+- +-


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

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 52
Latest: Carnesia
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 16222
Total Topics: 264
Most Online Today: 5
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 2
Total: 2

Author Topic: Darwin  (Read 10346 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #135 on: June 05, 2018, 02:19:51 pm »
AG: Once again, you make this categorical statement about "how evolution proceeds" as if I had not heard that mantra repeated ad nauseum throughout my college experience.

All good explanations start at the beginning, so everyone (not just you) understands what we are talking about.  Why "ad nauseam"?  - When you were at college, did the repetition of the explanation  of Darwinian evolution really make you sick?  Darwinism is the explanation that almost the entire world believes, only a few fundamentalist Christians in the US follow Creationism/Intelligent Design.  The Roman Catholic Church rejects ID as unscientific.  Why call it a "mantra" as if it had mystical Hindu powers?  You accuse me of making "ad hominem false accusations", without quoting any , because there are none.

You love to twist words, don't you? I used the word "mantra" in regard to your penchant for unnecessarily repetitious statements. Mysticism is the last thing I would accuse you of.  ;D

It is true that all good explanations start at the beginning. That beginning, however, must not be laced with arrogant posturing as you ad neauseum are so fond of doing in your snide filled sophistic modus operandi. True, I am guilty of answering your grossly inaccurate assumptions about evolution with sarcasm. But, I only resorted to doing that when you showed an inability to deal with this issue politely and respectfully when you resorted to ad hominum sneering and mocking.

There are many scientists who argue, point by point, why the Standard Theory of Evolution is not backed by science (see below). This flies in the face of this erroneous assumption by you:
Darwinism is the explanation that almost the entire world believes, ...

I will not debate this subject with you as long as you flat refuse to address irrefutable points like the TIME it would actually take to "evolve" a simple bacterium like Escherichia coli or any of these other points:

*Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (1012) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells).

Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of 120 mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At least 34 of those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3 nucleotides. Yet, *Eden pointed out that, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result ruins the blood and kills the organism!

*George Wald stood up and explained that he had done extensive research on hemoglobin also,—and discovered that if just ONE mutational change of any kind was made in it, the hemoglobin would not function properly. For example, the change of one amino acid out of 287 in hemoglobin causes sickle-cell anemia. A glutamic acid unit has been changed to a valine unit—and, as a result, 25% of those suffering with this anemia die.

Mind you, a bacterium is a prokariotic organism, far simply than the eukaryotes (eukaryote: any organism having as its fundamental structural unit a cell type that contains specialized organelles in the cytoplasm, a membrane-bound nucleus enclosing genetic material organized into chromosomes, and an elaborate system of division by mitosis or meiosis, characteristic of all life forms except bacteria, blue-green algae, and other primitive microorganisms).

There just was not enough time in our 14 billion year old universe (or a universe multiples of billions of years older, for that matter - but we will leave it at around 14 billion years for now because that is the current scientific consensus  ;)) for such complexity to have "evolved". But, it's here, isn't it?

In the face of the above the Bartel and Szostak experiment was formulated to dance around the probabilty math that undermined evolution theory. The Bartel and Szostak experiment is proof of nothing but some creative speculation from gel electrophoresis results showing an increased catalytic activity of lifeless RNA nucleotides. The probabilty math hurdle (i.e. amount of time required) for the "evolution" of the life complexity we observe in nature to have occurred by random processes is insurmountable.

You refuse to address the blatant flasehoods pushed in the conclusions of that experment. So do not talk to me about "good explanations" starting at the beginning. YOU are the one who does not want to start at the BEGINNING. Your ad nauseum repetition of evolutionist mantra is NOT for the purpose of "explanation", as was done in college, but for the ad hominem purpose of giving the readers here the impression that I am ignorant of all that mantra. 👎

Where and How life began on Earth according to Evolutionists (see below):
Palloy: Darwinism is the explanation that almost the entire world believes, only a few fundamentalist Christians in the US follow Creationism/Intelligent Design.


A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, “artificial intelligence” research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism’s central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.

The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names.

The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

“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.”

“There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.”

Download the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list

Add your name to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list


Professor Colin Reeves, Coventry University

Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection’s ability to create complex biological systems – and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour.

Professor Colin Reeves
Dept of Mathematical Sciences
Coventry University

Edward Peltzer, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get.

Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry

Chris Williams, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University

As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require — or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have — or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection?

Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life — the foundation of evolution – is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.

Agelbert NOTE: This engineer's comment that I found surfing the internet pretty much summarises the truth about our reality. In the here and now, we cannot create even the simpliest of life forms, yet the evolutionists ass-u-me that there is no Creator.

John T (February 8, 2018 11:08 AM)

There may be much research attempting to prove evolution is the mechanism by which life appeared and progressed. The very foundations on which biological evolution stand, however, rest on sand which is quickly washing away.

No evidence exists to show how life spontaneously arose and as more is learned, the immense complexity of life, even in its simplest forms, demonstrates insurmountable obstacles to the beginnings of life without the work of a master engineer.

As an engineer, I understand that even the simplest of designs will never function without much thought and planning. How could it possibly be that life, so immensely complex that it is not completely understood by our most learned scholars, could have used random mutations to go from molecules to the variety we see. To believe this is foolishness! If all the world’s resources would put into creating life right now from molecules, it could not be done!

Now add in the ideas of consciousness, intellect and love... it is a wonderful creation we live in!
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


+-Recent Topics

Experts Knew a Pandemic Was Coming. Here’s What They’re Worried About Next. by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:46:22 am

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:40:17 am

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:47:35 pm

Money by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:27:30 pm

Creeping Police State by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:35:38 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:19:30 pm

Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:07:28 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:54:48 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:10:24 pm

Intelligent Design by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 06:38:41 pm