Posted on 08/20/2009 10:14:53 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The collectivist challenge to Darwinism The general public is led to think that Charles Darwin magnificently solved the problems associated with the emergence of biological complexity. Many opinion-formers write confidently about the revolution triggered by the publication of "On the origin of species" in 1859. These people have developed a 'consensus' position which they use to convince scientific societies, policy makers, funding agencies and educationalists that any dilution of Darwinism is a retrograde step, ushering in a dark age for science. What will they make - and what will we make - of an essay in Nature Physics that talks about breaking with "many of the presuppositions of traditional evolutionary thinking" and highlights its message with these words:
"A coming revolution may go so far as to unseat Darwinian evolution as the key explanatory process in biology."
The essay is a contribution to cross-disciplinary thinking. It starts with an awareness of collective phenomena in modern physics. Thinking has moved away from reductionism and is adopting a holistic interactionism. The new focus is on...
(Excerpt) Read more at arn.org ...
Just crap. What do you expect from ARN.org?
You don't need "evolution" if you can reach out and grab the genes you need. In fact, at some level microscopic bodies may have access to vast processing power in quantum structures and might even be able to figure out what genes they need before they seek them out.
I know that doesn't advance your particular Creationist view, but it sure does in Darwinian evolution at least at the microscopic levels.
We can move up the ladder to ourselves and it may be enirely possible that we have achieved our current form(s) because that's what happens if your clade acquires certain currently available free genes.
In short, we humans may be a case of self-organization but we simply don't realize it.
Finding more humans elsewhere in the universe might be instructive.
As are all forms of life.
Dunno if it's all crap. I tend to agree with this. But IMHO, what it means is that the change agent is not random genetic mutation, not that the theory of evolution is itself false.
I have been trumpeting the fact that this day was coming for years now. My advice is not to put too much faith in the new and vastly expanded role for horizontal gene transfer (HGT) as it is but a materialist inference designed to save evolution after the felling of Darwin’s so-called “tree of life.”
All the best—GGG
Thanks for the ping!
How does this validate the Noah's Ark 'single pair of kinds origin' creationist theory that GodGunsGuts wants taught in public schools that fell apart in the 1800s? All these posts somehow are supposed to lead to that conclusion but I dont see it.
In case you noticed, I tend to post a broad range of articles and papers that refute evolution. In this particular case, the review I posted is confirming something I have been saying for several years now...namely, that the Evos were on the verge of been forced to jettison Darwinian evolution. Now that it is happening, they are also responding exactly the way Creationists and IDers thought they would if and when this day should ever come...they are casting about, looking for a new God-denying evolutionary “theory” rather than giving the main and ever-strengthening alternative to materialistic evolution a second look.
Saw the movie “The Bible :In the Beginning’ 1966 on reto-plex
You need to watch this one with your friends, especially the part with Noah’s Ark. They had no nails to put the Ark together, just logs, tar (??? or was this syrup from trees) and wooden hammers and wooden spikes. But its the size of a Ocean liner and enclosed and floated the Ocean in a huge flood like Posidon Adventure. All the animals 2 by 2 travel from around the world to get there: polar bears, lions and tigers. Of course those animals (bears and tigers and lions) were not known by the early Jews who wrote the Bible so they are not really mentioned in the Old Testament especially Genesis(Moses books) , the movie screenwriter added those in 1966. The Genesis writers didnt know there were sexless animals either. (Didnt see the bugs loaded although I am sure Noah had fleas after the trip LOL)
Then watch the birds and the bears and lions and tigers all living together on the Ark. He fed the cats the milk from the other animals, imagine feeding a hungry grown tiger milk in an Ark for 100 days, meow!!!.
Why isnt this taught in science class??? Darwinists are scared kids will realize this kills Darwinism LOL
Boy, news of Darwin’s unscientific creation myth collapsing like a house of cards has really got you upset doesn’t it. Poor chap. What will you ever do with all your Darwin idols? I hear they make great paper weights.
The number one targets of liberalism are the Holy Bible and the traditional conservative Christianity as represented by the overwhelming majority of religious Americans in our nation’s history.
Looks like ARN has discovered evolutionary biology from 1946.
What will Stephen C. Meyer discover next?
1.) Man is born into trouble like sparks fly upward.
2.) `Mondo Cane’ Netflix
3.) http://www.amazon.com/Wonderful-Life-Burgess-Nature-History/dp/039330700X
The angels were afraid that after the eye-opening experience of eating from the forbiddent tree we might also eat from the tree of life and be like them: immortal.
So we’re tossed from the garden of Eden and told that the wages of sin is death.
But even if we had left things alone, unspoken seems to be that if we did not eat from the tree of life, we would die anyway, walking and talking with God in the Garden or not.
So, there has to be an upside to all this working-by-the-sweat-of-our-brows and enduring the pain of labor and reading GGG’s posts and adhering to the dictates of desert religions thousands of years gone; that is, acquiring the knowledge of good and evil, or having the ability, courage and (perhaps more importantly) the willingness or inclination to discern the difference between truth and lies.
I’ll go with veritas. I’m guessing the Angel with the blazing sword has been ordered to keep out the knuckleheads.
You mean like Noah's Arc collapsed when Noah tried putting the first ‘kind’ on it?
Classic Gish creationism says that ‘killing evolution results in the only alternative creation’. But now ID has popped up as another so called ‘alternative’ that creationists think hurts evolution, but ID says nothing positive about creation or Noahs Ark which is your real objective.
“Given the agnostic nature of the ID Movement regarding the identity of the Designer, is it a friend or foe to Bible-believing Christians? When used as a wedge to chip away at the foundations of evolution and naturalism, the ID Movement’s distinction from conventional religion can undoubtedly be an asset, allowing an alternative voice to be heard where it is otherwise censored or dismissed. However, that dichotomy should raise flags when the ID Movement is promoted within the church and religious institutions where censorship is not an issue, particularly when used as a substitute for teaching the biblical creation model. All reasoning, scientific or otherwise, pertaining to origins is ultimately based on religious and philosophical presuppositions. Believers should admit theirs, and use the Bible as an asset to unashamedly define their way of thinking, rather than treating it as a liability that could potentially compromise their intellectual regard. That is what a biblical worldview is all about. ”
At link: Answers in Genesis:Should the church be enthusiastic about the ID movement?
Best scientific answers coalesce when one observes, measures, replicates by experiment, and computes formulas for phenomenon. Examinations for many physical events have not reached this four-fold rationality.
One example is String Theory, or the “theory of everything”; everything for atomic, micro-processes. Elegant mathematical models utilize eleven dimensions to unify gravitational, electromagnetic, and nuclear strong and weak forces. Here is computation without experiment, measurement, or observation. Notable critics say scientists utilize mathematics, but inadvertently venture into philosophy or religion. Rigorous debate continues.
The other extreme is Darwinism or macroevolution, where all is observation. Rigorous measurements and experiments require 1,000 to 10,000 times recorded history. Scientists contemplate observed phenomenon, and decide evolution explains everything.
Yet macroevolution fails computational testing, with vanishing small probabilities, using Thermodynamics, which covers all macro-processes. Natural processes in open systems, as required by natural selection, create increased disorder, release energy, and increase entropy. Even huge energy inputs result in Katrina, and not the Brooklyn Bridge absent intentionality. All debate prohibited.
Assume there are 100,000 linear progressions between the primordial soup and the first mammal. Assume 99,980 have absolute certainty of occurrence. If 20 steps have a significant probability for occurrence of 1 in 10, the overall probability for these chemical and biological events would be .000000000000000001 percent. At the other end of the spectrum, a formula for random selection must account for the 40 quadrillion electro-chemical connections between cells in the human brain which cause function.
Darwinist advocates contend contrary arguments require intrusion of God. Yet good theologians of desert religions would say a god hedged in by observation, measurement, experiment, and computation ends up equivalent to the Golden Calf the Israelites constructed in the Wilderness. Their God can only be found by mystical, faith encounters.
The best hope for macroevolution investigation requires intrusion by scientists such as you noted, who neither shrink before, nor embrace religious heresy.
I’m still waiting for the creationists to address any of Darwin’s questions.
They’re too busy making money.
I am not even a Darwinist. I really dont have any interest in defending evolution. But these creationists play such a shell game , definitely want to avoid talking about what they are trying to do. They have NO alternative they want to teach, but they want to claim they do. And if they get questioned, you are a ‘Darwinist, all upset out their facts’ (in the old Gish days, you were a evolutionist all upset about their facts.)
You pull the parts off the shelf. The theory of Evolution unfortunately assumes the contents of the shelf keep changing and you try version after version until you find the one "most suited" ~ that is, optimal.
Not sure if Darwin or Wallace bothered noticing it but wolves can, at any moment, bring down any particular reindeer. At the same time each reindeer is capable of outrunning any particular wolf.
Which animal is more fit? Do reindeer run away successfully? Do wolves pull down reindeer successfully?
Do men make pets of wolves (we call them dogs) and of reindeer?
Where's the gene for that one?
Just reading an article on schizophrenia. Seems to be a quite diagnosable condition but there's no "schizophrenia" gene. On the other hand there are a cluster of genes that have known defects that tend to not bother anyone but sometimes something happens and they all foster schizophrenia.
The question then becomes "does schizophrenia have a genetic component considering that all schizophrenics have some of these errors, yet non-schizophrenics also have some of these errors, and it's hereditary"?
The genetic basis for schizophrenia is well established, but it's not a case of a single gene, nor of always having all the mutations that can be associated with schizophrenia.
It's more like a wave drifting through the genome.
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.