Darwin's Illusion

[Polymath257]

Hi,

Evoutionist are constantly attempting to force other to explain that their theory is false.
That's not the way it works, evolution has to prove their premise, not the other way around. The fact is obvious, they cannot do it.

Irrelevant. In order to have a valid scientific theory, you need to explain the facts as observed.

If you claim that creationism is a better explanation, it needs to be able to explain everything that evolution does and to do it better.

 

[gnostic]

although I'm just talking in lay-mens term, what I said is correct concerning the 2cd and 3rd law of thermodynamics.

I propose evolutionist should consider other things than just support for their unprovable theory.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time.

Jastrow went on to say, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream(God and the Astronomers, p. 116.) It seems the Cosmic Egg that was the birth of our universe logically requires a Cosmic Chicken...

Wow!

You really are determined to show how little you understand the sciences that you have brought up.

And you have also self-destructe: your attempts at apparent deception (here and in your other replies) have only hurt your credibility. Post after post, you make up things, and you think that no one can see that you’re lying.

From the OP to this most recent post, you have shown you not only don’t know the subjects that you are arguing against, you are willing to lie about them.

 

[Valjean]

Neuro, you need to read less Answers in Genesis, and more Talk Origins.

And again, what alternative explanation do you propose?

 

[Clara Tea]

Darwin's Illusion

Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple.
He lived in a time when people believed a brood of mice could suddenly appear in a basket of dirty clothes. In other words Darwin was under the illusion that life could appear spontaneously under the right conditions.
Based on this ignorance, he crafted an explanation for variation within a species, and formulated a theory explaining the process whereby life could arise from nonliving matter and mutate to the variety of living entities we see today.

It is postulated that this narrative has been overwhelmingly accepted in educated circles for more than a century even though the basic mechanisms of organic life remained a mystery until several decades ago- as a convenient alternative to belief in a creator.

After 1950 biochemistry has come to understand that living matters is more complex than Darwin could ever have dreamed of.

So, in view of this, what happened to Darwin allegedly elegant and simple idea ?
Although not a single sector of Darwinic evolution can offer uncontested proof that it is nothing more than a imaginative theory it is acclaimed by mainstream scientists as a science.

Lynn Margulis a distinguished University Professor of Biology puts it this way:
"History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology"
She asks any molecular biologists to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge to date is still unmet.
She says " proponents of the standard theory [of evolution] wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin..."

Apparently life did spontaneously appear under the right conditions, but the fact that all life shares the same DNA means that it only happened once (unless it happened more than once and that life is now extinct). Furthermore, we have yet to find life outside of the earth (other planets, or radio communication from far away).

It is an insult to call Darwin ignorant. Ad Hominem remarks only win over the weak minded.

While life is complex, and Darwin might have underestimated the complexity, it doesn't mean that Darwin was wrong. Darwin has been proven right time after time. DNA evidence proves evolution. Darwin's theory of Natural Selection seems quite plausible.

 

[Clara Tea]

Neuro, you need to read less Answers in Genesis, and more Talk Origins.

And again, what alternative explanation do you propose?

Scientists: Chemicals made life, natural selection adapted it.

Theists: God made Adam from mud (chemicals).

Two recent popes: Life is made from chemicals, and God guides evolution.

Why do apes and man share similar DNA and body structures?

 

[Clara Tea]

Did it appear spontaneously?

Of course bunnies don't spontaneously appear. They hatch from Easter eggs. And Easter eggs spontaneously appear (unless laid by Easter bunnies).

 

[viole]

Darwin's Illusion

Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple.
He lived in a time when people believed a brood of mice could suddenly appear in a basket of dirty clothes. In other words Darwin was under the illusion that life could appear spontaneously under the right conditions.
Based on this ignorance, he crafted an explanation for variation within a species, and formulated a theory explaining the process whereby life could arise from nonliving matter and mutate to the variety of living entities we see today.

It is postulated that this narrative has been overwhelmingly accepted in educated circles for more than a century even though the basic mechanisms of organic life remained a mystery until several decades ago- as a convenient alternative to belief in a creator.

After 1950 biochemistry has come to understand that living matters is more complex than Darwin could ever have dreamed of.

So, in view of this, what happened to Darwin allegedly elegant and simple idea ?
Although not a single sector of Darwinic evolution can offer uncontested proof that it is nothing more than a imaginative theory it is acclaimed by mainstream scientists as a science.

Lynn Margulis a distinguished University Professor of Biology puts it this way:
"History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology"
She asks any molecular biologists to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge to date is still unmet.
She says " proponents of the standard theory [of evolution] wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin..."

I don’t understand Christin’s obsession with one tiny field of science (evolution) when basically the entire rest of science is sufficient to dismiss Genesis out of hand.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Clara Tea]

I don´t think Darwin claimed he could explain life itself, and even modern science can´t do that.
The RNA and DNA structure depends on which gaseous and "metallic" atoms and molecules are available, and this of course is a bit different on different geographical locations, thus creating a bit similar and different arts and species of all kinds.

The double winding helical DNA structure relates to the same dynamic structure of a current and it´s magnetic field, which is the basic formation method everywhere in micro- and macrocosm.

In this sense, LIFE is possible everywhere in the Universe where these basic DNA conditions and its generating E&M force is at place.

The church held a burrito feast. I now know how life was created.

 

[Clara Tea]

Goddidit!
That makes everything clear, doesn't it?

Then God is responsible if he made us wrong. Why punish us for it?

 

[Clara Tea]

I don’t understand Christin’s obsession with one tiny field of science (evolution) when basically the entire rest of science is sufficient to dismiss Genesis out of hand.

Ciao

- viole

Lie for Christ? But what if both science and religion is right?

 

[Clara Tea]

Hi,
This sadly does not support evolution, rather it shows the lenght evolutionist will go to support their narrative because of the following:
The recent claims that the London specimen of the Archaeopteryx is a hoax have been clarified and there would seem to be grounds for suspicion. The published work on the Berlin specimen shows that it has every indication of being a hoax of the same kind, that is, a modified genuine fossil of the Compsognathus. All four of the more recent "discoveries" are shown to be nothing more than reclassification of genuine fossils of the same small dinosaur..

Does one hoax, about one specimen, mean that God exists?

 

[Clara Tea]

You started a thread attacking evolution using claims that you have been shown are false. How are you being forced to falsify evolution?

Scientists have shown that the theory of evolution is a valid scientific theory. You publicly declare that you disagree. It is up to you to support that disagreement.

I agree with the bunny (they know a lot about procreating).

 

[Clara Tea]

Irrelevant. In order to have a valid scientific theory, you need to explain the facts as observed.

If you claim that creationism is a better explanation, it needs to be able to explain everything that evolution does and to do it better.

Couldn't God settle this by zapping someone?

 

[Clara Tea]

Nope.

The first law of thermodynamics is the conservation of energy. It has since been modified to take into account that mass is a form of energy (which was not known when the first law was first stated).

The second law of thermodynamics is the law of entropy. But you stated it incorrectly. First, entropy can spontaneuouly decrease in some situations. Second, the second law is a statistical law, not an absolute one. Third, entropy and decay are not closely connected.

For example, another *correct* statement of the second law is that heat does not spontaneously flow from a cold region to a hot one. No need to mention deterioration at all.

The third laws is that the entropy of a crystal at absolute zero is zero.

Next, your understanding of the Big Bang is faulty. There was no 'cosmic egg'. Also, in the standard Big Bang theory, there was no time before the BB. Without time, there is no causality.

Negative temperature - Wikipedia

The website, above, discusses negative absolute temperature.

Substances can be cooled by adiabatic demagnetization. That is, suspended in a magnetic field, then cooled, then allowed to move (by releasing the magnetic field) will cool it further. This is because entropy is a measure of mess, and when atoms become less aligned, they lower temperature.

If it is possible for the universe to oscillate (that is, make a big bang then gravitationally pull itself together again), it would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However, it has been shown that the universe will never oscillate (never pull itself together).

 

[Clara Tea]

Wow!

You really are determined to show how little you understand the sciences that you have brought up.

And you have also self-destructe: your attempts at apparent deception (here and in your other replies) have only hurt your credibility. Post after post, you make up things, and you think that no one can see that you’re lying.

From the OP to this most recent post, you have shown you not only don’t know the subjects that you are arguing against, you are willing to lie about them.

His science looks fine to me. He merely quoted the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[Valjean]

Lie for Christ? But what if both science and religion is right?

But they're different things, with different methodologies, and they deal with different things.
What could both be right about, and which discipline is trespassing into the other's field, if such be the case?

Religion: Values, meaning, purpose, propriety.
Science: Objective, physical facts.

 

[LIIA]

what evidence against it? If there were any empirical evidence against the theory, scientists would not be defending it. They'd be looking for alternative explanations.

The analytical interpretation of data is a relative product of the human mind. It’s never an absolute fact. Strong mainstream presupposition significantly impact scientist’s ability of neutral interpretation. The reasons why people or scientists choose or insist to believe in one idea or another, is beyond the subject of this discussion.

Fossilization is rare, and dependent on factors that leave many fossils of some species, and few or none of others. As far as gradual evolution appearing in the record, it does, but speciation is usually a gradual process of small changes not readily apparent in the record. We don't have, wouldn't expect, and don't need a complete yearly sampling to see the changes.

It’s understood that small changes are not expected to show in fossil record but considering the numerous number of intermediates predicted by the theory, then a good number of functional intermediates should appear in the fossil record if the theory is true. But it didn’t.

There is no reason a foundational species should go extinct just because new variants emerged. As long as it remains reproductively successful within its niche, it should continue. Likewise, one new variant doesn't preclude other variants becoming successful.

True, but you’re not arguing against my point that the ToE necessitates the existence of enormous number of intermediates. Your additional clarification of the proposed evolutionary mechanism does nothing but further strengthening the fact that enormous number of intermediates is needed if the ToE is true.

I'm not understanding what you're arguing here

See above, I’m arguing that claimed evolutionary process necessitates the existence of enormous number of intermediates.

Do you believe organisms evolve

No I don’t. I believe organisms adapt as seen in the microevolution. It’s not an evolution since evolution is dependent on random mutations. It was confirmed that mutations are directed not random. It’s a quite different process. In the claimed evolution process, natural selection allows a better survival chance for advantageous random mutation. In the actual adaptation process, cells utilize mechanisms for choosing which mutations will occur to allow an organism a better survival chance within a specific environment.

or do you believe they pop into existence out of thin air?

The ToE is not about abiogenesis. Neither Darwin nor modern science claimed to have an explanation for the origin of life other than wishful speculations. Do you? Let’s not shift the goalpost. This thread is about Darwin’s illusion.

Where are you getting this false information? The fossil record shows what we'd expect it to show.

It’s not false and has been confirmed by Paleontologists. I previously referenced Stephen Jay Gould. Here are some more quotes:

Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." (Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, 86, June-July, 1977, pp. 22, 24.)

It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse. (Dr. Mark McMenamin, Paleontologist, 2013)

If it didn't support evolution, why do scientists still believe in it?

The reasons why people or scientists choose or insist to believe in one idea or another, is beyond this discussion.

Why quote Darwin? What did Darwin know about evolution? -- Almost nothing

Then we agreed on the main subject of this thread “Darwin’s illusion/lack of knowledge”. Today’s knowledge about non-random mutations and sudden appearance of fully formed species in the fossil record, disprove his theory.

The fossil record shows what we would expect it to show; a spotty record of rare events, indicating gradual change over time.

Not true. No evidence for gradual changes over time other than wishful speculations. Sudden appearance of fully formed organisms is the fact.

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” Stephen J Gould

Some species persist for tens of millions of years. Others emerge and disappear quickly. This is a known and understood phenomenon that doesn't disturb the ToE.

It should. The ToE doesn’t provide an acceptable mechanism to explain the sudden appearance of such a massive addition of genetic information.

Again, what did Darwin know about evolution, fossilization or the Cambrian period? Why do you keep quoting him? Why not quote Pasteur, Queen Victoria, or Sitting Bull?

Agreed. Not much.

There is no 'dilemma'.

There is. Real world data in the fossil record don’t support the prediction of the theory.

Non random mutation does not disprove evolution or any of its mechanisms. It's simply the latest observation in a complicated field. if you read the actual Nature article and commentaries, you'll see that this differential mutation rate is perfectly understandable. Mutation is faster in non-essential sequences, and slower in the more essential ones. It's not surprising that essential sequences are more robust than non essential ones.

Not true. One of the ToE’s fundamental principals is random mutation. real world process is not about better survival chance of advantageous random mutations. It’s about directed mutation of the organism to better fit an environment. Survival is not a function of natural selection, survival depends on the organism’s ability of adaptation to better fit an environment. It’s a totally different process.

If you're going to sling science at evolution, please understand what you're slinging. Don't just read sensationalistic headlines.

This is not my intention but If real world observations don’t support the predictions of a theory, then the theory has to be deemed as false.

The more evidence accumulates, the more strongly evolution is supported. Any statements to the contrary are creationist propaganda, and easily debunked when examined more closely.

Wishful speculations, the theory has been updated many times to avoid contradiction with evidence, real world data do not support the hypothesized macroevolution through gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.

Question: What alternative mechanism of change and diversity would you propose, and what evidence, save folklore and mythology, would support it?

Mico-adaptation is the mechanism of change as evidenced by new findings of directed mutation. The origin of live is beyond the ToE and the subject of this thread.

 

[Polymath257]

Negative temperature - Wikipedia

The website, above, discusses negative absolute temperature.

Substances can be cooled by adiabatic demagnetization. That is, suspended in a magnetic field, then cooled, then allowed to move (by releasing the magnetic field) will cool it further. This is because entropy is a measure of mess, and when atoms become less aligned, they lower temperature.

If it is possible for the universe to oscillate (that is, make a big bang then gravitationally pull itself together again), it would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However, it has been shown that the universe will never oscillate (never pull itself together).

One issue is that classical thermodynamics is primarily about equilibrium states or states that are close to equilibrium.

Even defining the concept of entropy for states far from equilibrium is tricky. This is how negative absolute temperatures are found: they are states that are quite far from equilibrium, where the statistical mechanics definition of temperature (from entropy) gives a negative result.

Paradoxically, negative temperatures are *hotter* than positive temperatures.

His science looks fine to me. He merely quoted the laws of thermodynamics.

Nope. Misquoted and got the specifics wrong.

First, identifying entropy with randomness, or 'mess' is simply incorrect physics. Stating that entropy can never spontaneously decrease is also factually wrong.

For example, when water freezes into ice, the entropy of the water *decreases* significantly. it goes from a high entropy liquid state to a low entropy crystal state.

A good way to see if someone really knows anything about entropy and the second law is to ask them to state the second law without using the words 'entropy, random, ordered' or such.

And yes, it is not only possible, but gets to the heart of what the second law actually says.

 

[Polymath257]

The analytical interpretation of data is a relative product of the human mind. It’s never an absolute fact. Strong mainstream presupposition significantly impact scientist’s ability of neutral interpretation. The reasons why people or scientists choose or insist to believe in one idea or another, is beyond the subject of this discussion.


It’s understood that small changes are not expected to show in fossil record but considering the numerous number of intermediates predicted by the theory, then a good number of functional intermediates should appear in the fossil record if the theory is true. But it didn’t.

ToE does not require linear accumulation of changes. Since this is the basis of your argument, it fails.

True, but you’re not arguing against my point that the ToE necessitates the existence of enormous number of intermediates. Your additional clarification of the proposed evolutionary mechanism does nothing but further strengthening the fact that enormous number of intermediates is needed if the ToE is true.


See above, I’m arguing that claimed evolutionary process necessitates the existence of enormous number of intermediates.

And that is factually incorrect. Mutation with natural selection naturally leads to saltation in morphology: large changes can happen in fairly few generations. This leads to fewer 'intermediate forms' but is perfectly in line with ToE.

No I don’t. I believe organisms adapt as seen in the microevolution. It’s not an evolution since evolution is dependent on random mutations. It was confirmed that mutations are directed not random. It’s a quite different process. In the claimed evolution process, natural selection allows a better survival chance for advantageous random mutation. In the actual adaptation process, cells utilize mechanisms for choosing which mutations will occur to allow an organism a better survival chance within a specific environment.

The types of 'directed evolution' seen in epigenetic change is fairly rare and doesn't change the overall theory.

Most genetic changes are random with respect to survival. Even epigenetic changes are ultimately random (to allow for the epigenetics).

The ToE is not about abiogenesis. Neither Darwin nor modern science claimed to have an explanation for the origin of life other than wishful speculations. Do you? Let’s not shift the goalpost. This thread is about Darwin’s illusion.


It’s not false and has been confirmed by Paleontologists. I previously referenced Stephen Jay Gould. Here are some more quotes:

Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." (Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, 86, June-July, 1977, pp. 22, 24.)

It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse. (Dr. Mark McMenamin, Paleontologist, 2013)

Yes, punctuated equilibrium is a thing. And it is consistent with the modern synthesis of evolution and genetics. Even Gould and Eldridge acknowledged that. Furthermore, the notion of 'sudden' is relative, not absolute. Gould was looking at changes on fairly short time scales and *did* find those intermediates. It's just that when the resolution goes down, the effects *look* sudden.

The reasons why people or scientists choose or insist to believe in one idea or another, is beyond this discussion.

Then we agreed on the main subject of this thread “Darwin’s illusion/lack of knowledge”. Today’s knowledge about non-random mutations and sudden appearance of fully formed species in the fossil record, disprove his theory.

Really? Gould didn't think so. He challenged the 'slow and steady' view of how evolution was supposed to act. That *is* disproven. But the modern synthesis of genetics and evolution was actually *supported* by Gould's work.

Not true. No evidence for gradual changes over time other than wishful speculations. Sudden appearance of fully formed organisms is the fact.

And always from closely related previous forms. And that *is* evolution. Again, punctuated equilibrium does not contradict the modern synthesis.

Even in simulations with a constant random mutation and natural selection, the actual changes seen tend to be saltational.

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” Stephen J Gould

It should. The ToE doesn’t provide an acceptable mechanism to explain the sudden appearance of such a massive addition of genetic information.

Actually, yes it does. And Gould pointed out how that happens.

There is. Real world data in the fossil record don’t support the prediction of the theory.

Once it was realized what the basic mechanism would lead to, yes it does. And, again, Gould wrote extensively about this.

Not true. One of the ToE’s fundamental principals is random mutation. real world process is not about better survival chance of advantageous random mutations. It’s about directed mutation of the organism to better fit an environment. Survival is not a function of natural selection, survival depends on the organism’s ability of adaptation to better fit an environment. It’s a totally different process.

Except that isn't true. Epigenetic change is still based on random mutations. And such changes are rare and are not the norm, even for speciation.

This is not my intention but If real world observations don’t support the predictions of a theory, then the theory has to be deemed as false.


Wishful speculations, the theory has been updated many times to avoid contradiction with evidence, real world data do not support the hypothesized macroevolution through gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.

Mico-adaptation is the mechanism of change as evidenced by new findings of directed mutation. The origin of live is beyond the ToE and the subject of this thread.

None of the new findings point to *directed* evolution. Natural selection and genetic drift are still the primary mechanisms. Epigenetics is a minor player but doesn't contradict the basic theory.

 

[tas8831]

Lynn Margulis a distinguished University Professor of Biology puts it this way:
"History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology"
She asks any molecular biologists to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge to date is still unmet.
She says " proponents of the standard theory [of evolution] wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin..."

I am always tickled when creationists cite someone that disagreed with some aspect of evolution by their full title (or often an an embellished one complete with accolades) and present their claim as unimpeachable.