+- +-

+-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: 10529
Total Topics: 246
Most Online Today: 20
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 9
Total: 9

Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 4 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx, xlsm, psd, cpp
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1024KB, maximum individual size 512KB
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 26, 2018, 10:05:20 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: For those who are unfamilar with Histones, I am posting some info and a video to help make clear to you how absolutely essential they are to life. 

Quote
Histones are one of the specific proteins involved in cell division and cancer. Technically, the ball-like groups of histones are referred to as nucleosomes, but--for simplicity--the website will continue to refer to these groups as histones.

In more general terms, histones are the protein “balls” that DNA wraps around in order to help DNA coil itself and condense into a chromosome during interphase. In fact, the image of nucleosomes (groups of histones) strung along a strand of DNA is often referred to as the "Beads on a String" model.

In the image below, you can see the histones, drawn as gray spheres that attach to the DNA and each other as the DNA condenses into a chromosome that can be easily divided and transported during cell division.



We, however, are interested in just the histones, as pictured below:


The video below provides a good representation of what histones look like in the cell. The clip denotes the histones as groups of orange spheres wrapped in blue globular DNA. Courtesy of jccairs.


http://www.unc.edu/depts/our/hhmi/hhmi-ft_learning_modules/proteinsmodule/histones/index.html

You read that part about cell division, but, leaving the cancer issue aside for the moment, Histones have other vital functions. You all know what an anti-histamine spray is. Certain types of Histones cause the release of histamines (vasodilators - relax blood vessel smooth muscles and make them leaky) which give you a runny nose. It is an immune system response to get rid of something your body does not want. An anti-histamine spray counteracts that. You may not like that runny nose, but keeping it from running may not help in getting rid of some bacterial or viral agent attacking you, so please keep that in mind.

You also should know about the Histone that sends histamines to your H3 receptors when you eat sweets (they are located throughout your body). When those H3 receptors get hit too often, they become sensitized and more and more histamines are required to make the H3 receptors work. What work is that? It's calling for insulin to process the sugar. Eating too much sugar triggers a massive amount of histamines towards the H3 receptors. When the H3 receptors get overtaxed over a number of years, the person develops Diabetes.

I apologize for being so brief, but the point I wish to make is that we cannot function without Histones and that all of their functions are extremely fine tuned and targeted. Histones are an irreducibly complex part of the eukaryotic cell (Eukaryotic means true=Eu - karyot=nucleus versus Prokaryotic=bacterial cells - Pro=before) design.

They are either all there or they do not work. In the case of cancer, they work too much, which is also not part of their function. All biological functions work inside a life band of "not too little" and "not too much" activity. It is ludicrous to claim that any organism had a non-functioning partial group of all the histones that just randomly mutated to be an extremely precisely targeted tool of cell division and the immune system. Without Histones (and several other irreducibly complex parts of the celluar anatomy and physiology that work in precise harmony), there is no life because there is no cell division, period.  The fact thar Eukaryotic Histones can continue to function with several deleterious mutations, contrary to what evolutionary theory had predicted, strengthens the hypothesis of a robust original design, even though evolutionists are trying to talk their way around this.


Smileys added by yours truly.


.DarwinsPredictions

Molecular evolution predictions

Histone proteins cannot tolerate much change

Histones are proteins which serve as the hubs about which DNA is wrapped. They are highly similar across vastly different species which means they must have evolved early in evolutionary history. As one textbook explains, “The amino acid sequences of four histones are remarkably similar among distantly related species. … The similarity in sequence among histones from all eukaryotes indicates that they fold into very similar three-dimensional conformations, which were optimized for histone function early in evolution in a common ancestor of all modern eukaryotes.” (Lodish et. al., Section 9.5) And this high similarity among the histones also means they must not tolerate change very well, as another textbook explains: “Changes in amino acid sequence are evidently much more harmful for some proteins than for others. … virtually all amino acid changes are harmful in histone H4. We assume that individuals who carried such harmful mutations have been eliminated from the population by natural selection.” (Alberts et. al. 1994, 243)

So the evolutionary prediction is that in these histone proteins practically all changes are deleterious: “As might be expected from their fundamental role in DNA packaging, the histones are among the most highly conserved eucaryotic proteins. For example, the amino acid sequence of histone H4 from a pea and a cow differ at only at 2 of the 102 positions. This strong evolutionary conservation suggests that the functions of histones involve nearly all of their amino acids, so that a change in any position is deleterious to the cell.” (Alberts et. al. 2002, Chapter 4)

This prediction has also been given in popular presentations of the theory: “Virtually all mutations impair histone’s function, so almost none get through the filter of natural selection. The 103 amino acids in this protein are identical for nearly all plants and animals.” (Molecular Clocks: Proteins That Evolve at Different Rates)

But this prediction has turned out to be false. An early study suggested that one of the histone proteins could well tolerate many changes. (Agarwal and Behe) And later studies confirmed and expanded this finding: “despite the extremely well conserved nature of histone residues throughout different organisms, only a few mutations on the individual residues (including nonmodifiable sites) bring about prominent phenotypic defects.” (Kim et. al.)

Similarly another paper documented these contradictory results: “It is remarkable how many residues in these highly conserved proteins can be mutated and retain basic nucleosomal function. … The high level of sequence conservation of histone proteins across phyla suggests a fitness advantage of these particular amino acid sequences during evolution.  Yet comprehensive analysis indicates that many histone mutations have no recognized phenotype.” (Dai et. al.) In fact, even more surprising, many mutations actually raised the fitness level. (Dai et. al.)

References

Agarwal, S., M. Behe. 1996. “Non-conservative mutations are well tolerated in the globular region of yeast histone H4.” J Molecular Biology 255:401-411.

Alberts, Bruce., D. Bray, J. Lewis, M. Raff, K. Roberts, J. Watson. 1994. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 3d ed. New York: Garland Publishing.

Alberts, Bruce., A. Johnson, J. Lewis, et. al. 2002. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 4th ed. New York: Garland Publishing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26834/

Dai, J., E. Hyland, D. Yuan, H. Huang, J. Bader, J. Boeke. 2008. “Probing nucleosome function: a highly versatile library of synthetic histone H3 and H4 mutants.” Cell 134:1066-1078.

Kim, J., J. Hsu, M. Smith, C. Allis. 2012. “Mutagenesis of pairwise combinations of histone amino-terminal tails reveals functional redundancy in budding yeast.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109:5779-5784.

Lodish H., A. Berk, S. Zipursky, et. al. 2000. Molecular Cell Biology. 4th ed. New York: W. H. Freeman. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21500/

“Molecular Clocks: Proteins That Evolve at Different Rates.” 2001. WGBH Educational Foundation and Clear Blue Sky Productions.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/histone-proteins-cannot-tolerate-much-change


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 25, 2018, 07:44:38 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Smileys added by yours truly. 


.DarwinsPredictions

Molecular evolution predictions

Protein evolution

Protein coding genes make up only a small fraction of the genome in higher organisms but their protein products are crucial to the operation of the cell. They are the workers behind just about every task in the cell, including digesting food, synthesizing chemicals, structural support, energy conversion, cell reproduction and making new proteins. And like a finely tuned machine, proteins do their work very well. Proteins are ubiquitous in all of life and must date back to the very early stages of evolution. So evolution predicts that proteins evolved when life first appeared, or not long after. But despite enormous research efforts the science clearly shows that such protein evolution is astronomically unlikely.  ;D

One reason the evolution of proteins is so difficult is that most proteins are extremely specific designs in an otherwise rugged fitness landscape. This means it is difficult for natural selection to guide mutations toward the needed proteins. In fact, four different studies, done by different groups and using different methods, all report that roughly 1070 evolutionary experiments would be needed to get close enough to a workable protein before natural selection could take over to refine the protein design. For instance, one study concluded that 1063 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein. (Reidhaar-Olson) And a similar result (1065 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences. (Yockey) Another study found that from 1064 to 1077 attempts are required (Axe) and another study concluded that 1070 attempts would be required. (Hayashi) In that case the protein was only a part of a larger protein which otherwise was intact, thus making for an easier search. Furthermore these estimates are optimistic because the experiments searched only for single-function proteins whereas real proteins perform many functions.

This conservative estimate of 1070 attempts required to evolve a simple protein is astronomically larger than the number of attempts that are feasible. 👀 ;D And explanations of how evolution could achieve a large number of searches, or somehow obviate this requirement, require the preexistence of proteins and so are circular*. For example, one paper estimated that evolution could have made 1043 such attempts. But the study assumed the entire history of the Earth is available, rather than the limited time window that evolution actually would have had. Even more importantly, it assumed the preexistence of a large population of bacteria (it assumed the earth was completely covered with bacteria). And of course, bacteria are full of proteins. Clearly such bacteria would not exist before the first proteins evolved. (Dryden) Even with these helpful and unrealistic assumptions the result was twenty seven orders of magnitude short of the requirement.   

Given these several significant problems, the chances of evolution finding proteins from a random start are, as one evolutionist explained, “highly unlikely.” (Tautz)

Or as another evolutionist put it, “Although the origin of the first, primordial genes may ultimately be traced back to some precursors in the so-called ‘RNA world’ billions of years ago, their origins remain enigmatic.” (Kaessmann)


 


Quote
* Circular reasoning

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving";[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning


References

Axe, D. 2004. “Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds.” J Molecular Biology 341:1295-1315.

Dryden, David, Andrew Thomson, John White. 2008. “How much of protein sequence space has been explored by life on Earth?.” J. Royal Society Interface 5:953-956.

Hayashi, Y., T. Aita, H. Toyota, Y. Husimi, I. Urabe, T. Yomo. 2006. “Experimental Rugged Fitness Landscape in Protein Sequence Space.” PLoS ONE 1:e96.

Kaessmann, H. 2010. “Origins, evolution, and phenotypic impact of new genes.” Genome Research 10:1313-26.

Reidhaar-Olson J., R. Sauer. 1990. “Functionally acceptable substitutions in two alpha-helical regions of lambda repressor.” Proteins 7:306-316.

Tautz, Diethard, Tomislav Domazet-Lošo. 2011. “The evolutionary origin of orphan genes.” Nature Reviews Genetics 12:692-702.

Yockey, Hubert. 1977. “A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory.” J Theoretical Biology 67:377–398.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/protein-evolution


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 24, 2018, 01:07:56 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Smileys added by yours truly.


.DarwinsPredictions

Evolutionary causes predictions

Competition is greatest between neighbors

Darwin’s basic theory of evolution, by itself, did not account for the tree-like, hierarchical pattern the species were thought to form. Darwin was keenly aware of this shortcoming and wrestled with it for years. He finally conceived of a solution for why modified offspring would continue to evolve away and diverge from their parents. The principle of divergence, the last major theoretical addition before Darwin published his book, held that competition tends to be strongest between the more closely related organisms. This would cause a splitting and divergence, resulting in the traditional evolutionary tree pattern. (Desmond and Moore 1991, 419-420; Ridley, 378-379)

But no such trend has been observed. 🧐 In a major study of competition between freshwater green algae species, the level of competition between pairs of species was found to be uncorrelated with the evolutionary distance between the pair of species. As the researchers explained, Darwin “argued that closely related species should compete more strongly and be less likely to coexist. For much of the last century, Darwin’s hypothesis has been taken at face value […] Our results add to a growing body of literature that fails to support Darwin’s original competition-relatedness hypothesis.” (Venail, et. al., 2, 9) The team spent months trying to resolve the problem, but to no avail. As one of the researchers explained:

It was completely unexpected. When we saw the results, we said “this can’t be.” ::)  We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right? When we started coming up with numbers that showed he [Darwin] wasn’t right, we were completely baffled. … We should be able to look at the Tree of Life, and evolution should make it clear who will win in competition and who will lose. But the traits that regulate competition can’t be predicted from the Tree of Life. (Cimons) ;D

Why this long-standing prediction was not confirmed remains unknown. Apparently there are more complicating factors 🕵️ that influence competition in addition to evolutionary relatedness. 

References

Cimons, Marlene. 2014. “Old Idea About Ecology Questioned by New Findings.” National Science Foundation.

Desmond, Adrian, James Moore. 1991. Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist. New York: W. W. Norton.

Ridley, Mark. 1993. Evolution. Boston: Blackwell Scientific.
Venail , P.A., A. Narwani , K. Fritschie, M. A. Alexandrou, T. H. Oakley, B. J. Cardinale. 2014. “The influence of phylogenetic relatedness on competition and facilitation among freshwater algae in a mesocosm experiment.” Journal of Ecology, DOI: 10.1111/1365-2745.12271.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/competition-is-greatest-between-neighbors

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 23, 2018, 12:30:51 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Smileys added by yours truly.

.DarwinsPredictions

Evolutionary causes predictions

Mutations are not adaptive

In the twentieth century, the theory of evolution predicted that mutations are not adaptive or directed. In other words, mutations were believed to be random with respect to the needs of the individual. As Julian Huxley put it, “Mutation merely provides the raw material of evolution; it is a random affair, and takes place in all directions. … in all cases they are random in relation to evolution. Their effects are not related to the needs of the organisms.” (Huxley, 36) Or as Jacques Monod explained:

chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition—or the hope—that on this score our position is likely ever to be revised. (Monod, 112)

Ronald Fisher 😈 wrote that mutations are “random with respect to the organism’s need” (Orr). This fundamental prediction persisted for decades as a recent paper explained: “mutation is assumed to create heritable variation that is random and undirected.” (Chen, Lowenfeld and Cullis)

But that assumption is now known to be false. The first problem is that the mutation rate is adaptive. For instance, when a population of bacteria is subjected to harsh conditions it tends to increase its mutation rate. It is as though a signal has been sent saying, “It is time to adapt.” Also, a small fraction of the population increases its mutation rates even higher yet. These hypermutators ensure that an even greater variety of adaptive change is explored. (Foster) Experiments have also discovered that duplicated DNA segments may be subject to higher mutation rates. Since the segment is a duplicate it is less important to preserve and, like a test bed, appears to be used to experiment with new designs. (Wright)

The second problem is that organisms use strategies to direct the mutations according to the threat. Adaptive mutations have been extensively studied in bacteria. Experiments typically alter the bacteria food supply or apply some other environmental stress causing mutations that target the specific environmental stress. (Burkala, et. al.; Moxon, et. al; Wright) Adaptive mutations have also been observed in yeast (Fidalgo, et. al.; David, et. al.) and flax plants. (Johnson, Moss and Cullis) One experiment found repeatable mutations in flax in response to fertilizer levels. (Chen, Schneeberger and Cullis) Another exposed the flax to four different growth conditions and found that environmental stress can induce mutations that result in “sizeable, rapid, adaptive evolutionary responses.” (Chen, Lowenfeld and Cullis) In response to this failed prediction some evolutionists  now are saying that evolution somehow created the mechanisms that cause mutations to be adaptive.

References

Burkala, E., et. al. 2007. “Secondary structures as predictors of mutation potential in the lacZ gene of Escherichia coli.” Microbiology 153:2180-2189.

Chen, Y., R. Lowenfeld, C. Cullis. 2009. “An environmentally induced adaptive (?) insertion event in flax.” International Journal of Genetics and Molecular Biology 1:38-47.

Chen, Y., R. Schneeberger, C. Cullis. 2005. “A site-specific insertion sequence in flax genotrophs induced by environment.” New Phytologist 167:171-180.

David, L., et. al. 2010. “Inherited adaptation of genome-rewired cells in response to a challenging environment.” HFSP Journal 4:131–141.

Fidalgo, M., et. al. 2006. “Adaptive evolution by mutations in the FLO11 gene.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103:11228-11233.

Foster, P. 2005. “Stress responses and genetic variation in bacteria.” Mutation Research / Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis 569:3-11.

Huxley, Julian. 1953. Evolution in Action. New York: Signet Science Library Book.

Johnson, C., T. Moss, C. Cullis. 2011. “Environmentally induced heritable changes in flax.” J Visualized Experiments 47:2332.

Monod, Jacques. 1971. Chance & Necessity. New York: Vintage Books.

Moxon, E., et. al. 1994. “Adaptive evolution of highly mutable loci in pathogenic bacteria.” Current Biology 4:24-33.

Orr, H. 2005. “The genetic theory of adaptation: a brief history.” Nature Review Genetics 6:119-127.
Wright, B. 2000. “A biochemical mechanism for nonrandom mutations and evolution.” J Bacteriology 182:2993-3001.


https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/mutations-are-not-adaptive
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 11, 2018, 02:08:30 pm »





 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 11, 2018, 01:41:23 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 11, 2018, 01:35:53 pm »


]


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 11, 2018, 01:27:54 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 11, 2018, 01:23:52 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 11, 2018, 01:21:57 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 11, 2018, 01:20:33 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 04, 2018, 01:34:55 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Smileys added by yours truly.

.DarwinsPredictions

Early evolution predictions

The cell’s fundamental molecules are universal

In addition to the DNA code, there are other fundamental molecular processes that appear to be common to all life. One intriguing example is DNA replication which copies both strands of the DNA molecule, but in different directions. Evolution predicts these fundamental processes to be common to all life. Indeed this was commonly said to be an important successful prediction for the theory. As Niles Eldredge explained, the “underlying chemical uniformity of life” was a severe test that evolution passed with flying colors. (Eldredge, 41)

Likewise Christian de Duve declared that evolution is in part confirmed by the fact that all extant living organisms function according to the same principles. (de Duve, 1) And Michael Ruse concluded that the essential macromolecules of life help to make evolution beyond reasonable doubt. (Ruse, 4)

But this conclusion that the fundamental molecular processes within the cell are common to all species was superficial. In later years, as the details were investigated, important differences between species emerged. For example, key DNA replication proteins surprisingly “show very little or no sequence similarity between bacteria and archaea/eukaryotes.” (Leipe) Also different DNA replication processes have been discovered. These results were not what were expected:  ;D

In particular, and counter-intuitively, given the central role of DNA in all cells and the mechanistic uniformity of replication, the core enzymes of the replication systems of bacteria and archaea (as well as eukaryotes) are unrelated or extremely distantly related. Viruses and plasmids, in addition, possess at least two unique DNA replication systems, namely, the protein-primed and rolling circle modalities of replication. This unexpected  diversity makes the origin and evolution of DNA replication systems a particularly challenging and intriguing problem in evolutionary biology. (Koonin)

Some evolutionists are reconsidering the assumption that all life on Earth shares the same basic molecular architecture and biochemistry, and instead examining the possibility of independent evolution, and multiple origins of fundamentally different life forms. (Cleland, Leipe)


References

Cleland, Carol. 2007. “Epistemological issues in the study of microbial life: alternative terran biospheres?.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 38:847-861.

de Duve, Christian. 1995. Vital Dust. New York: BasicBooks.

Eldredge, Niles. 1982. The Monkey Business. New York: Washington Square Press.

Koonin, E. 2006. “Temporal order of evolution of DNA replication systems inferred by comparison of cellular and viral DNA polymerases.” Biology Direct 18:1-39.

Leipe, D., L. Aravind, E. Koonin. 1999. “Did DNA replication evolve twice independently?.” Nucleic Acids Research 27:3389-3401.

Ruse, Michael. 1986. Taking Darwin Seriously. New York: Basil Blackwell.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/the-cell-s-fundamental-molecules-are-universal
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 03, 2018, 04:41:49 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Smileys added by yours truly.

.DarwinsPredictions

Early evolution predictions

The DNA code is not unique

Shortly after the discovery of the DNA code, which is used in cells to construct proteins, evolutionists began theorizing how it evolved. The same code was found in very different species which means that the same code was present in their distant, common ancestor.

So the DNA code arose early in evolutionary history and remained essentially unchanged thereafter.  

And since it arose so early in evolutionary history, in the first primitive cell, the code must not be unique or special. For how could such a code have evolved so early in the history of life? As Nobel Laureate Francis Crick wrote in 1968, “There is no reason to believe, however, that the present code is the best possible, and it could have easily reached its present form by a sequence of happy accidents.” (Crick)

Or as one widely used undergraduate molecular biology text later put it, “The code seems to have been selected arbitrarily (subject to some constraints, perhaps).” (Alberts et. al., 9) And an evolution textbook further explained, “The code is then what Crick called a ‘frozen accident.’ The original choice of a code was an accident; but once it had evolved, it would be strongly maintained.” (Ridley, 48) 


In other words, somehow the DNA code evolved into place but it has little or no special or particular properties.


But we now know that the code’s arrangement uniquely reduces the effects of mutations and reading errors. As one research study concluded, the DNA code is “one in a million” in terms of efficiency in minimizing these effects. (Freeland)

Several other studies have confirmed these findings and have discovered more unique and special properties of the code. One found that the DNA code is a very rare code, even when compared to other codes which already have the error correcting capability. (Itzkovitz)

Another found that the code does not optimize merely one function, but rather optimizes “a combination of several different functions simultaneously.” (Bollenbach)

As one paper concluded, the code’s properties were “unexpected and still cry out for explanation.” (Vetsigian)

References

Alberts, Bruce., D. Bray, J. Lewis, M. Raff, K. Roberts, J. Watson. 1994. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 3d ed. New York: Garland Publishing.

Bollenbach, T., K. Vetsigian, R. Kishony. 2007. “Evolution and multilevel optimization of the genetic code.” Genome Research 17:401-404.

Crick, Francis. 1968. “The origin of the genetic code.” J. Molecular Biology 38:367-379.

Freeland, S., L. Hurst. 1998. “The genetic code is one in a million.” J. Molecular Evolution 47:238-248.

Itzkovitz, S., U. Alon. 2007. “The genetic code is nearly optimal for allowing additional information within protein-coding sequences.” Genome Research 17:405-412.

Ridley, Mark. 1993. Evolution. Boston: Blackwell Scientific.
Vetsigian, K., C. Woese, N. Goldenfeld. 2006. “Collective evolution and the genetic code.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103:10696-10701.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/the-dna-code-is-not-unique
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 01, 2018, 05:13:35 pm »

.DarwinsPredictions

Why investigate evolution’s false predictions?

Charles Darwin presented his theory of evolution in 1859. In the century and half since then our knowledge of the life sciences has increased dramatically. We now know orders of magnitude more than Darwin and his peers knew about biology. And we can compare what science has discovered with what Darwin’s theory expects.

It is not controversial that a great many predictions made by Darwin’s theory of evolution have been found to be false. There is less consensus, however, on how to interpret these falsifications. In logic, when a hypothesis predicts or entails an observation that is discovered to be false, then the hypothesis is concluded to be false. Not so in science.

When a scientific theory makes a prediction that is discovered to be false, then sometimes the theory is simply modified to accommodate the new finding. Broad, umbrella theories, such as evolution, are particularly amenable to adjustments.

Evolution states that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origin of species. This is a very broad statement capable of generating a wide variety of specific explanations about how evolution actually occurred. In fact evolutionists often disagree about these details. So if one explanation, dealing with a particular aspect of evolution, makes false predictions, there often are alternative explanations available to explain that particular aspect of evolution. Obviously the theory of evolution itself is not harmed simply because one particular sub-hypothesis is shown to be wrong.

Failed expectations are not necessarily a problem for a theory. (Lakatos) In fact evolutionists argue that false predictions made by the theory of evolution are not problems, but rather are signs of scientific progress. With each new finding, evolutionists say, we learn more about how evolution occurred.

Nonetheless, it is worthwhile to review a theory’s false predictions. A theory’s track record can be highly informative. The history of false predictions generated by a theory tells us about its strengths and weaknesses, and how and why the theory is believed to be true.

In the case of evolutionary theory, its many false predictions reveal that the theory is not motivated by the science and that the textbook claim that evolution is a fact does not come merely from empirical evidence (see Conclusions). Therefore the objective of this paper is to collect and record, in one place, a sample of the false predictions generated by evolutionary theory.

The predictions examined in this paper were selected according to several criteria.

• They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of evolutionary thought.

• They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints.

• Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated.

• They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena, as discussed in the conclusions.


This paper does not maintain that the predictions presented are the only fundamental predictions of evolution, or that evolution does not have successful predictions. Those are well documented in the literature.

Nor does this paper maintain that the predictions presented, though false, have not served to produce productive research.

Also, this paper does not maintain that these false predictions cannot be remedied or reversed by future scientific findings.

References

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

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 25, 2018, 05:13:39 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. This is the last of the list of objections.
 
You can view previous objections and the responses to them by scrolling this topic thread.

We will move, after today, to 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

These falsified predictions are not necessary predictions of evolutionary theory. They merely reflect isolated instances of a practitioner’s surprise over specific sets of data.

The predictions were considered to be necessary when they were held. And they represented consensus evolutionary science at the time they were held. They are well documented in both peer-reviewed research papers, popular literature authored by leading evolutionists and interviews of leading evolutionists. They were not merely held by a few, individual evolutionists. Nor were they one of several possible competing predictions. That these predictions are not now considered to be necessary predictions of evolution is a reflection of the malleability of evolutionary theory and is a reminder of why a history of evolution’s false predictions is important.

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
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 23, 2018, 08:10:34 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

What about all the successful predictions?

Evolutionists argue that evolution is a fact, and that we ought to focus on evolution’s successful predictions rather than its false predictions. The tendency to seek confirming evidence over contrary evidence is known as confirmation bias. (Klayman, Ha) One consequence of confirmation bias can be that confirming evidence is viewed as correct and typical whereas disconfirming evidence is viewed as anomalous and rare. Not surprisingly the confirming evidence is more often retained and documented. Rarely are the many false predictions found in evolution texts. Confirmation bias can hinder scientific research as evolutionists tend to view the predictions of evolution as overwhelmingly true. False predictions, on the other hand, are usually not viewed as legitimate falsifications but rather as open research questions which are yet to be resolved. Indeed, evolutionists often make the remarkable claim that there is no evidence that is contrary to evolution.

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

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 18, 2018, 12:39:02 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

No one believes these predictions anymore

Yes, this is the point. It is true that evolutionists have, for the most part, dropped many predictions that were once made by evolutionists or entailed by the theory. We can learn from this failed track record as it has implications for evolution’s complexity and 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
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 15, 2018, 02:52:39 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

There is no better alternative

One way to evaluate a theory is to compare it to alternative explanations. This approach has the advantage of circumventing the difficulties in evaluating scientific theories. But of course any such comparison will crucially depend on what alternative explanations are used in the comparison. If care is not taken good alternatives can be misrepresented or even omitted altogether. And of course there may be alternatives not yet conceived. (van Fraassen; Stanford) In any case, the success or failure of evolution’s predictions depends on the science, not on any alternative explanations.

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
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 14, 2018, 12:52:13 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

These falsifications will be remedied in the future

As scientists, we need to evaluate scientific theories according to the currently available data. No one knows what future data may bring, and the claim that future data will rescue evolution is ultimately circular.

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
Posted by: AGelbert
« 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
Posted by: AGelbert
« 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
Posted by: AGelbert
« 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
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 09, 2018, 03:07:36 pm »

Some excellent proofs against Darwinism are presented here.

2,205,539 views 🧐

Posted by: AGelbert
« 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
Posted by: AGelbert
« 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
Posted by: AGelbert
« 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
Posted by: AGelbert
« 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
Posted by: AGelbert
« 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.
Posted by: AGelbert
« 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."  ;)

Posted by: AGelbert
« 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/

+-Recent Topics

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
September 21, 2018, 10:24:07 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
September 21, 2018, 09:36:14 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
September 21, 2018, 08:37:39 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
September 21, 2018, 08:09:56 pm

Money by AGelbert
September 21, 2018, 04:56:13 pm

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
September 19, 2018, 04:49:11 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
September 19, 2018, 04:33:49 pm

Hydrocarbon Crooks Evil Actions by AGelbert
September 19, 2018, 02:40:29 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
September 19, 2018, 02:08:44 pm

Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi by AGelbert
September 18, 2018, 05:03:12 pm