Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

[Aloysium]

Darwinian evolution explains the poisonous frog quite simply. Some frogs were marginally less digestible than others. Natural selection did the rest.

The thing about poisonous frogs is that they secrete toxins that they absorb from the bugs they eat. They have an enzyme that neutralises the poison. Female frogs lay some unfertilized eggs loaded with toxin among the others so that when the tadpoles hatch and eat them, they will have some of it on board. Their bright colours act frequently as a signal to predators of their toxicity. The thing is not to be eaten in the first place.

Frogs are not bright enough to figure this all out and change themselves. But they have been given instincts that work on many levels. But, the standard theory of evolution explains it as the even dumber, blind luck of random chemical interactions.

 

[Rau]

So, the true short neck giraffes… died out from starvation, but these things didn"t .

Your questions thrash about like a fish out of water. …

 

[buffalo]

The Darwin Tales
It’s Time to Remit Darwinian Storytelling to the Annals of History

Darwinism is an idea past its prime, he concludes, one whose collapse is inevitable and is in fact already demonstrably under way.

Room by room, he shows how evolutionary theory today is being propped up by logical fallacies, bogus claims, and outdated empirical evidence that has all but disintegrated under the weight of new discoveries.

Fraud aside, it also compromises science. When priority is given to proposing and defending materialistic explanations over following the evidence, materialistic philosophy is running the show. Where this happens (and it does), Wells calls it zombie science. “Evolution is a materialistic story,” he writes, "and since the materialistic story trumps the evidence, it is zombie science."

Listen to biologist-turned-filmmaker Randy Olsen’s explanation for why he knowingly passed off falsehood in his 2007 film Flock of Dodos: The Evolution—Intelligent Design Circus: “Scientists must realize that science is a narrative process, that narrative is story, therefore science needs story.” This is stunning! What Olson is saying here is that metaphysical storytelling should override accuracy in science reporting.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

As with many things, appearances can be deceiving. Every single properly controlled experiment to demonstrate Lamarckism has failed. While Darwinism for small adaptations has been demonstrated numerous times.

There are two aspects of Darwinism to consider:
1- natural selection
2- changes occur over time from the accumulation of random mutations

Or, as Richard Dawkins explained it, “Mutations are the random changes in genes that constitute the raw material for evolution by non-random selection.”

That Darwin was right on point 1 doesn’t mean he was right about point 2, and in fact it appears that he got this point wrong, as modern biology is amply demonstrating.

How has modern biology demonstrated that point 2 is wrong?

If mutations occurred solely by the accumulation of random changes how could we explain the transfer of genetic material between species?

Your premise is a misstatement of Darwinism. Darwinism does not rule out the possibility of interspecies transfer of genetic material, although that is not the normal way in which mutations arise.

It is not a question of demonstrating “Lamarckism”, although it has been demonstrated that acquired characteristics can be inherited.

Reference please?

But where is your answer to my objection based on the development of poisonous frogs?

That I fail to guess at a possible creation of one characteristic of one species really says nothing about the validity of the objections I have raised to the problems of evolution from random mutations.

It is not supposed to say anything about that. But it does challenge Lamarkism.

 

[edwest211]

The fact that different species of bacteria have the built-in ability to exchange bits of genetic information reduces chance playing a role. Now, a new finding regarding plants having a certain built-in ability further reduces chance.

Plants reveal decision-making abilities under competition

Plants can choose between alternative competitive responses according to the stature and densities of their opponents, biologists have discovered. A new study reveals that plants can evaluate the competitive ability of their neighbors and optimally match their responses to them.

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[Aloysium]

Techno2000:

So, the true short neck giraffes… died out from starvation, but these things didn"t .

Your questions thrash about like a fish out of water. …

Thrashing about until it grows legs and scurries off into the brush.

Let’s see what the idea evolves into:

The issue is what happened to the shorter necked giraffes and I suppose why the giraffe’s neck grew longer, with the necessary physiology that allows for circulation to the brain and let’s not forget air entry into the lugs when there’s so much dead space in that long neck. The habitat for giraffes includes zebras, wildebeests, cape buffalo, elephants, rhinoceros, every kind of antelope, impala and eland, as well as the predators, scavengers and large variety of birds. Short neck giraffes would have made it if natural selection were the only game in town, just as did the okapi.

There is also an amazing likeness among animals we classify together as a species. It is very interesting given the amount of mutation required to go from an okapi to a giraffe, that we don’t see many more animals with features in between. They should all have survived given the others that did.

I think evolving the idea, is not a form of evolution at all. It is a development, a making of an idea that fits the facts. It’s not a brand new idea but rather one that is growing.

But, we can get a step up beyond and closer to the truth formulating the concept that this all comes about through the Word of God. Containing information about nature, a new idea arises, above it all and revealing what is at the Heart of all things.

 

[Glark]

I think what St John Paul 2 said is great!

"In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the re-foundation of the Academy, it gives me pleasure to recall the intentions of my predecessor, Pius XI, who wished to bring together around him a chosen group of scholars who could, working with complete freedom, inform the Holy See about the developments in scientific research and thus provide aid for reflections.
“To those whom he enjoyed calling the Scientific Senate of the Church, he asked simply this: that they serve the truth. That is the same invitation which I renew today, with the certainty that we can all draw profit from “the fruitfulness of frank dialogue between the Church and science.”” (Discourse to the Academy of Sciences, October 28, 1986, #1)

The Pope asked and expected these scientists - most of whom are atheists who have obviously rejected belief in God and any kind of Creator - to “serve the truth”? Wow, that’s what I call wishful thinking!

At some point it must become scandalous to persist in non-ecclesial proselytizing.

The Church teaches that the faithful are free to believe in a literal “six days” interpretation of Genesis 1 - the faithful are therefore free to completely reject microbe-man evolution. How does supporting this teaching amount to “scandalous … non-ecclesial proselytising”? As far as I can tell, Techno’s position on evolution is not in the least bit “scandalous” nor “non-ecclesial” as far as the Church is concerned. Your accusation seems groundless and based on nothing more than your own prejudice.

 

[Glark]

And the ToE is essentially proven every day of the week

Darwinist word games. Is the theory that all life on earth evolved from microbes “proven every day of the week”?

 

[Glark]

In other words, you only want to converse with people who share your pro-evolution position. Fair enough; you are allowed to do that, I imagine.

 

[Glark]

So now deformities are a case for evolution?

I can’t see why not - some deformities (random mutations) might enhance survival and some won’t (natural selection). That’s how evolution works.

 

[Glark]

Absolutely they are seeing design or what Dawkins called the “illusion of design”. Their a priori position is they “cannot let the DIvine Foot in the door."

Lewontin is a charlatan - he claims it is a FACT that all life on earth evolved from microbes.

BUC

The “no cause” argument. Makes sense to many scientists, apparently. Unfortuantely, high intelligence doesn’t guarantee high intelligence.

 

[Glark]

It was Lamarck who proposed the alternative possibility that environmental pressures on the organism could effect genetic changes.

So, for example, bacteria respond to an antibiotic by producing a genetic modification that make them resistant? Wouldn’t that require intelligence?

 

[Glark]

There is nothing else that could account for it other than divine intervention. And when we start positing divine intervention for things we don’t understand, we give up on science.

What if there are observations that are scientifically impossible? Do we give up on science then?

 

[Glark]

It seems a bit odd that only giraffes “evolved” long necks.

 

[Glark]

The “science” of evolution is exempt from the rules and standards of the other sciences. That’s because it’s existence isn’t about advancing science, but something else … that has nothing at all to do with science.

 

[Rau]

it’s existence isn’t about advancing science, but something else …

Queue X-Files music. “It’s a conspiracy, Scully!!!”

 

[rossum]

Thank you for the link. Evidently they didn’t remove the entire bulk of the code, they just broke a specific switch. There are a great many switches in any genome, for example there is a “make an eye here” switch in humans, which is ‘off’ for the bulk of cells in our body and ‘on’ in two locations in our head.

Repurposing a switch from one gene to another is not a big change. being small it can also happen quickly, given that bacteria have a generation time as short as 30 minutes.

Darwin was aware that evolution happened at different speeds:

But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification.

– Origin, 6th Ed. Chapter Four

As to repeatability, there are many repeatable experiments on evolution, for example the Luria-Delbrück experiment and the Lederberg experiment.

Anyone who tells you that evolution cannot run at different speeds or that it is not repeatable has a very poor understanding of evolution.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The Darwin Tales

It’s Time to Remit Darwinian Storytelling to the Annals of History

Both these links are from SALVO, which describes itself as:

A publication of The Fellowship of St. James (www.fsj.org), Salvo is dedicated to debunking the cultural myths that have undercut human dignity, all but destroyed the notions of virtue and morality, and slowly eroded our appetite for transcendence. It also seeks to promote the Christian worldview.

This is not a science source, it is a religious source. You need to find a better science source, buffalo.

rossum

 

[rossum]

It seems a bit odd that only giraffes “evolved” long necks.

Erm… Did you never go through an “I love dinosaurs” phase when you were a kid? Did you ever come across any Sauropods?

Other species evolved other ways to access the food high in trees, primates and others evolved to climb trees.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

There are a great many switches in any genome, for example there is a “make an eye here” switch in humans, which is ‘off’ for the bulk of cells in our body and ‘on’ in two locations in our head.

It’s more complicated; fascinating is an understatement.

To quote from Wiki:

Eye formation in the human embryo begins at approximately three weeks into embryonic development and continues through the tenth week. Cells from both the mesodermal and the ectodermal tissues contribute to the formation of the eye. Specifically, the eye is derived from the neuroepithelium, surface ectoderm, and the extracellular mesenchyme which consists of both the neural crest and mesoderm. Neuroepithelium forms the retina, ciliary body, iris, and optic nerves. Surface ectoderm forms the lens, corneal epithelium and eyelid. The extracellular mesenchyme forms the sclera, the corneal endothelium and stroma, blood vessels, muscles, and vitreous.

The eye begins to develop as a pair of optic vesicles on each side of the forebrain at the end of the 4th week of pregnancy. Optic vesicles are outgrowings of the brain which make contact with the surface ectoderm and this contact induces changes necessary for further development of the eye. Through a groove at the bottom of the optic vesicle known as choroid fissure the blood vessels enter the eye. Several layers such as the neural tube, neural crest, surface ectoderm, and mesoderm contribute to the development of the eye.

Eye development is initiated by the master control gene Pax-6, . . . a transcription factor for the various genes and growth factors involved in eye formation. Eye morphogenesis begins with the evagination, or outgrowth, of the optic grooves or sulci. These two grooves in the neural folds transform into optic vesicles with the closure of the neural tube. The optic vesicles then develop into the optic cup with the inner layer forming the retina and the outer portion forming the retinal pigment epithelium. The middle portion of the optic cup develops into the ciliary body and iris. During the invagination of the optic cup, the ectoderm begins to thicken and form the lens placode, which eventually separates from the ectoderm to form the lens vesicle at the open end of the optic cup. Further differentiation and mechanical rearrangement of cells in and around the optic cup gives rise to the fully developed eye.

The theory of recapitulation, expressed by the phrase phrase “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” started back in 1790 and became a biogenetic law. It’s been disproven, but stated that during embryonic development an organism repeats what happened during the course of its evolutionary development.

So what we have in the development of the eye is not a replay of genetic changes as they occurred, but rather a shared pattern found in creatures which which possess eyes. I’m pretty sure that most people would be awestruck with the complexity of the process. “Evolution” steps in, and poof, it becomes “the illusion of design”.

It’s actually hilarious, not to ridicule, but really? What are people thinking?!