Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

It is a little painful on the wallet. Do you have any recommendations on where one can self-study for free?

There are some resources on MIT, Oxford, and Stanford, but not for everything, it seems, and many of them do not seem to include much of the studies mentioned in their lectures or papers.

I know that many studies can be accessed thanks to GoogleScholar, and there is a university library that I can use the computers of in order to gain access to more of them, but it can be difficult to know precisely where to even begin to understand some of the more technical language in higher-level studies.

I don't expect to become some sort of polymath, but I would like to improve upon my literacy on these topics.

Sci-Hub

If you want to read peer reviewed articles.

 

[Valjean]

Please clarify one point for me.

What exactly do the opponents of "neo-Darwinism" hope to replace "neo-Darwinism" with, in order to explain the origin of species?

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

 

[Valjean]

It is a little painful on the wallet. Do you have any recommendations on where one can self-study for free?

Khan Academy | Free Online Courses, Lessons & Practice

 

[LIIA]

Sometimes things are not blind, purposeless.
Just the reasons are not understood.

Absolutely, it's neither blind nor purposeless but typically evolutionists insist it is.

The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, which is firmly based on the natural selection of random mutations, should be an obsolete theory since Non-Random Directed Mutations were confirmed. Cells have mechanisms for choosing which mutations will occur. Experiments demonstrated that cells come up repeatedly with just the right ‘adaptive’ or ‘directed’ mutations in specific genes that enable the cells to grow and multiply.

James A Shapiro, a biologist and expert in bacterial genetics stated:
“It’s impossible to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action within the DNA of the cell.”

The evolution scientist Franklin M. Harold puts it this way:
“There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, other than a variety of wishful speculations.”

These scientists don’t actually discard the theory of evolution but clearly pointed to the fact that the conventional scientific view of evolution based on the neo-Darwinian theory is inadequate to today’s evidence.

The ToE just kept evolving (intentionally not randomly) in a continuous attempt to keep it alive, regardless of the continuously emerging evidence against it along the last 100 years.

 

[blü 2]

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

You may of course be right, but it's @Neuropteron's thread so I'm interested to hear what he has to say on the point.

 

[Ella S.]

Khan Academy | Free Online Courses, Lessons & Practice

You may have just significantly improved my life with this. Thank you. I deeply appreciate it.

 

[gnostic]

Hi,
No I cannot, I have never studied Darwin word for word.

So basically everything you have claimed about what Darwin said or written, were false and made up? Or you got all that from unreliable sources from creationist propaganda media?

Have you ever bothered to study biology, read evolution yourself (eg private research on biology textbook), or just simply ask some questions from actual biologists?

Because I fine it distasteful when creationists make up all sorts false claims that are not found in biological sources, like this whole business with claiming Darwin advocating spontaneous generation.

I don’t think anyone believe that you had read any of Darwin’s works.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Are you trying to say now that Darwin believed that mice would just appear out of nowhere?

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.

Sure. It also pretty much matched predictions made by evolution theory and is actually slam-dunk evidence of the fact of evolution.

So, in view of this, what happened to Darwin allegedly elegant and simple idea ?

It got confirmed.

Although not a single sector of Darwinic evolution can offer uncontested proof that it is nothing more than a imaginative theory

Sounds like you are not aware of the +300.000 peer reviewed papers on evolution theory that do exactly that....

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 think it's funny how you think that this evolutionary biologist doesn't believe in evolution.

 

[Segev Moran]

The one thing that he got right was the quote of Lynn Margulis. But she did not oppose evolution. She opposed Darwin's natural selection and credited it to biological symbiosis instead. She was right in some things, but appears to have overrated her own discovery, as many people do at times.

Thanks for clarifying

 

[Neuropteron]

Did you (or somebody else? ) write the same thing in another thread a while back?

Hi,
Not to my knowledge.

 

[Neuropteron]

His theory is true and can be demonstrated again and again.

Hi,

Yes, I've often heard this claim, never have I seen it proven.

 

[Neuropteron]

Please clarify one point for me.

What exactly do the opponents of "neo-Darwinism" hope to replace "neo-Darwinism" with, in order to explain the origin of species?

Hi,
That's a good question, followers of Darwin are constantly modefying their theory in an attempt to prove their mainstream narrative, without success. Christ accurately foretold that the majority will alway follow the broad road, it leads to destruction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi,

Yes, I've often heard this claim, never have I seen it proven.

Nothing in science is "proven". Gravity is not proven. Do you accept gravity? You are making a middle school level mistake. Science is evidence based. But then you probably do not even understand the concept of evidence.

Here is a simple question for you:

Is there scientific evidence for the theory of evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi,
That's a good question, followers of Darwin are constantly modefying their theory in an attempt to prove their mainstream narrative, without success. Christ accurately foretold that the majority will alway follow the broad road, it leads to destruction.

Wrong again. All theories are modified as more information comes in. The basic facts are still the same. All that changes now are minor details.

If you don't want to look foolish drop the word "prove" when it comes to the sciences. Unless you make it clear that you are using the legal standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". If one goes by that standards then evolution has been prove a hundred times over. If you do not understand how that appears to be on you. It is not the fault of scientists.

 

[Neuropteron]

Are you trying to say now that Darwin believed that mice would just appear out of nowhere?



It got confirmed.

Sounds like you are not aware of the +300.000 peer reviewed papers on evolution theory that do exactly that....

.

Hi,

Where and more importantly how did it get confirmed ?

Can you give just one example of peer review that confirmes Darwin's theory?

Have you and others that make claims that Darwinism is confirmed really made sure that its true ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi,

Where and more importantly how did it get confirmed ?

Can you give just one example of peer review that confirmes Darwin's theory?

Have you and others that make claims that Darwinism is confirmed really made sure that its true ?

Dude! Almost every peer reviewed article on events in evolution, and there are millions of them, confirm the theory.

We really need to go over the basics of science.

EDIT: Normally I do not like using search lists as "evidence". But you asked and you shall receive. Over six million of them:

Google Scholar

 

[Heyo]

Hi,

Where and more importantly how did it get confirmed ?

By verifying Darwin's predictions.
One of the first was Archaeopteryx, a transition from dinosaurs to birds, then the discovery of DNA. Not a direct prediction by Darwin himself but from evolutionary theory was Tiktaalik. The scientists predicted where to find it by knowing when it must have existed. They searched an area known to be of that age.
That is the way to confirm a theory: by looking at confirmed predictions.
(Also, every single fossil found was confirmation of evolution. And never a bunny in the pre-Cambrian.)

 

[Neuropteron]

Dude! Almost every peer reviewed article on events in evolution, and there are millions of them, confirm the theory.

We really need to go over the basics of science.

EDIT: Normally I do not like using search lists as "evidence". But you asked and you shall receive. Over six million of them:

Google Scholar

Hi,

A basic "proven by test" science is the 3rd law of thermodynamics, that states that no element can come into existence without a cause and that everything with time degenerates not ameliorates.
This scientific law dissproves the theory of Darwin.

Since there are six million evidences, I have difficulty in understanding that no one can give me just one example.

Simply saying "there is so much evidence" does not answer my question.

 

[Valjean]

You may have just significantly improved my life with this. Thank you. I deeply appreciate it.

Khan academy is great. You can learn anything from basic arithmatic to advanced physics, and the teaching quality is generally excellent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi,

A basic "proven by test" science is the 3rd law of thermodynamics, that states that no element can come into existence without a cause and that everything with time degenerates not ameliorates.
This scientific law dissproves the theory of Darwin.

Since there are six million evidences, I have difficulty in understanding that no one can give me just one example.

Simply saying "there is so much evidence" does not answer my question.

I don't know what you are talking about, but that is not the third law of thermodynamics. In fact none of them say that. Perhaps you might want to get a source?