Evolution — No longer inspiring the confidence it once did

Uncommon Descent ^ | 10/15/06 | William Dembski

[alloysteel]

Not evolution, as Darwin postulated it, but quantum jumps due to mutations, most of which were useless or detrimental to the individual, until a change in environmental conditions makes the mutation a desirable trait.

One of the wild cards in this deck is the "dominant" and "recessive" gene pairs that can keep a mutated gene in play for hundreds of generations before it becomes a factor in adaptation. THEN the Darwinian "survival of the fittest" kicks in.

But this still does not take into account differential counts of chromosome pairs that identify a species. There is no way "evolution" can account for these changes. Again, there has to be some mutagenic factor involved. Like, a chromosome replication that does NOT involve the entire set of chromosome pairs. This can be induced in the laboratory, by careful selection of chromosomes and injection into a developing cell, but how would it occur naturally?

[Dimensio]

Interesting that the article references many alleged claims of disproof, yet offers no actual examples of how the fossil or genetic record "disproves" the theory of evolution.

[forsnax5]

How, exactly, could this have happened?

Fever dreams.

[Thatcherite]

I want to know what "The General Theory of Evolution" actually is. Apparently it also includes the geology of sedimentary deposition if you read the article. That will be news to hundreds of thousands of professional geologists, worldwide.

If a retired Polish geneticist has a genetic disproof of evolution I'm surprised that he doesn't publish it and win a richly deserved Nobel Prize. Likewise Dr Guy Berthault should make billions from his apparent knowledge that all geologists, paleontologists and mineralogists are wrong about rock formation. With his superior understanding he should easily beat the mineral and oil companies to field finds, and become the richest man on earth.

Coming from Europe its sad to discover that we have these cretins here too. I wonder how many of the 700 French Speaking evolution rejectors have relevant credentials. I'm betting less than 20.

[Dimensio]

mutations lose info.

This is false. Mutations change genetic information. Often this change is neutral for the organism, sometimes it is disadvantageous and sometimes it is advantageous. Sometimes whether the change is to the advantage or disadvantage of the organism depends upon environmental conditions.

recessive or dominant genes, it doesnt matter, mutate them and they lose something, natural selection will then Select them OUT,

Your statement is not universally true, thus it supports no premise.

increasing survivablity, but not resulting in any morphological changes into something else other than what it is now.

Please support this claim with evidence.

a dog is a dog is dog and always will be.

No one has claimed that a 'dog' will become anything other than a 'dog' within the lifetime of the individual.

a mutated dog is a mutated dog and will die off.

Given that all organisms incur a copying error in their genetic material during formation, your statement is clearly false.

it wont change into frog ,or fish, or bear, or bird

No one has claimed that an individual organism will experince a dramatic morphological change in its lifetime.

no matter how much handwaving, or just-so stories the evos postulate as some sort of 'scientific' research.

Given that you apparently do not understand the basic statements of the theory of evolution, it is difficult to consider you credible when you claim the evidednce to be 'just so' stories, or 'handwaving'.

[alloysteel]

I was merely trying to point out that evolution, as a vehicle for origination of species, simply does not work.

And while most mutations are useless, or even lethal, that does not mean that the information in the reformulated gene is destroyed, or less, than existed in the original form. It is merely different, and will present a different aspect, as the organism grows to maturity.

And no, I am not trying to defend evolution in any way. I was trying to determine what OTHER mechanism could explain, at least a little more to my satisfaction, how the various species came into existence.

Because when every other explanation is exhausted, the one, or few that remain, have to have some semblance of the truth.

Just because oxygen is invisible to our eyes, does not mean it does not exist. (That was an analogy, in case somebody was going to be WAY too literal.)

[Thatcherite]

But this still does not take into account differential counts of chromosome pairs that identify a species. There is no way "evolution" can account for these changes. Again, there has to be some mutagenic factor involved. Like, a chromosome replication that does NOT involve the entire set of chromosome pairs. This can be induced in the laboratory, by careful selection of chromosomes and injection into a developing cell, but how would it occur naturally?

Take a look at the precise nature of the chromosome difference between chimps and humans and the problem resolves itself. Two of the chimp chromosomes are laid end-to-end in one human chromosome, the result of a historic accident. That chromosome even has in it, in the middle, at the place where the information from chimp-equivalent-2p and chimp-equivalent-2q join, a molecular marker *usually* seen at the end of a chromosome.

[Dimensio]

Because when every other explanation is exhausted, the one, or few that remain, have to have some semblance of the truth.

This is a variant of the false dichotomy fallacy. It is possible that an explanation that you have not yet considered is the correct explanation.

[Dimensio]

what is wrong with creation as the bible says? why is that not even permitted on the table for discussion?

No evidence exists for the claim, and the claim is not scientific. Why the particular creation story of the Bible, and not a different supernatural creation story?

[LiteKeeper]

HOOAH!

[Guyin4Os]

We need to go back to using leeches instead of those so-called anti-biotics

Actually, doctors today do use leeches. For example, if a finger is sewed back on to a hand, the doctor will attach a leech to the tip of the finger so as to encourage the blood to resume flowing into the previously disattached finger.

[CommandoFrank]

A cult or high control group has specific ways of controlling people including but not limited to divorcing the new recruits from family or friends and shunning by the entire group to penalize those that attempt to leave the group. The leadership must be obeyed at all cost and ...

This reminds me of Amway...

[Coyoteman]

Why the particular creation story of the Bible, and not a different supernatural creation story?

Here's a good one!

The Creation of Men and Women

When the world was finished, there were as yet no people, but the Bald Eagle was chief of the animals. He saw that the world was incomplete and decided to make some human beings. So he took some clay and modeled the figure of a man and laid him on the ground. At first he was very small but he grew rapidly until he reached normal size. But as yet he had no life; he was still asleep. Then the Bald Eagle stood and admired his work. "It is impossible," he said, "that he should be left alone; he must have a mate." So he pulled out a feather and laid it beside the sleeping man. Then he left them and went off a short distance, for he knew that a woman was being formed from the feather. But the man was still asleep and did not know what was happening. When the Bald Eagle decided that the woman was about completed, he returned, awoke the man by flapping his wings over him and flew away.

The man opened his eyes and stared at the woman. "What does this mean?" he asked. "I thought I was alone!" Then the Bald Eagle returned and said with a smile, "I see you have a mate! Have you had intercourse with her?" "No," replied he man, for he and the woman knew nothing about each other. Then the Bald Eagle called to Coyote who happened to be going by and said to him, "Do you see that woman? Try her first!" Coyote was quite willing and complied, but immediately afterwards lay down and died. The Bald Eagle went away and left Coyote dead, but presently returned and revived him. "How did it work?" said the Bald Eagle. "Pretty well, but it nearly kills a man!" replied Coyote. "Will you try it again?" said the Bald Eagle. Coyote agreed, and tried again, and this time survived. Then the Bald Eagle turned to the man and said, "She is all right now; you and she are to live together.

[ahayes]

But this still does not take into account differential counts of chromosome pairs that identify a species. There is no way "evolution" can account for these changes.

Ow, my head.

[antiRepublicrat]

Already posted.

[Tribune7]

Related but different.

[RogueIsland]

Then the Bald Eagle returned and said with a smile, "I see you have a mate! Have you had intercourse with her?" "No," replied he man, for he and the woman knew nothing about each other. Then the Bald Eagle called to Coyote who happened to be going by and said to him, "Do you see that woman? Try her first!" Coyote was quite willing and complied, but immediately afterwards lay down and died. The Bald Eagle went away and left Coyote dead, but presently returned and revived him. "How did it work?" said the Bald Eagle. "Pretty well, but it nearly kills a man!" replied Coyote. "Will you try it again?" said the Bald Eagle. Coyote agreed, and tried again, and this time survived. Then the Bald Eagle turned to the man and said, "She is all right now; you and she are to live together.

Easily the most accurate depiction of the human condition I have yet read.

[RogueIsland]

(I felt it necessary to stress that point to counter the Darwin cultists who will otherwise attempt to deceitfully or ignorantly hijack the thread and claim--falsely--that Dembski authored the piece)

Why, has Dembski become that much of an intellectual embarrassment to the Creationists already?