+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 51
Latest: JUST4TheFACTS
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 14379
Total Topics: 264
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Darwin  (Read 7878 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31334
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
In regard to Darwinian explanations of why we are the way we are:   ;D

Quote
Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple:

Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable.

Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers.

When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”

Philip Skell (1918–2010), a leading chemist.



Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31334
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #46 on: July 27, 2014, 12:05:36 am »
G.K. Chesterton had the Nazis down on the Darwinian ethic on both counts:

Quote

"Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals … That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws."

The Darwinian core, and fundamentally anti-Christian character, of Nazism

A review of Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview by Jerry Bergman
 Joshua Press, Ontario, 2012

http://creation.com/bergman-nazism-darwinian-review

Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31334
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
If IT feels good, do it!!!!?
« Reply #47 on: July 28, 2014, 04:11:24 pm »
Ashvin said,
Quote
I think it's silly to ignore the connection between these core selfless values and Christian belief. It not only advocates these values, but provides the regenerative framework for incorporating them into all areas of our lives. When I look around the world today, I see no similar framework in any other ideology or movement, religious or secular. Some focus solely on spiritual experience, some on personal discipline, some on political activism, some on the environment, some on the economy, some on human rights, etc., etc., but, as far as I can tell, only Biblical Christianity encompasses all of these and more.


Well said. RE is fond of pointing to the "insufficiency" of the actions of Jesus on the environmental, human caloric intake and justice against bad guys score. Yet RE (and me too for a large part of my life  :() are willing victims of vicious propaganda that he refuses to take action on because of his addiction to smoking.

You cannot have it both ways, RE. Your criticism of Christianity is based on its perversion by human frailty and evil, not on the tenets of Christianity itself.  ;)

Look at this picture WORTH A LOT MORE THAN A THOUSAND "WORDS" (i.e. millions of cancers, severe pollution, biosphere degradation and billions of dollars in DIRTY "profits" from suckers like you and I - Darwin, Freud and Bernays GIFTED  that to us, NOT CHRISTIANITY!).


Mr. JRM: Smoking and the rampant use of fossil fuels was/is an ENJOYABLE PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE, was it not, Mr. JRM (who believes anyone alleging that experience isn't the be all, end all of life is talking "tripe" LOL!)?   

ANYONE that thinks EXPERIENCE trumps all is a perfect sucker target for ME FIRST Madison Avenue manipulation that starts with pleasure and ends with poison and tyranny.  The doctrine of self-denial is not a sadistic exercise in stupidity, it is the only proper way for human society to practice sustainability and harmony with other human beings and the biosphere. Raising human EXPERIENCE TO NUMERO UNO is really SUCKER BAIT pseudo spiritual TRIPE! 

If IT feels good, do it!!!!?    Nope.
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31334
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #48 on: August 20, 2014, 07:05:40 pm »
The 3 Rs of Evolution: Rearrange, Remove, Ruin—in other words, no evolution!

The genetic changes observed in living things today could not have turned bacteria into basset hounds—ever

http://creation.com/3-rs-of-evolution
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31334
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #49 on: September 09, 2014, 11:46:18 pm »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65BaW6-9ov0&feature=player_embedded


The Modus Operandi of Evolutionary Prevaricators in the Service of Darwinian Religion.   
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31334
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #50 on: September 13, 2014, 11:28:29 pm »
In regard to GAPS in the Theory of Evolution, even Chopra says that the Purpose preceded the Process    instead of the other way around     like the Darwin true believers claim.

I dislike the way Chopra puts molecular machines in quotes as if the AREN'T real machines. They ARE machines and they are FAR MORE EFFICIENT thermodynamically than anything Homo SAP has invented. It is an established scientific mathematical factorial statistical fact that cell machinery has NOT HAD ENOUGH TIME through random mutations to get all these molecular machines to evolve AND work in concert for maintaining and reproducing life. 12 billion years is not enough for the cell machinery. I've brought that here various times with scholarly references and I get studiously ignored.  ;D Good luck getting people here to question evolution or agree there are ANY gaps in that fairy tale.

You know that fruit fly with the TWO PAIRS of wings celebrated as "proof" of evolution? Did you know the extra pair of perfectly formed wings (allegedly a "positive" mutation like those necessary to establish some credibility to the Darwinian claim that natural selection produces SUPERIOR species rather than winnow OUT constantly degrading DNA) HAVE NO FLIGHT MUSCLES? That's right. They don't work. All the energy used to make them was WASTED and they represent an evolutionary DEAD END.

Behold, the evolutionary DEAD END paraded as "proof" of "evolution". 

In molecular biology, that four winged fruit fly is an ICON of EVOLUTION! It's SO PURTY that they paraded it all over the place!   ;)

Quote

The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. No random mutations that could represent the mutations required by Neo-Darwinian Theory that have been examined on the molecular level have added any information. The question I address is: Are the mutations that have been observed the kind the theory needs for support? The answer turns out to be NO! 16


Quote
Experiments on fruit flies:

 As long as a mutation does not change the morphology—that is, the shape—of an organism, it cannot be the raw material of evolution. One of the living things in which morphological mutations have been most intensively studied is the fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster). In one of the many mutations Drosophila was subjected to, the two-winged fruit fly developed a second pair of wings. Ever since 1978 this four-winged fruit fly has gained great popularity in textbooks and other evolutionist publications.

However, one point that evolutionist publications hardly ever mention is that the extra wings possess no flight muscles.  ;) These fruit flies are therefore deformed, since these wings represent a serious obstacle to flight.

They also have difficulties in mating.  :emthdown: They are unable to survive in the wild.  :emthdown: In his important book Icons of Evolution, the American biologist Jonathan Wells studies the four-winged fruit fly, together with other classic Darwinist propaganda tools, and explains in great detail why this example does not constitute evidence for evolution.

Quote


The NAS's Errors Regarding Mutations


 The National Academy of Sciences suggests that mutations provide the necessary genetic variation for evolution, and refers to them as follows: "They may or may not equip the organism with better means for surviving in its environment." (Science and Creationism, p. 10). In fact, however, contrary to what the NAS authors claim, mutations do not lead to beneficial characteristics, and all experiments and observations on this subject have confirmed this fact
.

http://m.harunyahya.com/tr/Books/973/The-Errors-The-American-National-Academy-Of-Sciences/chapter/3216/The-nass-errors-regarding-mutations


Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31334
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #51 on: September 17, 2014, 10:27:06 pm »
RE,
Rationalization of genocide as an order from God versus rationalization of genocide as a scientifically beneficial application of the Theory of Evolution (i.e. eugenics) are TOTALLY different RATIONALIZATIONS. Word substitution?

Baloney! That's fallacious logic! Given that BOTH ARE INCORRECT rationalizations as a correct premise, THEN (and ONLY then) you could claim that word substitution applies.  But, YOU believe that the application of the Theory of Evolution by Eugenics is NOT a rationalization based on an "invented" deity that looks after his favored Homo SAPS. YOU believe that there are Homo SAPS that are more fit than others BECAUSE of the Theory of Evolution, do you not?  ;D

You rightly believe that the NAZIs "perverted" the concept of Eugenics to justify scapegoating the Jews. At THAT POINT you ASSUMED that the "invented" deity followers who were "just following orders" to commit holy genocide are in exactly the same cheap, cruel and merciless "rationalization" boat.  And that IS fallacious logic!

WHY? Because, among other amoral "science" based (immoral in my view) aspects of the Theory of Evolution, you probably would have agreed with Alexander Graham Bell  (when it was thought incorrectly that deaf people pass on deafness to their offspring 100% of the time) to sterilize deaf people. :whip:

YOU have no problems at all with the Theory of Evolution. Every "application" of science that involves cruelty to animals to "knock out genetically modified mice" is NOT a rationalization to YOU; it's "justified" scientifically! THAT is what Ashvin and I are trying to get through to you.

You want to draw the line when NAZIs waste Hereros first followed by German half wits, the diseased the unemployed, the low I.Q, the vagrants and then the Jews? WHY? Because HUMANS are DIFFERENT? Not according to the Theory of Evolution!

You want say, well, Homo SAPs have always been wasting each other and using lousy excuses like God or whatever. Fine! Do you, or do you NOT agree that the Theory of Evolution is the CHEAP RATIONALIZATION for GENOCIDE of the Hereros, low class, diseased and handicapped Germans and the Jews? Because if you STILL BELIEVE that the Theory of Evolution is a VALID theory, you are claiming it is NOT a CHEAP RATIONALIZATION for Genocide.

Your constant mockery of "invented deity" followers is clear. We get it.  ;D Well, my constant mockery of evolutionary theory TRUE BELIEVERS is clear too. I can PROVE the link to human genocides as I have in the past few posts form Darwin on down.   

In the light of the FACT that the CHOSEN PEOPLE were NOT exempt from the same standard of judgement (according to the O.T. they were and are NOT UBERMENSCH!), the O.T. God ordered butchery is to be looked at (by those who DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD   ;D) PRECISELY as the NATURAL tendency of people to waste those that are in the way, so to speak, not some supernatural vindictive God out to show his sadistic nature. 

The same with the Crusades and the inquisition. For a Christian, they were NOT a "come to Jesus, or else" moment. They WERE a PERVERSION of the Gospel. You have one hell of a difficulty seeing the difference. What do you want, a scientific experiment with this universe as the control group and two other "knock out" GMO universes where

1) Homo SAPs are TOTALLY science based empirical everything with no tendency whatsoever to "invent" deities and the REALLY FUN  ;) universe where

2) Homo SAPs are TOTALLY "invented" deity motivated?

Of course we can only speculate on which one will produce Homo SAP EXTINCTION first (or at all).  :icon_mrgreen: But it seems to me that you really do believe that "1)" is the better alternative.  8)

But thought experiments aside, let's get real here, RE. YOU do NOT believe the Hebrews were "obeying Jehovah God" when they went about the genocidal activity so common to Homo SAP tribal warfare. YOU think their top dogs just used that as an authority fig leaf to get the people to kill the injuns.

When you DO start believing that God isn't on vacation, is here now and just didn't wind up the pantheistic clock and set this universe going before He moved on to the next jolly super being voyeuristic sado/masochistic exercise  :evil4:, THEN we can talk about the O.T. God of Vengeance.

And you cannot claim "word substitution" (i.e. equal cheap rationalization for genocide) applies to EUGENICS because you firmly believe that we live in an EVOLUTION BASED RANDOM UNIVERSE. It's a HUGE cop out to claim Evolution Theory and medical science experiments on "lower" life forms is OKAY but it's not okay to do it on Humans. Think about it. Darwin unleashed a CHEAP RATIONALIZATION for GENOCIDE that fueled the deaths of MILLIONS OF PEOPLE!

It's NOT okay to experiment on life forms for ANY REASON. Evolutionary theory REQUIRES that we do so to learn how to better DOMINATE all other species for OUR UBERMENSCH BENEFIT in health and increased longevity. It's NOT OPTIONAL for an APEX PREDATOR of HIGH INTELLIGENCE to do that. That includes GENOCIDAL WARFARE on the UNFIT as well.

As a Christian, I firmly believe that is WRONG and is the 'DO NOT PASS GO, DO NOT COLLECT $200' PATH to our moral decay and species suicide.    You don't.

Word substation is fallacious logic. Try again.  ;D
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31334
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #52 on: September 18, 2014, 09:38:40 pm »
Scientific proof of God

Dr. Gerald Schroeder is NOT a Christian Fundy.    He is an EMINENT SCIENTIFC AUTHORITY. He can think rings around ANYBODY HERE (you too, RE! )!

Atheist PUBLIC reaction ---->     


Atheist PRIVATE reaction ----> 

Gerald Schroeder earned his BSc, MSc and PhD at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is the author of GENESIS AND THE BIG BANG, the discovery of harmony between modern science and the Bible , published by Bantam Doubleday; now in seven languages; and THE SCIENCE OF GOD, published by Free Press of Simon & Schuster, and THE HIDDEN FACE OF GOD, also published by Free Press of Simon & Schuster. He teaches at Aish HaTorah College of Jewish Studies. :emthup: :icon_sunny:

Video by Dr. Gerald Schroeder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzetqYev_AI&feature=player_embedded

Posted in: Jewish Beliefs & Philosophy

Snippet:

The big bang of animal evolution is quite amazing. Every, it is described quite succinctly in Scientific American, that every phylum that exists today came into being simultaneously. 


There are approximately 34 animal phyla; all of those 34 appear in the fossil record, in the strata called the Cambrian explosion. Of which Darwin knew about, it was not dated, he just assumed that the strata in which every body type, in which every body type that exists today, not little people sleeping through lectures, no, but simply here is chordata, that is our first formation in our phylum, it is primitive fish. These are the first insects, the trilobites, and there are mollusks, and all, all together, all the 34 appear out of the blue. 3.8 billion years ago, 3.6, 3.7 approximately, 3.8 billion years ago, water forms, life begins. For 3 billion years, life remains one cell, then out of the blue, the Cambrian explosion produces this menagerie of life, these are drawings of the American Museum of Natural History, they showed in Time magazine. In that life, already our eyes, every phylum that has eyes today appeared in the fossil record for the first time with eyes. Now that is quite amazing. So Darwin assumed that other fossils would be found that would show a difference. What other fossils have been found, it becomes worse and worse constrained for these explosions of life, these punctuated of life. And hence, the Journal of Science which is the leading overall peer review science journal in the United States, had an article in 1995 by Robert Kerr said did Darwin get it all right, did Darwin get it all right, the subtitle was no, Darwin did not get it all right. That species appear in the fossil record with an amazingly un-Darwinian abruptness. What does it mean?

It means we still do not understand what is going on and it is interesting to see how one of the leaders, one of the leaders in this understanding that life became by random reactions, how this person had the fortitude mentally to change his opinion. It is George Wald, Nobel Prize winner, professor of biology, Harvard University, wrote an extraordinary interesting article called “The Origin of Life.” The Origin of Life, 1954, was based on a thesis that in fact life could start by random reactions. Scientific American, “The Origin of Life,” George Wald. Wald becomes a Nobel Prize winner for discovering the role of Vitamin E, I think it is E, maybe it is A, yeah, beg your pardon, in visual, the functioning of the retina. Here is what he had to say in 1954, however, remember, water, first life, water appears here, and in 1950’s and 60’s, the first fossils were only a half a billion years ago, so there are 3 billion years of blank space in there in which life is thought to have evolved. So he is talking about these 3 billion years for the random reactions. However improbable you regard the invent of the origin of life, or any steps it involves, give it enough time, it will almost certainly happen at least once, and for life as we know it, once may be enough. Time is in fact the here of the.., you have got to think humorous here, time is in fact the here of the plot, the time with which we have to deal with is nearly 2 billion years. What we regard as impossible in the human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the impossible becomes the possible, the possible probable, the probable virtually certain, one is only to wait time itself performs the miracle. That is 1954.

Comes another Harvard professor in 1975 and 76, Elsa Barsham discovers that the oldest big fossils that we have, fossils that you can easily see, do indeed date, only to about 600 million years, about a half a billion years ago. But the fossil record Professor Barsham discovered goes back 3.8 billion years or 3.7 billion years.  :o But it is one celled before the Cambrian explosion, there are close to 3 billion years, 3 thousand million years of one celled life, one celled, one celled, one celled, and then out of the blue this explosion of life. And based on that 25 years later after 1954, Scientific American reprinted Wald’s article with a retraction, they retracted the article. Although stimulating, this article probably represents one of the few times in his professional life was wrong, can we really examine this man’s thesis and see, can we really perform a biological cell by waiting for chance combinations of organic compounds. This would require more time than the universe might ever see if chance random combinations were the only driving force for life. Since 1979 you will not find it, in peer review journals, the fact that life started by random reactions. You will always find that a catalyst is required, a force is required, something is required in the environment that forces the life to occur.

Wald being intellectually honest and strong of character in 1984, 5 years after the retraction, and 30 years after his article about random reactions producing life, which led research off on a wild goose chase for about 25 years, Wald writes the following. In an article published in the International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, the quantum phenomena has changed our understanding of the universe and here, listen to his wording, it is exquisite, on his retraction, not of his article, but his previous thesis that the world was totally materialistic. This is a man that said time in fact performs the miracles, notice that leaves something out. It has occurred to me lately, this is Wald direct quote, in the International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 1984, “It has occurred to me lately and I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities,” this is Wald speaking, “and I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities that the questions of the origin of consciousness in humans, and the origin of life from non living matter, might both be brought to some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that mind, that mind, rather then emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life has in fact existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of the physical reality, that stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind stuff, it is mind that has composed the physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that no one creates, creates science and art and technology, these animals, humans, in them the universe begins to know itself.” And Wald stated a bit of his heritage, you might have seen that in kabala was talking about the last 2,000 years.

But quantum physics caught up with it also.
James Jeans the mathematician, there is a wide agreement which in the physical side of the sciences approaches unanimity that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non mechanical reality that the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder in the realm of matter, we are beginning to suspect that we ought to hail mind as the creator and the governor of the realm of matter. Not of course our individual minds but the mind in which the atoms out of which the entire universe has grown exist as thoughts. Werner Heisenberg Nobel Laureate in quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics has placed the universe in a different footing, quantum mechanics is part of, it is not some esoteric theory on the corner in a shelf somewhere. Quantum mechanics allows your digital watch to work, allows your remote control that turn on your TV or opens your car to work, it allows your clock radio to work, it allows, essentially from the time you get up to the time you go to bed, the theories and understanding the quanta have changed electronics in your life. Verna Heisenberg - inherent difficulties in the materialist theories of existence that everything is material, the materialist theories of existence have appeared very clearly in the development of the physics of the 20th century. This difficulty relates to the question as whether the smallest units of matter such as atoms in which we and all objects from bacteria to galaxies are composed or ordinary physical objects, whether they exist in the same way as flowers and stones, that you can touch them. Here the quantum theory has created a complete change in the situation. The smallest units of matter are not in fact physical objects, in the ordinary sense of the word, they are ideas.

Erwin Schrodinger winner of the Nobel Prize the year after Heisenberg, both again for quantum mechanics. So in brief, we do not belong to this material role that science constructs for us. We, the awareness of being ourselves are not part of it. We are outside, we are only spectators, the reason why we believe that we are in it, that we belong to this picture is that our bodies are in the picture, and that is the only way of our minds communicating within. The reality is there is a substrate, that has allowed this phenomenal complexity to exist. That things like DNA, itself is complex, but it is a closed book. The real complexity of life is not in the DNA. The real complexity of life is the reading of the DNA of which course the DNA is self structured to develop a system that can read it. The reading of the DNA, the complexity of life, is overwhelming. The question is from where does it arise. How did light beams manage to do all these things. Let alone to wonder about them. Because that is what is happening with condensed light beams. It sounds corny, we are condensed, or poetic that we are made of stardust. But we are. 5 billion years ago, everything you see around you, including what you see in the mirror when you brush your teeth in the morning was stardust and it just happened to become alive. And that stardust was made up with primitive, initial elements of the universe, the hydrogen and the helium, a few of the elements, and those elements were made of quarks, and those quarks were made of the light of creation. The light of creation shines in everyone. We just have to let it shine forth.


Posted in: Jewish Beliefs & Philosophy

http://www.simpletoremember.com/authors/a/dr-gerald-schroeder/
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31334
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #53 on: September 18, 2014, 10:50:24 pm »
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31334
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #54 on: September 19, 2014, 12:37:23 am »
Evolution’s oyster twist


The oyster, Ostrea sp. (left), was said to have evolved over millions of years into the coiled shell Gryphaea sp.—also known as “the devil’s toenails” (right). But there’s a new ‘twist’ to the story—Gryphaea’s coiling has nothing to do with evolution.

by David Catchpoole

SNIPPET:

Quote
Oysters have the unfortunate distinction that they were one of the first examples of an alleged proof of evolutionary lineage in the fossil record (mooted by paleontologist A.E. Trueman in 1922).1 The ‘flat’ oyster, Ostrea sp., was said to have evolved into the coiled shell Gryphaea sp. Several generations of science students were taught this as ‘one of the best documented cases of evolution’ in the fossil record.

However, today it seems that coiling is a built-in programming response to the environment, i.e. mud-sticking oysters grow into a coiled cup-shaped form, while oysters attaching to firmer substrate2 grow to be ‘flat, fan-shaped recliners’.3 So, coiling is an individual growth response to local environment; not a millions-of-years evolutionary twist.  8)


http://creation.com/oyster-twist
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31334
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
LEGO Blocks Amino Acids and Protein Folding Fun
« Reply #55 on: September 19, 2014, 11:10:47 pm »


The Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser case involved a Canadian farmer who discovered Roundup Ready Canola seed in his farm despite never using it.
Users of this weed controller are forced to enter into an agreement with Monsanto that specifies the repurchase of the new seed every year, along with an annual licensing fee.

Percy Schmeiser was a canola breeder in Canada, but had never used Monsanto’s products. Unfortunately, he discovered that a section of his field was resistant to the herbicide Roundup, the harvest was sold without him knowing. Monsanto then sued Schmeiser for patent infringement. The farm maintained that the selling of Roundup ready crop was accidental, and the seed had flown into the harvest from a passing truck. The court found Schmeiser guilty  >:(, as growing GM plants constitutes using patented GMO’s.  


It's the LAW! Monsanto REARRANGED genetic material so they OWN the patent to the GMO, RIGHT?

They OWN the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY to the GMO they, painstakingly and with deliberate, INTELLIGENT DESIGN, CREATED with their KNOWLEDGE of Molecular biology and genetics.  ;D

These GMOs are NOT the result of RANDOM MUTATIONS. Monsanto created them so they must be credited with the work done to create them (even if the creation wasn't ex nihllo. Whaddaya want, eggs in yer beer!!?  ;D). 



To understand how Monsanto LOGIC ;D works, let's pretend a unique LEGO Block represents every one of the 20 AMINO ACIDS that exist and compose proteins in ALL LIVING THINGS.






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdM7zMUzH_Y&feature=player_embedded

Now, please watch an animation of an ACTUAL HEMOGLOBIN Protein being manufactured at link to the video after the description.

Description: Fascinating clip explaining how densely packed information (in the form of DNA) is unpacked, turning said information into actual proteins.

This process of transcription and translation is in all aspects a complete language system, with sender, receiver, messenger, and translation algorithms.


This language convention and the transcendent information it conveys defies evolutionary dogma at every turn.

http://www.savevid.com/video/dna-transcription-amp-translation.html

 


Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31334
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Color vision as we know it resulted from one fortuitous genetic event after another.

http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/41055/title/The-Rainbow-Connection/


Agelbert NOTE: My, what a LUCKY and FORTUITIOUS Universe we live in!  ;D God? What God? No God here, there or ANYWHERE.





 
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31334
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Can you tell the difference between Evolution and Natural Selection?

Muddy Waters


Clarifying the confusion about natural selection


by Carl Wieland

‘Natural selection’ is often referred to as ‘survival of the fittest’ or, more recently, ‘reproduction of the fittest’. Many people are confused about it, thinking that evidence for natural selection is automatically evidence for the idea that molecules turned into microbes, which became millipedes, magnolias and managing directors. Most presentations of evolution add to the confusion by conveniently failing to point out that even according to evolutionary theory, this cannot be true; natural selection by itself makes no new things.
 
Darwin the plagiarist?

Natural selection is really a very straight-forward, commonsense insight. A creationist, the chemist/zoologist Edward Blyth (1810–1873), wrote about it in 1835–7, before Darwin, who very likely borrowed the idea from Blyth.1 An organism may possess some inheritable trait or character which, in a given environment, gives that organism a greater chance of passing on all of its genes to the next generation (compared with those of its fellows which don’t have it). Over succeeding generations that trait or character has a good chance of becoming more widespread in that population. Such an improved chance of reproductive success (i.e. having offspring) might be obtained in several ways:

A greater chance of survival. I.e. the organism is ‘more fit to survive’. This is what ‘survival of the fittest’ means, by the way; it does not necessarily refer to physical fitness as commonly understood. If you are more (or less) likely to survive, you are correspondingly more (or less) likely to have offspring, and thus to pass your genes on. For instance, genes for longer hair will improve an animal’s chances of surviving in a cold climate. Genes for white colouring will improve the camouflage of a bear in a snowy wilderness (camouflage does not just help an animal avoid being caught and eaten; it can also help a predator to sneak up on prey). By thus being more likely to avoid starvation, a lighter-coloured bear is more likely to be around to pass its lighter colouring on to the next generation.

A greater chance of finding a mate. If the females of a fish species habitually prefer mates with longer tails, then male fish with genes for longer tails will have more chance of reproducing, on average, so that their genes (which include those for long tails) have more chance of getting copied. The long-tail genes (and thus the long-tail variety) will therefore become more common in that population.

Any other way of enhancing reproductive success. Consider a plant species, the seeds of which are dispersed by wind. If it has genes which give its seeds a shape that confers on them slightly better aerodynamic ‘lift’ than the seeds of its fellows, then the genes for that particular trait (and thus the trait itself) will be favoured, i.e. ‘selected’ in this ‘natural’ way, hence the term. Conversely, if that plant species happens to be on a small island, seeds which travel far are going to be more likely to be ‘lost at sea’. Hence genes which give less ‘lift’ will be favoured. Presuming that genes for both short-distance and long-distance seed air travel were available, this simple effect would ensure that all the members of an island population of such plants would eventually produce only ‘short-flight’ seeds; genes for ‘long-flight’ seeds would have been eliminated.

Adaptation

In such a way, creatures can become more adapted (better suited) to the environment in which they find themselves. Say a population of plants has a mix of genes for the length of its roots. Expose that population over generations to repeated spells of very dry weather, and the plants most likely to survive are the ones which have longer roots to get down to deeper water tables. Thus, the genes for shorter roots are less likely to get passed on (see diagram above). In time, none of these plants will any longer have genes for short roots, so they will be of the ‘long root’ type. They are now better adapted to dry conditions than their forebears were.

Diagram (at link)

Darwin’s belief


This adaptation, really a ‘fine-tuning to the environment’, was seen by Darwin to be a process which was essentially creative, and virtually without limits. If ‘new’ varieties could arise in a short time to suit their environment, then given enough time, any number of new characteristics, to the extent of totally new creatures, could appear. This was how, he believed, lungs originally arose in a lungless world, and feathers in a featherless one. Darwin did not know how heredity really works, but people today should know better. He did not know, for instance, that what is passed on in reproduction is essentially a whole lot of parcels of information (genes), or coded instructions.

It cannot be stressed enough that what natural selection actually does is get rid of information. It is not capable of creating anything new, by definition. In the above example, the plants became better able to survive dry weather because of the elimination of certain genes; i.e. they lost a portion of the information which their ancestors had. The information for the longer roots was already in the parent population; natural selection caused nothing new to arise in, or be added to, the population.

The price paid for adaptation, or specialization, is always the permanent loss of some of the information in that group of organisms. If the environment were changed back so that shorter roots were the only way for plants to survive, the information for these would not magically ‘reappear’; the population would no longer be able to adapt in this direction. The only way for a short-rooted variety to arise as an adaptation to the environment would be if things began once more with the ‘mixed’ or ‘mongrel’ parent population, in which both types of genes were present.

Built-in limits to variation

Dogs

In such an information-losing process, there is automatically a limit to variation, as gene pools cannot keep on losing their information indefinitely.

This can be seen in breeding, which is just another version of (in this case, artificial) selection—the principle is exactly the same as natural selection. Take horses. People have been able to breed all sorts of varieties from wild horses—big working horses, miniature toy ponies, and so on. But limits are soon reached, because selection can only work on what is already there. You can breed for horse varieties with white coats, brown coats and so forth, but no amount of breeding selection will ever generate a green-haired horse variety—the information for green hair does not exist in the horse population.

Limits to variation also come about because each of the varieties of horse carries less information than the ‘wild’ type from which it descended. Common sense confirms that you cannot start with little Shetland ponies and try to select for Clydesdale draft horses—the information just isn’t there anymore! The greater the specialization (or ‘adaptation’, in this case to the demands of the human breeder, who represents the ‘environment’), the more one can be sure that the gene pool has been extensively ‘thinned out’ or depleted, and the less future variation is possible starting from such stock.

These obvious, logical facts make it clear that natural selection is a far cry from the creative, ‘uphill’, limitless process imagined by Darwin (and many of today’s lay-folk, beguiled by sloppy public education).

Evolutionist theoreticians know this, of course. They know that they must rely on some other process to create the required new information, because the evolution story demands it. Once upon a time, it says, there was a world of living creatures with no lungs. Then the information for lungs somehow arose, but feathers were nowhere in the world—later these arose too. But the bottom line is that natural selection, by itself, is powerless to create. It is a process of ‘culling’, of choosing between several things which must first be in existence.

Natural election

Darwin
Charles Darwin, TFE Grafik (at link)


In 1872, an attempt was made to elect Charles Darwin (left) to the prestigious Zoological Section of the French Institute, but this failed because he received only 15 out of 48 votes.  :o A prominent member of the Academy gave the reason as follows:
Quote

‘What has closed the doors of the Academy to Mr. Darwin is that the science of those of his books which have made his chief title to fame—the "Origin of Species," and still more the "Descent of Man," is not science, but a mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous hypotheses, often evidently fallacious. This kind of publication and these theories are a bad example, which a body that respects itself cannot encourage.’1

However, later on 5 August 1878, Darwin was elected a Corresponding Member in the Botanical Section of the same French Institute.  :o Darwin wrote to Asa Gray as follows:

‘It is rather a good joke that I should be elected in the Botanical Section, as the extent of my knowledge is little more than that a daisy is a Compositous plant and a pea is a Leguminous one.’2

References

1.From Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., London,  2:400, footnote, 1911.
2.Ref. 1, p. 401.

How do evolutionists explain new information?   ???

Since natural selection can only cull, today’s evolutionary theorists rely on mutations (random copying mistakes in the reproductive process) to create the raw material on which natural selection can then operate. But that is a separate issue. It has been shown convincingly that observed mutations do not add information, and that mutation is seriously hampered on theoretical grounds in this area.2 One of the world’s leading information scientists, Dr Werner Gitt from Germany’s Federal Institute of Physics and Technology in Braunschweig, says, ‘There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.’3 His challenge to scientifically falsify this statement has remained unanswered since first published. Even those mutations which give a survival benefit are seen to be losses of information, not creating the sorely needed new material upon which natural selection can then go to work.4 (See ‘Blindingly obvious?’.)

In summary:

1.Natural selection adds no information, in fact it reduces it.
2.Evolution requires a way to add new information.
3.Mutations (genetic copying mistakes) must be invoked to explain how new information arose in order for natural selection to ‘guide’ the assumed evolutionary process.
4.Mutations studied to date all appear to be losses of information—not surprising for a random process.5
5.It is thus quite illegitimate to use instances in which natural selection is happening (reducing the information in populations) as examples of ‘evolution happening’.
6.Natural selection, operating on the created information in the original gene pools, makes good sense in a fallen world.
It can fine-tune the way in which organisms ‘fit’ their environment, and help stave off extinction in a cursed, dying world. By ‘splitting’ a large gene pool into smaller ones, it can add to the amount of observed variety within the descendants of an original kind, just as with the many varieties of horse from one type. Even new ‘species’ can come about like that, but no new information. This helps to explain greater diversity today than on board the Ark.

Perhaps if evolution’s ‘true believers’ really had convincing evidence of a creative process, they would not feel obliged to muddy the waters so often by presenting this ‘downhill’ process (natural selection) as if it demonstrated their belief in the ultimate ‘uphill’ climb—molecules-to-man evolution.

We need to tell this increasingly educated world how the facts about biological change connect to the real history of the world from the Bible, to help them understand and believe the Gospel message that is firmly based upon this real history.
 


Photo by David Cook  {at the link)
Shrimp



Blindingly obvious?


A CMI speaker visiting a cave in Australia was told by the guide about a blind shrimp which, in that lightless environment, had ‘evolved the ability not to see’. (!)

Obviously, a mutation (genetic copying mistake) causing blindness in a shrimp living in the light would normally hinder its ability to survive. However, it would not be a handicap where there was no light, and as a side benefit, the shrimp would not be susceptible to eye infections like its still-seeing relatives.

This slight advantage is enough to ensure that, after a few dozens of generations, all the shrimps will carry the defective gene, and thus will all be blind. They have not in fact evolved any abilities, they have lost one.

A loss can be a survival advantage, but it is still a loss. The evolutionary belief demands that massive amounts of new information have arisen over time; showing how information is lost or corrupted can scarcely be said to support this belief.

http://creation.com/muddy-waters
 
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31334
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #58 on: November 22, 2014, 12:33:20 am »
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31334
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #59 on: December 11, 2014, 07:27:15 pm »
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism 


FAQ:

1) What is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement?
The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a short public statement by scientists expressing their skepticism of Neo-Darwinism’s key claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the primary mechanism for the development of the complexity of life. The full statement reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Prominent scientists who have signed the statement include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe; quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia; U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov; and geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, Editor Emeritus of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum and discoverer of genetic recombination in antibiotic-producing Penicillium and Streptomyces.

2) When and why was the statement created?
The statement was drafted and circulated by Discovery Institute in 2001 in response to widespread claims that no credible scientists existed who doubted Neo-Darwinism. Discovery Institute subsequently took out an ad in The New York Review of Books and elsewhere showcasing over 100 scientists who were willing to publicly express their scientific skepticism of Neo-Darwinism. Since 2001 the signatories of the statement have grown to over 800 scientists, both in the United States and around the world. 

3) Who is eligible to sign the statement?
Signatories of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as  a professor of medicine. Signatories must also agree with the following statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." If you meet these criteria, please consider signing the statement by emailing contact@Dissentfromdarwin.com.

If you are a medical doctor who is skeptical of Darwinian evolution, please visit Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity at www.doctorsdoubtingdarwin.com and join their statement by doctors who dissent from Darwinism.

4) Why is it necessary to have such a statement?
In recent years there has been a concerted effort on the part of some supporters of modern Darwinian theory to deny the existence of scientific critics of Neo-Darwinism and to discourage open discussion of the scientific evidence for and against Neo-Darwinism. The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement exists to correct the public record by showing that there are scientists who support an open examination of the evidence relating to modern Darwinian theory and who question whether Neo-Darwinism can satisfactorily explain the complexity and diversity of the natural world.

5) By signing the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, are signatories endorsing alternative theories such as self-organization, structuralism, or intelligent design?
No. By signing the statement, scientists are simply agreeing with the statement as written.  Signing the statement does not indicate agreement or disagreement with any other scientific theory. It does indicate skepticism about modern Darwinian theory’s central claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life. Signing the statement also indicates support for the careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory.

6) Is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism a political statement?
No.  It is a professional statement by scientists about their assessment of the scientific evidence relating to Neo-Darwinism and an affirmation of the need for careful examination of the evidence for modern Darwinian theory. 

7) Are there credible scientists who doubt Neo-Darwinism?
Yes. Signatories of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines from such institutions as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Dartmouth, Rutgers, University of Chicago, Stanford and University of California at Berkeley.  Many are also professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as Cambridge, Princeton, MIT, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania, University of Georgia, Tulane, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, and Ben-Gurion University in Israel.

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/faq.php

Dissent List (page ONE of TWENTY TWO):


Quote
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

This was last publicly updated April, 2014.

Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.

Philip Skell* Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Lyle H. Jensen Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of Biochemistry University of Washington, Fellow AAAS
Maciej Giertych Full Professor, Institute of Dendrology Polish Academy of Sciences
Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State University Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences
Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics Institute of Developmental Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences
Emil Palecek Prof. of Molecular Biology, Masaryk University; Leading Scientist Inst. of Biophysics, Academy of Sci., Czech Republic
K. Mosto Onuoha Shell Professor of Geology & Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Univ. of Nigeria Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science
Ferenc Jeszenszky Former Head of the Center of Research Groups Hungarian Academy of Sciences
M.M. Ninan Former President Hindustan Academy of Science, Bangalore University (India)
Denis Fesenko Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia)
Sergey I. Vdovenko Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine Organic Synthesis Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry
Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine)
Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia
Paul Ashby Ph.D. Chemistry Harvard University
Israel Hanukoglu Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Chairman The College of Judea and Samaria (Israel)
Alan Linton Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol (UK)
Dean Kenyon Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University
David W. Forslund Ph.D. Astrophysics, Princeton University Fellow of American Physical Society
Robert W. Bass Ph.D. Mathematics (also: Rhodes Scholar; Post-Doc at Princeton) Johns Hopkins University
John Hey Associate Clinical Prof. (also: Fellow, American Geriatrics Society) Dept. of Family Medicine, Univ. of Mississippi
Daniel W. Heinze Ph.D. Geophysics (also: Post-Doc Fellow, Carnegie Inst. of Washington) Texas A&M University
Richard Anderson Assistant Professor of Environmental Science and Policy Duke University
David Chapman* Senior Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Giuseppe Sermonti Professor of Genetics, Ret. (Editor, Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum) University of Perugia (Italy)
Stanley Salthe Emeritus Professor Biological Sciences Brooklyn College of the City University of New York
Marcos N. Eberlin Professor, The State University of Campinas (Brazil) Member, Brazilian Academy of Science

FULL Dissent List:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
 


Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

 

+-Recent Topics

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
December 08, 2019, 07:12:10 am

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
December 07, 2019, 11:02:48 pm

🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 🐍 Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus modus operandi by AGelbert
December 07, 2019, 10:02:35 pm

2020 Presidential Election by AGelbert
December 07, 2019, 09:46:13 pm

🌟 IMPEACHMENT SCORE 🌠 by AGelbert
December 07, 2019, 09:27:57 pm

Comic Relief by AGelbert
December 07, 2019, 06:44:45 pm

BREXIT by AGelbert
December 07, 2019, 02:25:56 pm

Money by AGelbert
December 07, 2019, 12:39:48 am

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
December 06, 2019, 10:39:41 pm

Homebody Handy Hints by AGelbert
December 06, 2019, 03:24:18 pm