Posted on 08/25/2019 2:15:58 PM PDT by Roman_War_Criminal
Renowned Yale computer scientist David Gelernter claims that he is abandoning Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Gelernter, who formerly served as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, published a column earlier this year detailing his move away from evolutionary theory. The column, which was titled “Giving Up Darwin,” provides Gelernter’s arguments against Darwinism.
Darwin’s theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from old ones in a constantly branching, spreading tree of life. Those brave new Cambrian creatures must therefore have had Precambrian predecessors, similar but not quite as fancy and sophisticated. They could not have all blown out suddenly, like a bunch of geysers. Each must have had a closely related predecessor, which must have had its own predecessors: Darwinian evolution is gradual, step-by-step. All those predecessors must have come together, further back, into a series of branches leading down to the (long ago) trunk.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I don’t think it has been established why Kaczynski targetted anybody beyond that he was running a one man war to get even with those he perceived as having done wrong to the world he desired.
Darwinism was thoroughly discredited decades ago...
That does not strike me as a scientific definition. Are you suggesting that creationism has greater scientific validity than evolution?
I dunno, maybe wherever the evidence leads? Scientists have hung onto Darwinism for years because, as Richard Lewontin said, “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”
"Observation" is what science is founded on. Not "life philosophy."
DNA is an information system. (That's where Gelernter's computer expertise comes in.) You can't, by randomly destroying pieces of it, create new information.
Of course, a proper scientist never says never. Gelernter modestly says the chances of a random mutation producing a stable protein that performs some useful function, are 1 in 1074 --- which is no different, in practice, from saying that they are zero.
(I'm quoting this from memory. Ballpark. It might have been 1 in 1077.)
Anyway, forget theology, says (non-theist) Gelernter. Do the math.
You’re welcome to try to explain why species can change to other forms of the same species and cannot become another species and how all species developed despite this hardset limitation of evolution, without recognizing the most likely explanation of a working intelligence
What replaced it?
Genetic codes/DNA structures are information systems. That's where "biology" and "information systems" come together.
Blowing off the math is just refusing to do your homework. No, worse, it's throwing a spitball at the sweat-the-details guys who DID do their homework.
“Gelernter modestly says the chances of a random mutation producing a stable protein that performs some useful function, are 1 in 10 [raised to some extremely large number]”
I suspect that is on any one trial. But when the number of trials involve billions of repetitions, chances would be dramatically greater.
Dude with no biology training is lecturing us on microbiology. …
LOL!
Music is an information system. Does that mean he can write an opera?
“God gave him a second chance.”
Maybe God was trying to whack him?
His arm was blown off by a mail bomb shipped by the Unabomber (yes, that guy), nearly 25 years ago.
But then it turns out that billions of repetitions don't add up to any kind of real-world probablility when the number of (estimated) atoms in the Universe is 1080. "Billions, or even "billions of billions," doesn't really cut it.
I think the cat was out of the bag when fair-minded people stopped calculating like a Yanomami ("a whole lot," waving fingers) and started staring at the real numbers.
I am not a math brainiac. (I am not the droid you are looking for.) But this, Gelernter's turn-around article, "Giving Up Darwin", is worth a read.
He's not saying "Evolution didn't happen." He's not saying "God did it." He's just saying it couldn't have happened the way it is always explained. The evidence is not there. THe counter-evidence is plentiful.
It's all foiled by the stubborn fact that proteins are NOT formed and have NEVER been formed in the way evolutionists say they would have HAD to be formed. The mutation/selection numbers literally do not add up.
Gelernter was, and still is, one of the top computer science professors in the country, and typifies the scientific-technological academic community which was the target of Kaczynski's ire.
“Genetic codes/DNA structures are information systems. That’s where “biology” and “information systems” come together.”
A coder can read the code but cannot build the electronics.
So it’s evolution, but we are not going to call it evolution. Right. Makes perfect logical sense. Maybe we can give you a Nobel Prize for your semantic chicanery.
Very good observation.
Ping For Later
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.