Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
benjamin1973 said:
Be careful about conflating terms. “Devolution” is not primarily used as a biological term. As a biological term, it is strongly connected to a theistic world view
Click to expand...
What?

Evolution besides its cooption into biology to replace what should otherwise and more appropriately be defined as adaptation or transformation, has a meaning that has to do with gradual development from a simple to a more complex form. The evolution of thought or science or of a person’s understanding.

I am careful how I use my words. The meaning can be very unclear however, because I am trying to have the reader see things in a different way, to go beyond the rigid structures that may evolve through life. Some of what I say has to do with seeing past the false dichotomy that exists between understanding of the material and psychological, and they with the spiritual structures of being. So no doubt it will cause confusion if the understanding of reality is mistaken to be reality itself. Regardless, the context of the word usually gives the reader some idea of which meaning is intended.
 
Last edited:
After years of reading threads like this where people have kindly provided information, and my readings of the technical literature, there is no evidence that the concept of evolution is used for anything. Example:
  1. Drug discovery. Evolution offers zero guidance. Instead, it’s all trial and error. Many vials are filled with an amount of infected tissue. Different chemical combinations are added and whatever kills or harms the disease is examined more closely. This direct observation has to be confirmed again. Once a chemical combination is chosen, test animals with the disease target are injected with it. Those chemical combinations that do not kill the test animal or cause a great number of side effects, are submitted with other candidates for possible use in human trials. Stage One human trials begin. Results, both in killing or suppressing the disease, are recorded. Among the various chemical combinations, the goal is finding the one that is most effective at curing or significantly slowing down the disease process with the least number of side effects.
Out of a number of drugs in trials, a few are eliminated, while others go to Stage Two, and maybe, get approved. Then you turn on your TV and find out that a new drug with a weird name can help people with some particular illness/disease, but, the list of side effects sound bad, usually very bad. If I had whatever, I would never “ask my doctor” for the drug.

Evolution not required.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
40.png
benjamin1973:
Be careful about conflating terms. “Devolution” is not primarily used as a biological term. As a biological term, it is strongly connected to a theistic world view
Click to expand...
What?

Evolution besides its cooption into biology to replace what should otherwise and more appropriately be defined as adaptation or transformation, has a meaning that has to do with gradual development from a simple to a more complex form. The evolution of thought or science or of a person’s understanding.

I am careful how I use my words. The meaning can be very unclear however, because I am trying to have the reader see things in a different way, to go beyond the rigid structures that may evolve through life. Some of what I say has to do with seeing past the false dichotomy that exists between understanding of the material and psychological, and they with the spiritual structures of being. So no doubt it will cause confusion if the understanding of reality is mistaken to be reality itself. Regardless, the context of the word usually gives the reader some idea of which meaning is intended.
Click to expand...
You mean that there is something abstract about life that science can’t account for.
 
edwest211 said:
This theory is immune from criticism.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken. Eldredge and Gould criticised evolutionary theory with their idea of punctuated equilibrium. Their criticism was accepted and incorporated in the theory. Kimura criticised evolutionary theory with his idea of neutral drift. His criticism was accepted and incorporated in the theory.

You seem to have a mistaken idea of how science, in general and biology in particular work.

Valid criticism is accepted, sometimes after a struggle, and incorporated into the theory.

rossum
 
Techno2000 said:
I speculate that the egg came first because chickens come from eggs…right ?
Click to expand...
Correct. The egg is genetically different from its parents, but genetically identical to the adult that develops from it. The egg comes first. An almost-but-not-quite-chicken lays an egg that hatches into an only-just-chicken.

rossum
 
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
I speculate that the egg came first because chickens come from eggs…right ?
Click to expand...
Correct. The egg is genetically different from its parents, but genetically identical to the adult that develops from it. The egg comes first. An almost-but-not-quite-chicken lays an egg that hatches into an only-just-chicken.

rossum
Click to expand...
Working backwards what was causing all the almost-but-not-quite-chicken to die out ?
 
rossum said:
This is not true of RNA; strings of RNA are chemically active and can perform the function of enzymes. They are called ribozymes – RNA enzymes.

RNA can store information, as does DNA and it can also have chemical activity, like enzymes. Because RNA performs both functions, there is no chicken-and-egg problem.
Click to expand...
Sorry Rossum. I missed your answer to my chicken and egg problem.

Next question:
Does the construction of RNA require enzymes? And where do these enzymes come from?
 
Their faith in evolutionism is far greater than faith in Revelation. Yet they do not see the weak foundation they are standing on.
 
To be fair I think it’s about the same level of faith. But one realises it is faith and the other doesn’t.
 
Everything is incorporated into evolution. It is constantly being “adjusted” based on latest findings. Over and over the literature shows surprise, or earlier than thought. or unexpected etc.

The only thing it will not adjust to is evidence of design. Why? Because it is game over.

What do we see? Exactly that and why the top evos are dumping the modern synthesis in favor of self assembly. Oh my.
 
‘The chicken came first, not the egg’, scientists prove

But now they believe they have cracked the conundrum of what came first. British researchers say the chicken must have come first as the formation of eggs is only possible thanks to a protein found in the chicken’s ovaries. ‘It had long been suspected that the egg came first but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first,’ said Dr Colin Freeman, from Sheffield University, who worked with counterparts at Warwick University.

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2010/07/13/the-c...-the-egg-scientists-prove-447738/?ito=cbshare
 
Last edited:
This is worth watching

he Magician’s Twin - CS Lewis
A powerful must see video:

The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism

The Similarity Between Science and Magic
  1. Science as religion
  2. Science as credulity
  3. Science as power
Evolution is an alternative religion

idvolution.blogspot.com

The Magician's Twin - CS Lewis

The Magician's Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism
idvolution.blogspot.com idvolution.blogspot.com
 
Another question for evolutionists. @hugh_farey
Again I’m really being genuine about this from a scientific perspective.

In medicine retrospective studies are prone to bias and confounders and that’s why one day you hear wine or coffee is good for you the next day some other study says it’s bad for you.

I think it’s the same with evolution. Retrospective analysis is only hypothesis generating.

My question is
What do you think is the evolutionist’s strongest prospective data?
I’ve read the abiogenesis experiments with the primordial soup but someone criticised that they added too much nitrogen in the atmosphere or something.
I’m sure there are other experiments, so I am willing to learn about this.
 
Last edited:
ratio1 said:
Science requires healthy scepticism and evaluating critically. Otherwise it’s just a religion.
Click to expand...
And we all know how ghastly religions are …
ratio1 said:
What is your view on all the Eucharistic miracles where they have proved the host has turn into cardiac muscle with DNA that represents someone from a middle eastern background?
Is it all a big hoax or what?
Click to expand...
Yup. All a big hoax. There are some shrivelled bits of flesh in various reliquaries which tradition claims is miraculously transformed eucharist, but I don’t believe they are.
ratio1 said:
Can someone answer the chicken and egg problem?
Click to expand...
Is this your idea that you cannot make proteins without enzymes, and you can’t make enzymes without proteins? Neither is necessarily true. They both facilitate each others formation, but are not absolutely essential to it. Any general article on evolution will discuss the solution. Try ‘The Classification and Evolution of Enzyme Function’ by Sergio Martínez Cuesta et al for a start.
 
I can’t believe you’re the slightest bit interested, but you could have a look at: ‘Developmental patterns in Mesozoic evolution of mammal ears’ by Zhe-Xi Luo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top