+- +-

+-User

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

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 42
Latest: Heredia05
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 10652
Total Topics: 246
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Darwin  (Read 6596 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #135 on: June 05, 2018, 02:19:51 pm »
Quote
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:
Quote
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:

Quote
*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):
Quote
Palloy: Darwinism is the explanation that almost the entire world believes, only a few fundamentalist Christians in the US follow Creationism/Intelligent Design.

 


Quote
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


RECENT POSTS:

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.
https://dissentfromdarwin.org/about/

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.

Quote
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!
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #136 on: June 05, 2018, 10:34:40 pm »


No transitional Fossils  ???
In his book, Origin of Species, Darwin himself admitted that at the time of writing, the fossils discovered made it look like a series of acts of creation between each main order of life. Although he urged people to look for links between them, he also admitted that if no such links were discovered, then his theory would be incorrect. It therefore makes no sense what-so-ever, that man should unearth thousands of fossils every year, representing highly ‘developed’ and sophisticated life forms, and yet mysteriously there are no intermediate, half-developed life forms discovered between layers. No matter how much digging around we do, there really is no back door away from this issue. In fact so much of evolution’s credibility depends on this starting issue, nothing in this belief system evens begins to carry any weight whilst this anomaly exists. A bit like needing to throw a six to start a game of ludo.

A recent article by Jonathan Sarfati  Ph.D., F.M. explains;

Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science discusses the fossil record in several places. Creationists and evolutionists, with their different assumptions, predict different things about the fossil record. If living things had really evolved from other kinds of creatures, then there would have been many intermediate or transitional forms, with halfway structures. However, if different kinds had been created separately, the fossil record should show creatures appearing abruptly and fully formed.

The transitional fossils problem

Charles Darwin was worried that the fossil record did not show what his theory predicted:


Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.1

Is it any different today?

The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote:

I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … . I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.2


The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote:

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.3

And:

I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.4


As Sunderland points out:

It of course would be no puzzle at all if he [Gould] had not decided before he examined the evidence that common-ancestry evolution was a fact, ‘like apples falling from a tree,’ and that we can only permit ourselves to discuss possible mechanisms to explain that assumed fact.5


The gaps are huge

Teaching about Evolution avoids discussing the vast gulf between non-living matter and the first living cell, single-celled and multicelled creatures, and invertebrates and vertebrates. The gaps between these groups should be enough to show that molecules-to-man evolution is without foundation.

There are many other examples of different organisms appearing abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. For example, the first bats, pterosaurs, and birds were fully fledged flyers.  

Turtles are a well designed and specialized group of reptiles, with a distinctive shell protecting the body’s vital organs. However, evolutionists admit ‘Intermediates between turtles and cotylosaurs, the primitive reptiles from which [evolutionists believe] turtles probably sprang, are entirely lacking.’ They can’t plead an incomplete fossil record because ‘turtles leave more and better fossil remains than do other vertebrates.’6 The ‘oldest known sea turtle’ was a fully formed turtle, not at all transitional.   It had a fully developed system for excreting salt, without which a marine reptile would quickly dehydrate. This is shown by skull cavities which would have held large salt-excreting glands around the eyes.7

All 32 mammal orders appear abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. The evolutionist paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson wrote in 1944:


The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed.8


There is little to overturn that today.9

Excuses

Like most evolutionary propaganda, Teaching about Evolution makes assertions that there are many transitional forms, and gives a few ‘examples.’ An article in Refuting Evolution contains the gleeful article by the evolutionist (and atheist) E.O. Wilson, ‘Discovery of a Missing Link.’ He claimed to have studied ‘nearly exact intermediates between solitary wasps and the highly social modern ants.’ But another atheistic evolutionist, W.B. Provine, says that Wilson’s ‘assertions are explicitly denied by the text … . Wilson’s comments are misleading at best.’10

Teaching about Evolution emphasizes Archaeopteryx and an alleged land mammal-to-whale transition series, so they are covered in chapters 4 and 5 of Refuting Evolution. Teaching about Evolution also makes the following excuse on page 57:

Some changes in populations might occur too rapidly to leave many transitional fossils. 
 
Also, many organisms were very unlikely to leave fossils because of their habitats or because they had no body parts that could easily be fossilized. 


Darwin also excused the lack of transitional fossils by ‘the extreme imperfection of the fossil record.’ But as we have seen, even organisms that leave excellent fossils, like turtles, are lacking in intermediates. Michael Denton points out that 97.7 percent of living orders of land vertebrates are represented as fossils and 79.1 percent of living families of land vertebrates—87.8 percent if birds are excluded, as they are less likely to become fossilized.11

It’s true that fossilization requires specific conditions. Normally, when a fish dies, it floats to the top and rots and is eaten by scavengers. Even if some parts reach the bottom, the scavengers take care of them. Scuba divers don’t find the sea floor covered with dead animals being slowly fossilized. The same applies to land animals. Millions of buffaloes (bison) were killed in North America last century, but there are very few fossils.

In nature, a well-preserved fossil generally requires rapid burial (so scavengers don’t obliterate the carcass), and cementing agents to harden the fossil quickly. Teaching about Evolution has some good photos of a fossil fish with well-preserved features (p. 3) and a jellyfish (p. 36). Such fossils certainly could not have formed gradually—how long do dead jellyfish normally retain their features? If you wanted to form such fossils, the best way might be to dump a load of concrete on top of the creature! Only catastrophic conditions can explain most fossils—for example, a global flood and its aftermath of widespread regional catastrophism. (see topic: Evidence for a Global Flood )

Teaching about Evolution goes on to assert after the previous quote:

However, in many cases, such as between primitive fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, and reptiles and birds, there are excellent transitional fossils.


But Teaching about Evolution provides no evidence for this! We can briefly examine some of the usual evolutionary claims below (for reptile-to-bird, see the next chapter on birds):

Fish to amphibian: Some evolutionists believe that amphibians evolved from a Rhipidistian fish, something like the coelacanth. It was believed that they used their fleshy, lobed fins for walking on the sea-floor before emerging on the land. This speculation seemed impossible to disprove, since according to evolutionary/long-age interpretations of the fossil record, the last coelacanth lived about 70 million years ago. But a living coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) was discovered in 1938. And it was found that the fins were not used for walking but for deft maneuvering when swimming. Its soft parts were also totally fish-like, not transitional. It also has some unique features—it gives birth to live young after about a year’s gestation, it has a small second tail to help its swimming, and a gland that detects electrical signals.12 The earliest amphibian, Ichthyostega (mentioned on p. 39 of Teaching about Evolution), is hardly transitional, but has fully formed legs and shoulder and pelvic girdles, while there is no trace of these in the Rhipidistians.


Amphibian to reptile: Seymouria is a commonly touted intermediate between amphibians and reptiles. But this creature is dated (by evolutionary dating methods) at 280 million years ago, about 30 million years younger than the ‘earliest’ true reptiles Hylonomus and Paleothyris. That is, reptiles are allegedly millions of years older than their alleged ancestors! Also, there is no good reason for thinking it was not completely amphibian in its reproduction. The jump from amphibian to reptile eggs requires the development of a number of new structures and a change in biochemistry—see the section below on soft part changes.


Reptile to mammal: The ‘mammal-like reptiles’ are commonly asserted to be transitional. But according to a specialist on these creatures:


Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species.13

Evolutionists believe that the earbones of mammals evolved from some jawbones of reptiles. But Patterson recognized that there was no clear-cut connection between the jawbones of ‘mammal-like reptiles’ and the earbones of mammals. In fact, evolutionists have argued about which bones relate to which.14


The function of possible intermediates

The inability to imagine functional intermediates is a real problem. If a bat or bird evolved from a land animal, the transitional forms would have forelimbs that were neither good legs nor good wings. So how would such things be selected? The fragile long limbs of hypothetical halfway stages of bats and pterosaurs would seem more like a hindrance than a help.

Soft part changes

Of course, the soft parts of many creatures would also have needed to change drastically, and there is little chance of preserving them in the fossil record. For example, the development of the amniotic egg would have required many different innovations, including:

The shell.


The two new membranes—the amnion and allantois.


Excretion of water-insoluble uric acid rather than urea (urea would poison the embryo).


Albumen together with a special acid to yield its water.


Yolk for food.


A change in the genital system allowing the fertilization of the egg before the shell hardens.15


Another example is the mammals—they have many soft-part differences from reptiles, for example:

Mammals have a different circulatory system, including red blood cells without nuclei, a heart with four chambers instead of three and one aorta instead of two, and a fundamentally different system of blood supply to the eye.


Mammals produce milk, to feed their young.


Mammalian skin has two extra layers, hair and sweat glands.


Mammals have a diaphragm, a fibrous, muscular partition between the thorax and abdomen, which is vital for breathing. Reptiles breathe in a different way.


Mammals keep their body temperature constant (warm-bloodedness), requiring a complex temperature control mechanism.


The mammalian ear has the complex organ of Corti, absent from all reptile ears.16


Mammalian kidneys have a ‘very high ultrafiltration rate of the blood.’ This means the heart must be able to produce the required high blood pressure. Mammalian kidneys excrete urea instead of uric acid, which requires different chemistry. They are also finely regulated to maintain constant levels of substances in the blood, which requires a complex endocrine system.19


by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.

First published in Refuting Evolution
Chapter 3
1.C.R. Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1872 (London: John Murray, 1902), p. 413. 
2.C. Patterson, letter to Luther D. Sunderland, 10 April 1979, as published in Darwin’s Enigma (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 4th ed. 1988), p. 89. Patterson later tried to backtrack somewhat from this clear statement, apparently alarmed that creationists would utilize this truth. 
3.S.J. Gould, in Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin, ed. John Maynard Smith, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1982), p. 140. Teaching about Evolution pages 56–57 publishes a complaint by Gould about creationists quoting him about the rarity of transitional forms. He accuses creationists of representing him as denying evolution itself. This complaint is unjustified. Creationists make it very clear that he is a staunch evolutionist the whole point is that he is a ‘hostile witness.’ 
4.S.J. Gould, The Ediacaran Experiment, Natural History 93(2):14–23, Feb. 1984. 
5.L. Sunderland, ref. 2, p. 47–48. 
6.Reptiles, Encyclopedia Britannica 26:704–705, 15th ed., 1992. 
7.Ren Hirayama, Oldest Known Sea Turtle, Nature 392(6678):705–708, 16 April 1998; comment by Henry Gee, p. 651, same issue. 
8.
9.G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (NY: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 105–106. 
10.A useful book on the fossil record is D.T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils STILL Say NO! (El Cahon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1995). 
11.Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, A Review by Dr Will B. Provine. Available from , 18 February 1999. 
12.M. Denton, Evolution, a Theory in Crisis (Chevy Chase, MD: Adler & Adler, 1985), p. 190. 
13.M. Denton, footnote 13, p. 157, 178–180; see also W. Roush, ‘Living Fossil’ Is Dethroned, Science 277(5331):1436, 5 September 1997, and No Stinking Fish in My Tail, Discover, March 1985, p. 40. 
14.T.S. Kemp, The Reptiles that Became Mammals, New Scientist 92:583, 4 March 1982. 
15.C. Patterson, Morphological Characters and Homology; in K.A. Joysey and A.E. Friday (eds.), Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction, Proceedings of an International Symposium held in Cambridge, The Systematics Association Special Volume 21 (Academic Press, 1982), 21–74. 
16.M. Denton, footnote 13, p. 218–219. 
17.D. Dewar, The Transformist Illusion, 2nd edition, (Ghent, NY: Sophia Perennis et Universalis, 1995), p. 223–232. 
18.T.S. Kemp, Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 309–310.

http://www.thematrix.co.uk/texttopic.asp?ID=22
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #137 on: June 05, 2018, 10:35:35 pm »
But Dawkins cannot accept that the most obvious reason for said "planting" is creation.


                                                     
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #138 on: June 05, 2018, 10:36:50 pm »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #139 on: June 05, 2018, 10:39:05 pm »
A "46 million year" unpleasant Bag Of Worms for the Evolutionists 

Why? Because they have found a non-fossilized blood meal in a mosquito gut that is in strata allegedly 46 million years old.

So what? This is Jurassic Park like exciting stuff, right?

NOPE! The scientists KNOW that IF that mosquito, which clearly has organic compounds (i.e. carbon 12 to carbon 14 ratio in its tissues) has ANY carbon 14 in it, it HAS TO BE LESS THAN 30,000 years old!  :o

And that is why the article says absolutely NOTHING about Carbon dating and throws out that huge 46 million year old age with no explanation of the dating methodology. They are setting the stage for IGNORING Carbon tests because "obviously" LOL! if the mosquito is in 46 million year old strata, it MUST have lost all its Carbon 14. Nothing to see here. Move along.

I'll be watching what develops on this and report back here. Here's the "scientific" article asking the wrong questions as to how something could be preserved for such a long time. The question about the possibility of the 46 million year dating of the strata being WAY OFF is NOT ASKED. They are SCIENTISTS, after all, not a bunch of superstitious, rigid fools that refuse to question the data if new evidence demands it... ;D

Here's my FAVORITE bit OF pseudo Scientific clever half truth pushing BS in the article,
Quote
The paper is “powerful” evidence that certain molecules in blood persist longer than scientists might expect... 

Fossilized Mosquito Blood Meal

Researchers have discovered a 46-million-year-old female mosquito containing the remnants of the insect’s final blood meal.

By Abby Olena | October 14, 2013

Researchers from the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) in Washington, DC, have discovered the first ever fossilized blood meal, according to a paper published today (October 14) in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Large and labile molecules like DNA cannot be detected in fossils this old with current technology, but the 46-million-year-old mosquito holds clues about when blood-feeding behavior originated in insects and about the survival of other biomolecules like heme, which the researchers identified in the fossil.

“[The paper] shows that details of a blood sucking mosquito can be nicely preserved in a medium other than amber,”  ;D paleontologist George Poinar of Oregon State University, who was not involved in this research, wrote in an e-mail to The Scientist. “The paper also establishes that blood-filled mosquitoes were already active at that time, suggesting that they were around much earlier” than previously realized, he added.

The paper is “powerful” :P  evidence that certain molecules in blood persist longer than scientists might expect, said Mary Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University who was also not involved in the work.

The chances of finding a fossilized mosquito with evidence of a recent blood meal are infinitesimal.
 Paleobiologist Dale Greenwalt and his wife vacation in Glacier National Park each summer. When Greenwalt began volunteering for the NMNH’s paleobiology department several years ago, he learned about a site in Montana called the Kishenehn Formation, near the Flathead River on the western border of the park, that he said “may be one of the best sites for fossilized insects in the world.” For reasons that are still unclear  ;D, this site contains fossils of unrivaled quality, revealing ancient insects in great detail, including well-preserved scales, hairs, and structure-based color. Greenwalt collects roughly a thousand pieces of shale there every summer and adds them to the fossil collection at the NMNH. He then spends his winters in the NMNH’s lab cataloging and analyzing the fossils.

“When I’m going through all these fossils, there are some of them that are obviously of scientific value,” Greenwalt said. The mosquito’s darkened and enlarged abdomen and the morphology of the mosquito’s mouthparts immediately stood out to Greenwalt. “No one has ever found the fossil of a blood engorged mosquito,” he said.

The NMNH researchers measured the elemental content of the mosquito and found that its abdomen contained much more iron than its thorax and than the thorax and abdomen of a fossilized male mosquito from the same site—indicating it contained blood. The researchers also analyzed the fossil using mass spectrometry to show that the female mosquito abdomen, and not any of their controls, contained heme. “Everyone was jumping up and down, and we were all very excited,” said Greenwalt.

Schweitzer said the evidence of heme in the fossil was convincing, but added that looking for specific magnetic properties of heme-derived iron could further confirm the findings, as could the use of heme specific antibodies to verify heme’s presence in the abdomen. “I think this is a great first step,” she said, “but more can always be done.”

Going forward, Greenwalt hopes to investigate how this mosquito, other insects in the Kishenehn Formation, and the heme are so well preserved. The scientists are also intrigued by what the mosquito fed on. “We have no idea who the host was for the mosquito,” said Greenwalt. He added that living members of the same genus as the fossilized mosquito feed on birds and said that “we can conjecture that this was bird blood, but we have no way of proving it.”

D. Greenwalt et al., “Hemoglobin-derived porphyrins preserved in a Middle Eocene blood-engorged mosquito,” PNAS, doi:10.1073/pnas.1310885110, 2013.

Agelbert NOTE: IF a FOSSIL has heme blood group blood, it is NOT a FOSSIL. In a FOSSIL, all the organic matter has been replaced by petrified rock of some type. That means this mosquito (it's amazing how those dad burned mosquitoes just refuse to evolve, isn't it?) has organic matter in it.

In a Heme group, the iron (Fe) is surrounded by a lot of CARBON ATOMS (C). There is also hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen present. This mosquito has CARBON. There WILL be Carbon 12 and there had BETTER NOT BE any Carbon 14 or the bug is less than 100,000 years old. Then what are they going to do? Don't worry, evolutionsts will think of some other straw to grasp!


http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/37874/title/Fossilized-Mosquito-Blood-Meal/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #140 on: June 05, 2018, 10:40:07 pm »
If you want some great laughs about the pretzel logic that evolutionary "scientists" use to explain a particularly difficult issue (for evolutionists) about cell anatomy and physiology, Google "origin of mitochondria".

There is NO WAY a cell can function without it. Yet, the ridiculous claim is made that cells DID exist without it and, one fine evolutionary day, this BACTERIUM EVOLVED into a cell organelle called a mitochondria by sneaking into a cell! When it got there, it started doing what a mitochondria does (provide energy for absolutely every one of the thousands to millions of biochemical reactions in the cell in order to oxygenate, ingest nutrients, manufacture proteins, enable cell division, fight off invaders and get rid of waste. What does the mitochondria get in return? A code change in the DNA so that a new Mitochondria is produced with a new cell.

So how did the cell function without the mitochondria? It didn't. They know it but they don't want to talk about it.

WHY? Because mitochondrial ATP (the energy molecule) synthesis for all cell activities has, as of 2013 ;D, been proven to be far more complex and pervasive in the cell than previously known.

The mitochondria was thought to occupy a fixed location but it turns out it is very active moving around the cell in a very factory like and efficient manner. This gives more ammunition to the creationist argument that cells are irreducibly complex with too many exquisitely precise functions working in a complex dance of organelles to have been "pieced together" gradually by invading RNA or DNA plasmids (short sequences like the one we put into E. Coli to force it to make insulin) that broke through the cell wall.

The mitochondrial example itself is game, set, match for Evolutionary Theory simply because it proves the even a single cell could not have been formed randomly.

But evolutionists will continue to lie in their Procrustean bed because, as they love to say, "The alternative (God did it!) is unthinkable."  ;)

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #141 on: June 05, 2018, 10:40:58 pm »
I knew a priest that once told me God could do it any way He wanted to. I agree but  that is dodging the main issue of the FACT that the Theory of Evolution has NEVER provided proof that species (as in Darwin's book title) Originated from natural selection; it is, instead, a still to be proven theory that a single celled creature of some sort, AFTER it popped into existence, "evolved" by random mutations to produce multicellular creatures of incredible complexity that OTHER totally different multicellular life forms (plants, fungi, bacteria, etc.) interact with at precisely the same time to provide a natural a set of symbiotic relationships biosphere give and take (e.g. bees could not exist without flowering plants that produce pollen. Said plants could not perpetuate the species without pollinators like the bees).

It is really a hell of a stretch for me to attribute that biochemical dance to random mutations. In fact, it's ludicrous.

To add insult to irrational pseudo science, they claim that, YEAH, that first single celled creature had nonliving amino acids randomly assemble themselves to produce several thousand lipids, proteins and energy processing functions in a reproducible mitotic fashion with EXACT duplicative DNA generation after generation, including various DNA self healing biochemistry that FIGHTS mutation to preserve the species without harm.

Think about that.

HOW, exactly, is something that was assembled by RANDOM amino acid, lipid and carbohydrate chemicals (the first single celled organism) going to pattern said life form to RESIST mutations (change in DNA sequence)?

If the process of "evolution" is basically a reversal of entropy where things get MORE complex, not less, WHY does every single living thing have, intrinsic to its cellular reproduction mechanism, all kinds of biochemical fail safes to AVOID change? It's not logical that RANDOMNESS produces a biological machine that FIGHTS randomness. It's one hell of a flight of fancy devoid of even a shred of logic.

Take the amoeba, for example. How come they are still around after "billions" of years? Some "evolved" and some didn't? ???  Or do they just pop out of mud puddles every 15.8 million years to take up the slack from the ones that "evolved". ::)

What about Escherichia Coli, affectionately know as a fecal coliform  ;D. We intelligently REDESIGNED IT to make insulin but for billions of years it never randomly came up with that skill on its own. And while we are at it, E. coli, although IT can (and does - that's one test they perform on water to see if it is potable - fecal coliform count) live outside our gut, WE CANNOT live without a large number of several species of gut bacteria. We simply cannot get our vitamins, minerals and energy without them and we die of malabsorption.
 
Evolutionists claim that, OF COURSE, the bacteria came first and we came much later. That runs straight into my earlier question (How come some of them "evolved" and some didn't?). We just made use of the dumb ones to get our metabolism going, right? 

First causes and the basic allegedly "irrefutable premises" that form the foundation of Evolutionary Theory DO NOT EXIST in nature.

And I haven't even touched on the fact that the amoeba has a symphony of organelles that must all be present (and work together in a certain, very precise way) or it does not function. That's the elephant in the "random mutations" room.

Evolutionists claim that, given enough time, anything can happen. That's where the statistical myth that a hundred monkeys on typewriters could write Shakespeare by chance came from.

It's not true. Here's why.

EVERY TIME the monkeys hit a key, the EXACT SAME PROBABILITY of hitting that key exists. So, let's say that, after a million years and some very durable monkeys tapping away, a sequence of letters and spaces (100 of them - one for each monkey) produces a line in a Shakespearean play. According to evolutionists, a million years or so later you will get the second line and so on.

That is TOTALLY UNSCIENTIFIC malarkey. >:(

Between the first line and the second line, all the intervening events MUST be considered valid sequential events. So what we actually got was one line, followed by endless goobly gock, followed by another line. That is called FACTORIAL in probability and statistics,

Factorial math destroys the random positive mutation hypothesis of natural selection. WHY? Because for every potential "evolutionary advantage" (random positive mutation) that pops up, 98 times as many negative destructive mutations attempt to fight their way in to destroy the DNA. So, getting back to the monkeys, if it took one million years to type the first line of Shakespeare, in order to type the SECOND line RIGHT AFTER the FIRST line (we are going AGAINST ENTROPY HERE), you need 98 times as many more years (first period factorial of the second period). So now we are at 99 million years for two lines. To get the first three lines in consecutive fashion, you need 98 times the 99 million years. That comes to nine billion, 700 million years!

ONLY if positive mutations were the 98 to 2 rule (or better) in nature would Evolutionary Theory be plausible. But what we observe (see gamma radiation experiments on life forms) is destructive mutations out the wazoo until the DNA self repair mechanisms are overcome.

Negative mutations being 98 to 2 in a universe where entropy (disorder) is always tearing away at ORDER is logical and expected. That's our universe. Things are always unraveling, not self assembling.

What looks like a reversal of entropy, the ORDERED growth from plant seed to mature plant, is not a defeat or reversal of entropy. WHY? Because of the intricate set of instructions in the seed's DNA that directs the growth in a deliberate, complex and repetitious manner generation after generation. Plant DNA is lengthy and complex.

It can, however, be argued that a plant's DNA is less complex than an amoeba's (amoeba's have more DNA than WE DO!) but scientists believe it just has a lot of repetitive sequences as backup systems. By the way, all that DNA in such a "primitive" life form is another huge "evolutionary" question mark (God has a great sense of humor! ).

At any rate, plants, because of their many different vascular systems, functions and sizes, are certainly more complex than an amoeba.


Amoeba simplified anatomy

The odds of a hundred thousand or so monkeys on typewriters coding up the DNA sequence of an amoeba ALL AT ONCE (because ALL the cell systems organelles have to work TOGETHER right from the start) involve more time than we have, even if this universe is 14.5 billion years old.

I don't know HOW God did it, but there is NO scientific basis for the fairy tale of wishful thinking called the Theory of Evolution.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #142 on: June 06, 2018, 01:12:42 pm »
What false predictions tell us about evolution

Ever since Darwin evolutionists have been certain of their theory. They hold that evolution is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt. Evolutionists arrive at this conclusion from a wide range of powerful arguments based on contrastive reasoning where evolutionary theory is compared to alternative hypotheses derived from the concept of independent creation. (Hunter 2014) Evolutionists have found these alternative hypotheses to be false, leaving evolutionary ideas as the only remaining possibility. This process of elimination, which traces back to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, is based on comparing scientific evidence with expectations derived from independent creation. Therefore the motivation, justification and truth claims for evolutionary theory entail metaphysical beliefs about independent creation.
 
This raises the question of how evolution fares without the metaphysics. That is, how does evolution compare with the scientific evidence? Evolutionary theory holds that the biological world (and more generally the cosmos as well), arose from the interplay of chance and natural law. In other words, evolution holds that the species arose spontaneously. From a strictly scientific perspective, this is a high claim. It is perhaps not surprising that, setting the contrasting reasoning aside and focusing exclusively on the science, evolution’s fundamental predictions fail badly. The above sections reviewed several fundamental predictions of evolutionary theory, once held with great conviction, that have all been found to be false, much to the surprise of practitioners.
 
Philosophers have debated the role and importance of predictions in the historical sciences, and how they are related to explanatory capacity. (Cleland 2011; Cleland 2013; Turner) The predictions described above do have strong implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena. For most of these predictions, the falsification has been followed by one or more proposed theory modifications to accommodate the new data. These modifications are often vague and they cause the theory to lose its parsimony. Perhaps most importantly they refute evolution’s common cause argument and remove its so-called “smoking gun.” The evolutionist’s claim has been that in biology we find a wide range of observations that seem unlikely or bewildering, but that in a stroke evolution parsimoniously explains and makes sense of them. Evolution brings a consilience to the data.
 
The above predictions illustrate that there is no such consilience. Evolution’s predictions, and associated explanations, do not make sense of the observations. Consider, for example, the pentadactyl structure prediction discussed above. In Darwin’s day the five-digit pentadactyl structure was observed in a wide variety of species. Why should the same type of structure be used for such a wide variety of tasks? Evolution’s common descent provided a single, simple explanation. The pentadactyl structure arose from a single common ancestor. The associated prediction is that the pentadactyl structure should continue to appear in species according to a common descent pattern. The failure of the pentadactyl structure to form this pattern does not merely represent a false prediction. This common cause argument had been celebrated for more than a century as a compelling proof text. It appears consistently in the literature and is one of evolution’s “smoking guns.” The falsification of this prediction means the loss of this compelling argument. And it means the introduction of non parsimonious explanations, calling for the pentadactyl structure to repeatedly evolve and disappear in various lineages, as the data require.
 
Yet contrastive reasoning, evolutionists argue, prove that evolution is a fact. This illustrates the tremendous importance of the role of contrastive reasoning. If all we had was the science there would be no basis for believing the species have spontaneously arisen, much less that such an idea is a fact. But evolution is not a typical scientific theory. In spite of the consistent failure of fundamental scientific predictions, there remains no doubt amongst evolutionists that evolution is a fact. Its high standing is underwritten by extremely powerful contrastive proofs which render its scientific puzzles less crucial. Those puzzles are interpreted as research questions, not challenges to the fact of evolution. That fact, for evolutionists, has already been established by the philosophy and theology that support evolution’s contrastive reasoning. From a strictly scientific perspective, evolution is not a good theory.
 
References
 
Cleland, Carol. 2011. “Prediction and Explanation in Historical Natural Science.” Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 62:551–582.
 
Cleland, Carol. 2013. “Common cause explanation and the search for a smoking gun.” Geological Society of America Special Papers 502:1-9.
 
Hunter, C. 2014. “Darwin’s Principle: The Use of Contrastive Reasoning in the Confirmation of Evolution.” J International Society History of Philosophy of Science 4:106-149.

Turner, Derek. 2013. “Historical geology: Methodology and metaphysics.” Geological Society of America Special Papers 502:11-18.


https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/what-false-predictions-tell-us-about-evolution
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #143 on: June 07, 2018, 12:49:10 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: I did not write any of this well referenced material. Rather than posting the entire list of responses 🔬 to the common objections of evolutionists to their theory's  false predictions, I will post one each day.
 
You can view previous objections and the responses to them by scrolling this topic thread.

After this section is completed, we will move on to the importance of exposing the failed Darwinian Evolution Theory Predictions and a detailed discussion of said failed predictions.

Since I took pre-med in college, late in life, I am well versed in the language of molecular biology. When a term comes up that the average reader might not be familiar with, I will define it to save the reader some time.

Feel free to pass this on to friends and family, always including the references. These scholarly references are important to credibie debate. Please make sure you include them and the .DarwinsPredicitions web site link. 

.DarwinsPredictions

This section examines various concerns evolutionists often have regarding their theory’s false predictions.

Responses to common objections

False predictions often have led to productive research

Productive research can come from a great variety of scientific and nonscientific motivations, including false predictions. That productive research may have arisen from some of these predictions does not detract from the fact that they are false.

References

Chalmers, A. F. 1982. What is This Thing Called Science?. 2d ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Klayman, Joshua, Young-Won Ha. 1997. “Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing,” in W. M. Goldstein, R. M. Hogarth, (eds.) Research on Judgment and Decision Making: Currents, Connections, and Controversies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “History of science and Its rational reconstructions.” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1970:91-136.

Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.

Quine, W.V.O. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” The Philosophical Review 60:40.

Stanford, P. Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press.

van Fraassen. Bas C.  1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/responses-to-common-objections
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #144 on: June 08, 2018, 12:27:30 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: I did not write any of this well referenced material. Rather than posting the entire list of responses 🔬 to the common objections of evolutionists to their theory's  false predictions, I will post one each day.
 
You can view previous objections and the responses to them by scrolling this topic thread.

After this section is completed, we will move on to the importance of exposing the failed Darwinian Evolution Theory Predictions and a detailed discussion of said failed predictions.

Since I took pre-med in college, late in life, I am well versed in the language of molecular biology. When a term comes up that the average reader might not be familiar with, I will define it to save the reader some time.

Feel free to pass this on to friends and family, always including the references. These scholarly references are important to credibie debate. Please make sure you include them and the .DarwinsPredicitions web site link. 

.DarwinsPredictions

This section examines various concerns evolutionists often have regarding their theory’s false predictions.

Responses to common objections

Evolutionists have fixed these false predictions

A proponent of a theory, given sufficient motivation, can explain all kinds of contradictory findings. (Quine) Typically, however, there is a price to be paid as the theory becomes more complex and has less explanatory power.

References

Chalmers, A. F. 1982. What is This Thing Called Science?. 2d ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Klayman, Joshua, Young-Won Ha. 1997. “Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing,” in W. M. Goldstein, R. M. Hogarth, (eds.) Research on Judgment and Decision Making: Currents, Connections, and Controversies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “History of science and Its rational reconstructions.” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1970:91-136.

Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.

Quine, W.V.O. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” The Philosophical Review 60:40.

Stanford, P. Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press.

van Fraassen. Bas C.  1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/responses-to-common-objections
« Last Edit: June 10, 2018, 11:48:36 am by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #145 on: June 09, 2018, 02:54:57 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: I did not write any of this well referenced material. Rather than posting the entire list of responses 🔬 to the common objections of evolutionists to their theory's  false predictions, I will post one each day.
 
You can view previous objections and the responses to them by scrolling this topic thread.

After this section is completed, we will move on to the importance of exposing the failed Darwinian Evolution Theory Predictions and a detailed discussion of said failed predictions.

Since I took pre-med in college, late in life, I am well versed in the language of molecular biology. When a term comes up that the average reader might not be familiar with, I will define it to save the reader some time.

Feel free to pass this on to friends and family, always including the references. These scholarly references are important to credibie debate. Please make sure you include them and the .DarwinsPredicitions web site link. 

.DarwinsPredictions

This section examines various concerns evolutionists often have regarding their theory’s false predictions.

Responses to common objections


Ad hominem and denial

Criticism of evolution draws heated responses, and personal attacks are common. Such attacks, however, do not change the fact that evolution has generated many false predictions. Also, evolutionists sometimes ignore or deny the unexpected findings. They attempt to discredit the facts, referring to them as “tired old arguments,” or fallacies without following up such criticisms with supporting details.

References

Chalmers, A. F. 1982. What is This Thing Called Science?. 2d ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Klayman, Joshua, Young-Won Ha. 1997. “Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing,” in W. M. Goldstein, R. M. Hogarth, (eds.) Research on Judgment and Decision Making: Currents, Connections, and Controversies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “History of science and Its rational reconstructions.” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1970:91-136.

Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.

Quine, W.V.O. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” The Philosophical Review 60:40.

Stanford, P. Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press.

van Fraassen. Bas C.  1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/responses-to-common-objections
« Last Edit: June 10, 2018, 11:49:31 am by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #146 on: June 09, 2018, 03:07:36 pm »
Some excellent proofs against Darwinism are presented here.

2,205,539 views 🧐

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #147 on: June 10, 2018, 11:40:44 am »
Agelbert NOTE: I did not write any of this well referenced material. Rather than posting the entire list of responses 🔬 to the common objections of evolutionists to their theory's  false predictions, I will post one each day.
 
You can view previous objections and the responses to them by scrolling this topic thread.

After this section is completed, we will move on to the importance of exposing the failed Darwinian Evolution Theory Predictions and a detailed discussion of said failed predictions.

Since I took pre-med in college, late in life, I am well versed in the language of molecular biology. When a term comes up that the average reader might not be familiar with, I will define it to save the reader some time.

Feel free to pass this on to friends and family, always including the references. These scholarly references are important to credibie debate. Please make sure you include them and the .DarwinsPredicitions web site link. 

.DarwinsPredictions

This section examines various concerns evolutionists often have regarding their theory’s false predictions.

Responses to common objections

Falsificationism is flawed

It has been argued that in order to qualify as science, ideas and theories need to be falsifiable. Also, falsified predictions are sometimes used to argue a theory is false. Such naïve falsificationism is flawed (Popper) and not used here. Evolution’s many false predictions do not demonstrate that evolution is not science or that evolution is false.

False predictions are valuable in judging the quality of a theory, its explanatory power, and for improving our scientific understanding in general. Nonetheless, evolutionists sometimes reject any mention of their theory’s false predictions as mere naïve falsificationism. The failures of naïve falsificationism do not give evolutionists a license to ignore substantial and fundamental failures of their theory.

References

Chalmers, A. F. 1982. What is This Thing Called Science?. 2d ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Klayman, Joshua, Young-Won Ha. 1997. “Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing,” in W. M. Goldstein, R. M. Hogarth, (eds.) Research on Judgment and Decision Making: Currents, Connections, and Controversies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “History of science and Its rational reconstructions.” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1970:91-136.

Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.

Quine, W.V.O. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” The Philosophical Review 60:40.

Stanford, P. Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press.

van Fraassen. Bas C.  1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/responses-to-common-objections
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #148 on: June 11, 2018, 06:14:38 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: I did not write any of this well referenced material. Rather than posting the entire list of responses 🔬 to the common objections of evolutionists to their theory's  false predictions, I will post one each day.
 
You can view previous objections and the responses to them by scrolling this topic thread.

After this section is completed, we will move on to the importance of exposing the failed Darwinian Evolution Theory Predictions and a detailed discussion of said failed predictions.

Since I took pre-med in college, late in life, I am well versed in the language of molecular biology. When a term comes up that the average reader might not be familiar with, I will define it to save the reader some time.

Feel free to pass this on to friends and family, always including the references. These scholarly references are important to credibie debate. Please make sure you include them and the .DarwinsPredicitions web site link. 

.DarwinsPredictions

This section examines various concerns evolutionists often have regarding their theory’s false predictions.

Responses to common objections

If there are so many problems evolution would have been toppled

This objection falls under the category of naïve falsificationism. Science is a reactive process. New evidence is processed, and theories are adjusted accordingly. But science can also be a conservative process, sustaining substantial problems before reevaluating a theory. Therefore the reevaluation of a theory takes time. The fact that there are problems is no guarantee a theory will have been toppled. (Lakatos; Chalmers)


References

Chalmers, A. F. 1982. What is This Thing Called Science?. 2d ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Klayman, Joshua, Young-Won Ha. 1997. “Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing,” in W. M. Goldstein, R. M. Hogarth, (eds.) Research on Judgment and Decision Making: Currents, Connections, and Controversies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “History of science and Its rational reconstructions.” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1970:91-136.

Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.

Quine, W.V.O. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” The Philosophical Review 60:40.

Stanford, P. Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press.

van Fraassen. Bas C.  1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/responses-to-common-objections
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #149 on: June 13, 2018, 02:50:31 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: I did not write any of this well referenced material. Rather than posting the entire list of responses 🔬 to the common objections of evolutionists to their theory's  false predictions, I will post one each day.
 
You can view previous objections and the responses to them by scrolling this topic thread.

After this section is completed, we will move on to the importance of exposing the failed Darwinian Evolution Theory Predictions and a detailed discussion of said failed predictions.

Since I took pre-med in college, late in life, I am well versed in the language of molecular biology. When a term comes up that the average reader might not be familiar with, I will define it to save the reader some time.

Feel free to pass this on to friends and family, always including the references. These scholarly references are important to credibie debate. Please make sure you include them and the .DarwinsPredicitions web site link. 

.DarwinsPredictions

This section examines various concerns evolutionists often have regarding their theory’s false predictions.

Responses to common objections

Those quoted believe in evolution

Many scientists doubt evolution, but they are not cited or quoted in this paper. Only material from evolutionists is used to illustrate that even adherents to the theory agree that the predictions are false.

References

Chalmers, A. F. 1982. What is This Thing Called Science?. 2d ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Klayman, Joshua, Young-Won Ha. 1997. “Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing,” in W. M. Goldstein, R. M. Hogarth, (eds.) Research on Judgment and Decision Making: Currents, Connections, and Controversies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “History of science and Its rational reconstructions.” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1970:91-136.

Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.

Quine, W.V.O. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” The Philosophical Review 60:40.

Stanford, P. Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press.

van Fraassen. Bas C.  1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/responses-to-common-objections
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

+-Recent Topics

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
October 14, 2018, 09:35:49 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
October 14, 2018, 05:21:10 pm

Hydrocarbon Crooks Evil Actions by AGelbert
October 14, 2018, 04:25:57 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
October 14, 2018, 02:22:05 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
October 13, 2018, 09:20:10 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
October 13, 2018, 08:27:55 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
October 12, 2018, 11:54:04 pm

Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi by AGelbert
October 12, 2018, 07:21:47 pm

Money by AGelbert
October 12, 2018, 06:29:27 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
October 12, 2018, 03:03:02 pm