Evolution evidence: the truth

[Ahimsa]

Woese, the Stanley O. Ikenberry Endowed Chair, changed the way scientists classify life on Earth by his discovery of the archaea. Woese joined the Illinois faculty in 1964 after working at Yale University (1955-60), General Electric Research Laboratory (1960- 63) and the Pasteur Institute in Paris (1962). In 1977, in collaboration with UI microbiologist Ralph S. Wolfe, Woese overturned one of the major dogmas of biology.[Woese’s]
theory challenges the longstanding Darwinian assumption known as the Doctrine of Common Descent – that all life on Earth has descended from one original primordial form.
​

True, but Woese still believes in evolution. The original ancestor may not have been “one” cell, but whether it was one or many, doesn’t contradict Darwinian theory. To wit, from the pdf file:

[Woese] wrote: “The universal ancestor is not a discrete entity. It is, rather, a diverse community of cells that survives and evolves
as a biological unit. This communal ancestor has a physical history but not a genealogical one. Over time, this ancestor refined into a smaller number of increasingly complex
cell types with the ancestors of the three primary groupings of organisms arising as a result.”

In the same journal in June 2002, Woese refined his theory, arguing that life did not
begin with one primordial cell. Instead, he said there were initially at least three simple
types of loosely constructed cellular organizations swimming in a pool of genes, evolving in a communal way that aided one another in bootstrapping into the three distinct types of cells by sharing through lateral gene transfer their evolutionary inventions.

 

[freedomm]

In an interview with** Joan Bakewell** for BBC Radio 4 in March 2005, Professor Anthony Flew rejected the fine*-tuning* argument, and retracted his earlier claims that the origins of DNA could not be explained by naturalistic theories.

---

Excertps from Professor Anthony Flew’s interview with the BBC, UK
22nd March 2005

Q: Let’s now talk about what you have come to believe recently and the changes you have made to your non-belief. The explanations seem to be several. One, not necessarily the prime one, but it concerned 50 years of research into DNA. Can you explain why you regard those developments, those 50 years as…

A: Well when I did most of my talking about this, I was not aware that there has actually been apparently some progress in what looked to Darwin himself as the insoluble problem of… Darwin’s theory ended in chapter fourteen of ‘The Origin of Species’ with Darwin’s account of how the whole story began. It began with a creature capable of reproduction with occasional errors.

Q: Can I read in fact the sentence which you quote from Darwin, which is fundamental to the way you have changed your mind? Darwin wrote ‘I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings that have lived on the earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.’

A: Yes.

Q: Can you expand your…

A: Well Darwin presumably believed himself that it was breathed by the deity, and a great many people - not only me -were shaken by the enormous complexity of DNA, and wondering whether it would ever be possible to produce a naturalistic theory there. I believe that it has now begun to…

Q: The argument that you pursue is that at, as it were, the beginning of the development of life, which Darwin expounds and you accept his exposition…

A: No he’s only expounding the origin of species you know. He offers us really, in this fourteenth chapter, the starting point of his whole theory. But that starting point is a thing that still needs a naturalistic explanation. And many people after the findings of DNA looked around and wondered whether they’d ever be able to find it, and thought it would simply be impossible to do it. Well it isn’t.​

For whole interview: bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/belief/scripts/antony_flew.html ]

---

 

[freedomm]

---------------A qoute------------------

Italian geneticist Dr.Giuseppe Sermonti maps what he depicts as a growing scientific case against neo-Darwinism in his new book, Why is a Fly Not a Horse? (July 2005).

Dr. Sermonti challenges the myth that all critics of Darwinism are American religious fundamentalists and argues that since genetics does not explain even the present forms of life, genetic mutations cannot alone explain their origin.

The book extends beyond genetics, drawing on a variety of disciplines.** “Sermonti describes biology which contradicts Darwinian expectations: leaf insects appearing in the fossil record before leaves, insects before plants, and biological forms that reflect abstract mathematical expressions,” ** said biochemist Michael Behe, author of ‘Darwin’s Black Box’. "He shows that there are more things in life than are dreamt of in Darwinian philosophy."

Sermonti is a retired Professor of Genetics at the University of Perugia. He discovered genetic recombination in antibiotic-producing Penicillium and Streptomyces and was Vice President at XIV International Congress of Genetics (Moscow, 1980). He is Chief Editor of Rivista di Biologia, one of the** world’s oldest biology journals** still in publication.]​

---

 

[freedomm]

A scientific dissent from Darwinism

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for the Darwinian theory should be encouraged"

For details:

dissentfromdarwin.org/

---

Over 400 Scientists Convinced by New Scientific Evidence That Darwinian Evolution is Deficient

For details:
discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC&id=2732

​

---

 

[freedomm]

Below are some excerpts from:

An open letter to the Kansas State Board of Education
from
Professor Philip S. Skell,
Member, National Academy of Sciences, Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus Penn State University

---

“Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work. I have found that some of my scientific colleagues are very reluctant to acknowledge the existence of problems with evolutionary theory to the general public. They display an almost religious zeal for a strictly Darwinian view of biological origins.”

“Modern biology is engaged in the examination of tissues from living organisms with new methods and instruments. None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution—it provided no support.”

"For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any criticism of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.

In my judgment, this state of affairs has persisted mainly because too many scientists were afraid to challenge what had become a philosophical orthodoxy among their colleagues. Fortunately, that is changing as many scientists are now beginning to examine the evidence for neo-Darwinism more openly and critically in scientific journals."

“Intellectual freedom is fundamental to the scientific method. Learning to think creatively, logically and critically is the most important training that young scientists can receive. Encouraging students to carefully examine the evidence for and against neo-Darwinism, therefore, will help prepare students not only to understand current scientific arguments, but also to do good scientific research.”

For details:
toriah.org/science/evolution/Skell-open-letter-Kansas-Education.pdf

Why Do We Invoke Darwin?

the-scientist.com/2005/8/29/10/1/

discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2816

------​

 

[freedomm]

A qoute from:

**Darwinism is Beside the Point **

By: Dr. Philip S. Skell
Philadelphia Daily News
February 13, 2006

"My research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s earlier discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin.

Recently, I asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they’d thought Darwin was wrong. All said no.

I examined the great biodiscoveries of the 20th century - the double helix, the mapping of genomes, the characterization of the ribosome, research on medications and drug reactions, improvements in food production and sanitation, new surgeries.

I even queried biologists in areas where you’d expect Darwinian theory to most benefit research, as in the emergence of antibiotic and pesticide resistance (antibiotic resistance was first recognized in the clinic, from fatal relapses among tuberculosis patients). Darwin’s theory provided no discernible guidance. Instead, it was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss."

For details:
discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3248​

Dr Philip S. Skell is a
Member of National Academy of Sciences, Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry and Emeritus Penn State University]

---

 

[freedomm]

** A Definitive Reply to Evolutionist Propaganda**

• A SERIES OF BLUNDERS REGARDING MONKEY INTELLIGENCE
• Claims That Chimpanzees and Man are Brothers or Genetic
  Relatives are Untrue
• National Geographic TV’s Propaganda Tactics
• Beware the Monkey Culture Distortion
• Monkey Blunders from National Geographic TV
• Conclusion

Details:
harunyahya.com/definitivereply02.php

---

 

[freedomm]

Qoutes from:

** University of Chicago study overturns conventional theory in evolution **

June 7, 2005

New data suggest that the accumulation of genetic changes is not solely determined by natural selection. A study by University of Chicago researchers contradicts conventional theory by showing that the percentage of mutations accepted in evolution is also strongly swayed by the speed at which new mutations arrive at a gene: the faster the speed of new mutations, the greater the percentage of those mutations accepted.

"We’ve discovered a striking phenomenon that challenges a paradigm of molecular evolution that has been around for several decades," said lead author Bruce Lahn, PhD, assistant professor of genetics at the University of Chicago and Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator. "As such, it may cause a significant shift in the field."

---

"The novelty of this work is that he [Lahn] used a large amount of data," Sudhir Kumar, an associate professor of molecular evolution at Arizona State University, said. **“It’s a perfect example of the power of the genome project.” **

Details:

uchospitals.edu/news/2005/20050607-kaks.html

• • • -

 

[Orogeny]

freedomm:

Qoutes from:

Do you have anything to add to the discussion other than selected quotations from mostly non-scientific publications? Any thoughts of your own? Do you understand the implications of what you are posting?

Peace

Tim

 

[freesoulhope]

rossum:

Oh dear, here we do again. The usual mix of old or irrelevant creationist stuff that has already been refuted oh so many times before. Can’t you people come up with some new arguments that we have not seen already?

Part 1

This is not a fraud. Have a look at Lucy’s skeleton. Have a look at her legs. See how long they are compared to her torso. Have a look at a chimpanzee. See how short its legs are compared to its torso. Lucy was definitely not a chimpanzee. Experts will be able to see even more differences. Your source was wrong about this. Lucy is good evidence for human evolution.

Piltdown was indeed a forgery. It was once considered important because it was one of only a few ‘early’ fossils available at the time. Once the early hominids from Africa began to be discovered in the thirties it quickly became less important, usually relegated to a footnote because it didn’t fit with the others. For details see this webpage. There is plenty of evidence for human evolution without Piltdown Man.

This is not a fraud. The re-identification as a pig was done in 1927 only five years later. Nebraska man was not around long enough to have any real effect. Remember that in 1922 the evidence from Africa had not yet been found so it was not unreasonable to have an early human in America. For details see this webpage. There is plenty of evidence for human evolution without Nebraska Man.

Part 2 to follow.

rossum

Why does finding a skeleton prove evolution? All they have done is found a skeleton and said " this is proof that we evolved from an ape like creatures". But i never see anyone explain why or how this is the case, nor do i see anyone explain how they come to thier conclusion in the first place. All i hear is, " oh no! not another creationist, they have been refuted many times". Show me the evidence to support this other then skeletal remains.

 

[Orogeny]

freesoulhope:

Why does finding a skeleton prove evolution? All they have done is found a skeleton and said " this is proof that we evolved from an ape like creatures". But i never see anyone explain why or how this is the case, nor do i see anyone explain how they come to thier conclusion in the first place. All i hear is, " oh no! not another creationist, they have been refuted many times". Show me the evidence to support this other then skeletal remains.

Well, first off, no one finds a skeleton and proclaims “this is proof that we evolved from an ape like creatures”. There has been plenty of discussion about this on these threads that that impression should not need refuting any more.

If you want you question answered, why don’t you start by telling us what you know about Lucy? What are the things that make paleontologists think that the skeleton represents a potential human ancestor?

Peace

Tim

 

[freesoulhope]

Orogeny:

What are the things that make paleontologists think that the skeleton represents a potential human ancestor?

Peace

Tim

Can you please anwser the above Qeustion. peace

 

[rossum]

freesoulhope:

Why does finding a skeleton prove evolution?

My post was to refute Chris LaRock’s claim that Lucy was just a chimpanzee. Lucy was neither a chimp nor a modern human. She was better at climbing trees than we are, but worse than a chimp. She was better at walking upright than a modern chimp, but not as good as we are. No single skeleton can “prove” evolution, but she is just one of many separate evidences that indicate evolution happened, and continues to happen.

freesoulhope:

Show me the evidence to support this other then skeletal remains.

Given that there is a limit on the length of posts here, I will have to refer you to the list of Evidences for Macroevolution for the details. There is a mountain of evidence for evolution, with more coming in as more DNA is sequenced.

rossum

 

[Orogeny]

freesoulhope:

Can you please anwser the above Qeustion. peace

That was my question to you. Tell us what you think are the reasons that Lucy is considered a possible ancestor.

Peace

Tim

 

[freesoulhope]

I havent got a clue, this is the problem, they just say that it is, on tv. Lucy could be anything, any colour and have any kind of skin. I feel that they look at animals today, and make assumtions. Basically going back through time considering all the routes that evolution would need to take in order to end up looking like the humans we see today( assuming again, that evolution made the human body)

 

[freesoulhope]

So assuming before hand that we evolved from a pre-existing life form. Its logical that they would say that lucy was possibly that life form!
"Hey, did my brain just get a liitle bigger?"

 

[Orogeny]

I havent got a clue, this is the problem, they just say that it is, on tv. Lucy could be anything, any colour and have any kind of skin. I feel that they look at animals today, and make assumtions. Basically going back through time considering all the routes that evolution would need to take in order to end up looking like the humans we see today( assuming again, that evolution made the human body)

Well, there are plenty of good resources regarding human evolution that you can find on the internet. The most commonly linked site you will find in this forum is talkorigins.com. They have a little info on Lucy, but it sounds to me that you ought to take a more general look at the evidence of human ancestors. Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) is only one of quite a few hominids that make up either our ancestry or represent the lineage that became modern apes.

Peace

Tim