peter borger
Member (Idle past 6222 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 1 of 20 (13035)
07-08-2002 7:16 AM


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

------------------


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Syamsu, posted 07-08-2002 8:10 AM peter borger has not yet responded
 Message 3 by gene90, posted 07-08-2002 8:39 AM peter borger has responded
 Message 4 by Peter, posted 07-08-2002 8:45 AM peter borger has responded
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 07-08-2002 12:06 PM peter borger has responded
 Message 7 by TrueCreation, posted 07-08-2002 12:26 PM peter borger has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Joe Meert, posted 07-09-2002 8:55 PM peter borger has responded
 Message 13 by edge, posted 07-09-2002 11:35 PM peter borger has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4146 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 2 of 20 (13037)
07-08-2002 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by peter borger
07-08-2002 7:16 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by peter borger, posted 07-08-2002 7:16 AM peter borger has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Peter, posted 07-08-2002 8:47 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 2379 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 3 of 20 (13040)
07-08-2002 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by peter borger
07-08-2002 7:16 AM


[QUOTE][b]I challenge every evolutionist to seriously rebut this thesis.[/QUOTE]

[/b]

Why don't you explain your position more in depth first?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by peter borger, posted 07-08-2002 7:16 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by peter borger, posted 07-10-2002 10:21 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 4 of 20 (13042)
07-08-2002 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by peter borger
07-08-2002 7:16 AM


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 ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by peter borger, posted 07-08-2002 7:16 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by peter borger, posted 07-09-2002 8:54 PM Peter has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 5 of 20 (13043)
07-08-2002 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Syamsu
07-08-2002 8:10 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Syamsu, posted 07-08-2002 8:10 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3752 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 6 of 20 (13063)
07-08-2002 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by peter borger
07-08-2002 7:16 AM


Please expand on your four devastations of evolutionary theory.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by peter borger, posted 07-08-2002 7:16 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by peter borger, posted 07-09-2002 8:50 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 20 (13064)
07-08-2002 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by peter borger
07-08-2002 7:16 AM


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.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by peter borger, posted 07-08-2002 7:16 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 6222 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 8 of 20 (13187)
07-09-2002 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mark24
07-08-2002 12:06 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 07-08-2002 12:06 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 6222 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 9 of 20 (13188)
07-09-2002 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Peter
07-08-2002 8:45 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Peter, posted 07-08-2002 8:45 AM Peter has not yet responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4236 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 10 of 20 (13189)
07-09-2002 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by peter borger
07-08-2002 7:16 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by peter borger, posted 07-08-2002 7:16 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by peter borger, posted 07-09-2002 11:03 PM Joe Meert has responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 6222 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 12 of 20 (13204)
07-09-2002 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Joe Meert
07-09-2002 8:55 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Joe Meert, posted 07-09-2002 8:55 PM Joe Meert has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Joe Meert, posted 07-09-2002 11:52 PM peter borger has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 263 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 13 of 20 (13214)
07-09-2002 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by peter borger
07-08-2002 7:16 AM


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),
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


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by peter borger, posted 07-08-2002 7:16 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by peter borger, posted 07-10-2002 2:33 AM edge has not yet responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4236 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 14 of 20 (13220)
07-09-2002 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by peter borger
07-09-2002 11:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
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

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by peter borger, posted 07-09-2002 11:03 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by peter borger, posted 07-10-2002 2:27 AM Joe Meert has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 6222 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 15 of 20 (13228)
07-10-2002 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Joe Meert
07-09-2002 11:52 PM


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Joe Meert, posted 07-09-2002 11:52 PM Joe Meert has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 6222 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 16 of 20 (13229)
07-10-2002 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by edge
07-09-2002 11:35 PM


Be patient

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by edge, posted 07-09-2002 11:35 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by mark24, posted 07-10-2002 11:08 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020