jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (40 posts)

A case against Darwinianism

  1. aka-dj profile image78
    aka-djposted 6 years ago

    I found the following article most interesting.

    It's not for the non-technical minds, but not too difficult to grasp what is being said. big_smile

    http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/04/16 … t-collide/

    See what you think.

    1. livelonger profile image88
      livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think 19th century Darwinian theory wasn't intended to be the end of scientific inquiry into how genetics and evolution work.

      Epigenetics has certainly reformed (refined?) understanding of how simple natural selection effects evolutionary change.

      This was an intriguing article - should be a great starting point into further study.

    2. Apostle Jack profile image60
      Apostle Jackposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It just goes to show that there are many holes in science concerning world existence and human understanding.But more than that Spirituality was not included in the equations of science.That which have no DNA,but yet have intellect,and personality.
      Some species don't have a brain nor heart,but yet have intelligence.How can one have  complete knowledge when over half the ingredients is not included.God will always have the last word in these matters.
      Matter of fact..the time that He have set for such introduction,is now before you.

      1. Beelzedad profile image59
        Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, the invisible and undetectable (Spirituality) were included in the equations of science. Those equations too were invisible and undetectable (Spiritual) so there would be no mistake.

        Unfortunately, all of the results were invisible and undetectable, also, but we can have faith they were there.

        smile

        1. Apostle Jack profile image60
          Apostle Jackposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Where did they include Celestial Spiritual?,I do not see it in none of the scientific equations of what they asses,and neither do you.If you think so ,where and how did they go about doing so concerning Celestial Spirituality.I speak of spiritual bodies as found in 1Cor 15 v 40,44 ..... if you will.

          1. Beelzedad profile image59
            Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Of course you didn't see them, they were invisible, just like your Celestial Spiritual. smile

            1. Apostle Jack profile image60
              Apostle Jackposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Invisible things have action and reactions.I am sorry that you can't see the forest for the trees.You have no explanation for your cause,so you use anything to back up your misguided philosophy.You would rather lie and make excuses than to admit that some one else is right.Sad,but true.

              You are one of those that run....when nothing is behind you.Or those that see the hole in the ground,yet fall in anyway.That make you a bad example of intelligence.

              1. Beelzedad profile image59
                Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                It's interesting how you start your post with a rather generalized claim and then proceed to follow up not with an explanation, but instead with paragraphs focusing on condemning me.

                Yes indeed, there are things that "have actions and reactions" so to speak and we can't see them with our eyes. We can measure them if they really do exhibit those actions and reactions that we would expect they exhibit.

                But, the point is that they are measurable and we can observe the results and agree on them.

                Your Celestial Spiritual is invisible but cannot be measured or even detected. This state is usually equated to being non-existent. smile

                1. Apostle Jack profile image60
                  Apostle Jackposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  It is a matter of what have DNA,and what does not have DNA that separates your measurement from a spiritual concept.Your knowledge is materialistic of which there is no life.Only those that are mentally retarded believe that walls can talk.....or....that the unseen have no value nor measurement in life.

                  1. Beelzedad profile image59
                    Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    So, it is mentally retarded not to believe in the invisible? lol

        2. NathanielZhu profile image83
          NathanielZhuposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I think you got it the opposite.
          It's not that our equations included the unknown.
          It is because our equations considers it to be there that  what was considered to be unknown is now a possibility.

          Our equations have nothing to do with the spiritual.

          1. Apostle Jack profile image60
            Apostle Jackposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            How to fit it in,and where do it belong is what sends the world into a corner to try and sort it out.But to no avail.It is given by God to His people,and not to those who think that they already know it all.But look at the facts,I am one of His examples.
            I already know that your equations do not include spirituality.That is why the world have a shell with nothing on the inside.A well with no water.And people like you running behind a ghost that you can never catch.You are the kind that run........when nothing is behind you.

        3. mathsciguy profile image60
          mathsciguyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yep.  I mean, what do you think an imaginary number is?

          smile

      2. NathanielZhu profile image83
        NathanielZhuposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        @apostle

        Yes, it a fact science is not perfect, but it makes even less sense to fill in the missing gaps with crap about invisible sky fairies and spirituality.
        Beliefs taken only on faith require nothing but social conditioning.
        That's all spiritual beliefs are. They're ideas to explain the unknown when there is a lack of a better one.
        Almost every spiritual explanation in the past have now been dis-proven. Your current spiritual explanations will meet the same fate.

        1. Apostle Jack profile image60
          Apostle Jackposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          As have I said.I live in the spirituality of our existence even as I speak,which make your earthly fairy tale of misguided  and incomplete knowledge a shame to look at.
          Intelligence is spiritual and so is personality which you say is an empty cage,not important and not connected because it is invisible and unknown.
          But what you have swept under the rug....have now come back to hunt you.

  2. NathanielZhu profile image83
    NathanielZhuposted 6 years ago

    The article is pretty stupid to be blunt.
    I think somehow people got the idea that evolution in real life is just like pokemon. One second a bacteria then POOF, a killer whale.

    That is in face not at all how evolution works. Evolution is a process which occurs when a species inheres a mutated gene. We know mutations occur all the time because that is what gives bacteria their immunity. It is because of these small changes through billions of years that we get radically different looking organisms.

    Consider this: Just 5 years ago, we never thought a horse and a donkey could produce fertile mule offspring. Recently, a mule mated with a mule producing a new lineage of animals. This happened in an instant. Now what do you think would happen if processes like these happened over billions of years?

    Realize also that all living things have DNA because DNA is universal. That means, every organism has inherited it from the first instance of DNA (which is assumed to be RNA folded onto itself).

    1. livelonger profile image88
      livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think the article is saying that the complexity of changes to an enzyme molecule would require trillions of years (10^5 gigayears, for the Kbl enzyme to turn evolve into the BioF enzyme).

      Not personally sure that's the way the BioF enzyme would have had to been created (maybe there was another pathway), but that's what the article was suggesting.

      Actually, reading the "About" page's mission - "developing...the scientific case for intelligent design" - casts serious doubt about anything they are arguing for. They seem to be run by flat-earthers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

      1. mathsciguy profile image60
        mathsciguyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Come now.  Don't you think it's a little unprofessional to doubt, a priori, anything a person is arguing for just because they support intelligent design?  After all, there is always the chance that they will come up with something amazing...

        Besides, it strengthens one's own resolve in his position to be aware of any potential flaws and to see that they are disproved.  Do you agree?

    2. aka-dj profile image78
      aka-djposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You ought to read the article,rather than look at the pictures.

    3. Apostle Jack profile image60
      Apostle Jackposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      All life do not have DNA.There is spiritual life,such as Celestial Bodies 1 Cor 15 v 40,44 that is that 2nd of the 2 bodies of our created existence.Personality,intelligence,attitude,choice etc.don't have DNA,atoms,neurons,elements nor flesh but they are part of the life of our spirits.The world is about to learn a new dance.

      1. NathanielZhu profile image83
        NathanielZhuposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The consensus among modern biologists is that all life must have DNA.
        The life you speak of is philosophical.
        As this is a scientific discussion, your unproven beliefs do not fit here. You might as well go to a religion forum.

        1. Apostle Jack profile image60
          Apostle Jackposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I am a Celestial Spirit that live by these functions of the spirit even as I speak.
          Your knowledge is material,common,and based on matter and elements.
          All you have is DNA........you have miss the boat altogether.I have experience and know for a fact beyond philosophy that you have no clue as to whats on the other side of science and material thoughts.The supernatural  out weigh science,theories,maybes ,assumptions and incomplete education on the matter.Before this is over,you will find out that you just ran into a brick wall.

        2. mathsciguy profile image60
          mathsciguyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I concur.  It's a case of apples and oranges when it comes to "natural philosophy" and any kind of inquest into the spiritual world (philosophy, why are we here?, what is the meaning of life?, is there such thing as a soul?).  They operate on entirely different principles and assumptions.  So, trying to convince a scientist about the spiritual using spiritual terms and language is not an effective use of your time or effort. 
          That's just the way it is.

  3. aka-dj profile image78
    aka-djposted 6 years ago

    Just another interesting video for you.
    http://youtu.be/LhP6IL3nV1k

  4. NathanielZhu profile image83
    NathanielZhuposted 6 years ago

    The main question in my mind is how he got that number. The article did not talk about how he got that huge number.

    There just isn't a sort of way to date this sort of thing.

    It could have occurred almost instantly in a flash of lightning which is one of the theories behind the origin of life which is what Miller/Urey tested by simulating early earth conditions and in just a little while, organic compounds appeared. Why couldn't proteins happened similarly?

    Maybe proteins appeared later as a mutation in RNA. The Early organic compounds of life only needed to create an environment in which it can separate the outside from inside, much like the cell membrane, and then more complex structures appeared through mutations and one of them mutations is the coding of proteins. This is what's thought to have created RUBPCarboxylase (Rubisco) and is also the most common protein.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/98/8/4397.full.pdf

    Not to be offensive, aka-dj, but I assume you are a christian right. As a christian, arn't you biased to look for evidence towards intelligent design, because it certainly appears the case. The information behind this article has many holes in it and it really doesn't have much evidence to backup its claims.

    1. livelonger profile image88
      livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      He's trying to argue for Intelligent Design, so that number might have been completely fabricated.

    2. aka-dj profile image78
      aka-djposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Check the bibliography.
      The source documents are listed. Here it is for you.
      http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php … O-C.2010.4

      As for my worldview, yes I am, and yes I do, but, no less than an atheist looks specifically to substantiate theirs.

      The question is always "are you willing to change your position, based on all the evidence"?
      All I'm presenting is evidence. (trying to limit it to simple and short, for the most part). smile

      1. NathanielZhu profile image83
        NathanielZhuposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied."

        Yet they do not show us this MOST IMPORTANT evidence to back up their claim.

        I'm saying that the article is based on mere assumption. There is no evidence to back up their claims. It's like if I were to write an article saying it would take proteins 50 years from the formation of the earth to develop. There's no evidence to back up my claim. This is the same sort of claim made by the article.

        1. aka-dj profile image78
          aka-djposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Did you even understand the article?
          They state their goal clearly, and extrapolate the results.
          Mutation at the cellular level requires functional change, which is what they are measuring.

          1. NathanielZhu profile image83
            NathanielZhuposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Cell mutations occur when the bases of DNA/RNA are not copied with the correct complementary bases. This process does not take as long as the article claimed. Humans have evolved two types of amylase - Pancreatic and Salivary. Both have different structures and operate at different PH levels and at different parts of the body.
            Proteins are constantly changing. Early humans existed about 4 millions years ago so it would have taken only 4 million years for the enzyme to evolve. You will not find the exact same amylase in humans as in chimps.

            To put it bluntly, this shows that proteins don't take a long time to change.
            Still, your answer doesn't answer the question of How did they get the number - It seems like a red herring fallacy to me.

            1. Apostle Jack profile image60
              Apostle Jackposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Celestial Spirituality don't have DNA yet it is a living body.We are spirits within flesh.That is where scientific and technical equations come to a dead end street ,and God's ingenuity take over to still the voice of the gainsayers .
              It way prophesied by the Angel to the prophet Daniel in Daniel 12 v 4 that,knowledge shall be increase.Spiritual knowledge is what He spoke about,and now is that appointed time span of prophecy to be fulfilled.

        2. mathsciguy profile image60
          mathsciguyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Alright, so.. the source article for the model used in that calculation is rather technical.  Not your typical pop-science light reading.  I'm still reviewing it myself, but the number they've arrived at is based on probabilistic modeling from what I understand so far (as I said, I'm still grilling the article).  One problem, or question I'd like to ask Douglas Axe anyhow, is what criterion he used to deem the event of complex genetic adaptation to be likely to occur.

          The model itself so far seems to work, though the source article makes some claims with it that I don't agree with.  Basically, the author treats a base substitution as a Poisson event - this is just a math term for saying that the author has an idea of the probability distribution for the amount of time between successive events.  This is what is used (presumably) to calculate the trillion number in Mr. Axe's article.

          The math (so far) seems sound.  But a) I still would have very specific questions for Douglas Axe that would go a long way toward convincing me that he wasn't manipulating the model, and b) I am not quite 100% happy with the source article at this point in my analysis of it.
          I'll likely follow up on this after some more time looking at it.

  5. NathanielZhu profile image83
    NathanielZhuposted 6 years ago

    Oh wow. I'm really interested with your analysis as I am only a biology person. Statistical Probability isn't my strength.

    1. mathsciguy profile image60
      mathsciguyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Alright, here's my verdict:

      In his article Douglas Axe attempts to debunk a previously established model, and to replace it with one of his own.  The only problem with this is that the previous model is, in fact, mathematically sound.  Now, whether or not the model actually describes accurately the propagation of mutations in a bacterial population I cannot say because I am not a biologist.  However, the advantage that this model (as described by Axe, whether accurately or inaccurately) has over the one proposed by Douglas Axe is that I can verify it.  In the case of Douglas Axe's model, I would need to communicate with him in order to clear up some possible problems with it.

      Please understand that this is not to say that the model is invalid; it would be terribly unprofessional of me to say that Axe is wrong simply because I might not understand his model.  But, I can say that the old model is mathematically correct.  In light of these facts, I would doubt the trillion trillion number proposed in the article linked by aka-dj (who, by the way, is more than welcome to rejoin the discussion).

      1. NathanielZhu profile image83
        NathanielZhuposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        What's the old model called?
        I'd like to look it up for myself.

        1. mathsciguy profile image60
          mathsciguyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not sure what the original authors called it since I couldn't find the article available without subscription, but it's a model co-developed by a Lynch and Abegg and published in the Oxford Journal Molecular Biology and Evolution.  The article is titled The Rate of Establishment of Complex Adaptations.

          As I mentioned, Douglas Axe presents the old model in his own article available at: 

          http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php … O-C.2010.4

          It's pretty easy to find in Axe's article, but I'm not sure how faithfully he reproduced the model and its derivation.  Anyhow, that's where you could take a look at it if you're interested.  I'm interested in your analysis as well, since I might have missed something due to my not being a biologist.  Let me know what you find if you do look it over.

  6. Evan G Rogers profile image82
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    Evolution is used on a daily basis.

    And if you agree that Hiroshima was blown up by a nuclear bomb, then you agree that you can actually see the evolution of animals by looking at fossils.

    Sorry, Darwin was right. Get over it.

    1. mathsciguy profile image60
      mathsciguyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It's not that I disagree with you, just I don't really follow your line of reasoning...

      On either of your points, actually.  How do you mean "evolution is used on a daily basis?"  And in what way does Hiroshima's destruction necessarily and logically lead to seeing the evolution of animals in the fossil record?

 
working